Ayodhya verdict: Ronojoy Sen says ‘mixed signals’ & S Palshikar asks will it bring closure

The best of the day’s opinion, chosen and curated by ThePrint’s top editors.

People gather outside Supreme Court, Saturday | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

A breather, not closure 

Suhas Palshikar | Chief Editor, Studies in Indian Politics

The Indian Express

On the Ayodhya verdict, Palshikar writes that the Supreme Court “recorded the illegality of the events of 1949 and 1992” but has “chosen to restrict itself to the question of title”.

Palshikar questions whether the judgment gives a “message that legal disputes can be won by creating a situation of fait accompli through political intrigue”. The political implications of the judgment “deserve attention” and this controversy was one that “India’s democratic politics simply could not afford”.

He notes that post-1992, there was a stalemate despite the need for a political solution. According to Palshikar, a political solution required three things – one, “frankness on the part of those” who “contributed to the demolition to sincerely admit their mistake”. Second, “it required political statesmanship from the Muslim community” and third, “a steely determination by the government to ensure negotiation” that it did not have. Thus, the lack of a political solution implies that “India’s politics is often on the brink of community-based emotive mobilisations”, he writes.

Another implication of this ruling is that, when courts “broker peace, [they] do not necessarily bring closure to disputes; they only give momentary space for disputes to reconfigure”. The ruling will be “unable to address the deeper issue which is fundamentally political not juridical”, writes Palshikar. He ends by posing a question — “Will this ruling bring closure?”

Ayodhya verdict sends mixed signals 

Ronojoy Sen | Senior Research Fellow at ISAS & ARI, National University of Singapore

The Times of India 

Sen writes that while the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Ayodhya dispute “has been hailed as balanced and nuanced” a “closer reading” of the judgment “brings out some of the failings of the ruling, those that have plagued the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on religion”.

One is the assumption that “Hinduism and Hindus are undifferentiated and homogenous”. The court also “elided the intensely political context of the Ayodhya dispute and the claims around it” and much of the judgment “revolves around evaluating the faith and belief of Hindus in and reverence for a disputed site”, writes Sen. The judges also “felt it necessary” to provide “further evidence of the belief of Hindus in the disputed site as the birthplace of Rama”.

In conclusion, Sen writes that while most political parties have “publicly accepted the court’s verdict” it would be “foolhardy to believe that the construction of a new temple in Ayodhya and possible triumphalism” will be “absent from political discourse and future election campaigns”.

Rejecting RCEP was the easy part 

Mohan Kumar | Former ambassador to France and Chairman, RIS

Hindustan Times 

On India’s decision to stay out of the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), Kumar states that it is time to make a “sober assessment of not only what happened but” what “lies ahead”.

Kumar lists seven concerns over which India did not join the RCEP – one, there was no agreement on India’s offered tariffs. Two, “safeguards against import surge requested by India did not find favour”. Three, India failed to put in place strict rules regarding origin so that “there was no circumvention and possibility of cheap imports flooding the country”. Four, RCEP partners insisted that “any trade concessions obtained by India had to be made available to them on an MFN (most favoured nation) basis”. Five, “there was no resolution of India’s concern about non-tariff barriers”. Six, there were “fears that dairy imports” could “kill Indian co-operatives”. Seven, RCEP partners were not “accommodating India’s interests in ‘Services’” and “‘Mode 4’ interests relating to movement of professionals”.

He argues that it is “imperative” that India moves on and looks at “FTAs with other trading partners”. The time has come for India “to carry out painful economic reforms not because of external pressure, but because it is profoundly in national interest to do so”.

From plate to plough: Sowing paddy, reaping smog

Ashok Gulati | Infosys Chair Professor for Agriculture, ICRIER

Financial Express

In his piece, Gulati explains how the deterioration of air quality in Delhi has “deeper roots” than stubble burning practices in the neighbouring states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. As paddy is an irrigation heavy crop, the Punjab government previously passed a legislation stating that no one will sow the crop before June 15 in order to conserve groundwater which didn’t “align with the crop’s requirement” and therefore led to stubble burning.

He suggests that the central and state governments should work together to encourage farmers to shift from common paddy to corn.  A cash incentive of Rs. 12,000/ha for growing corn in place of paddy could be the answer, he writes. This wouldn’t cost the government anything extra since combined subsidy on power for irrigation and fertiliser consumption for paddy is about Rs. 15,000/ha — “it is just reshuffling the cards”, writes Gulati.

Tax incentives for corn-based industries could also help create demand that is “market-aligned”, he adds. Since “the government’s rice stocks are way above the buffer stock norms”, this would be the right time to implement the idea, concludes Gulati.

Enable MSMEs to grow and create jobs 

Ajay Shankar | Distinguished Fellow, TERI, and former Secretary, DIPP

Hindu Business Line

Micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are a major source of job creation in India and therefore require “focused attention with policy changes, additional state interventions and more public funding”, writes Shankar. Enterprises have trouble scaling up due to high costs of compliance and regulatory burdens, he explains.

“Putting in place a social safety net would make the provision of labour market flexibility easier in the new codes”, writes Shankar. Government inspections for compliance should be replaced with “a credible system of third-party certification”, he adds. Shankar also states that the National Skill Mission should accord priority to providing training and skill upgradation to the existing workforce but in a way so as to “not lose any production, or wages”. He writes that the central government should also consider releasing plots “lying idle in industrial parks across the country” for industrial use. In this way, MSMEs can “reach their full potential”, he adds.

Moody’s rating action and the Rs 28 trn revenue push

Soumya Kanti Ghosh | Group chief economic advisor, State Bank of India.

Business Standard

Ghosh lays out five factors that have contributed to the economic slowdown from high inflation to “ultra-conservative fiscal hawkishness and calibrated monetary tightening during 2018”. Given the slew of tax rate cuts by the RBI this year, if it lowers EMIs on housi­n­g and automobiles further “while spurring d­­­e­­­mand” it could lead to “debt-fi­n­a­nced consumption and lead to greater credit offtake”, he adds.

To address the situation appropriately, RBI needs to take responsibility of stabilising NBFCs so that they can “meaningfully withstand any worsening of the situation, both in terms of access to liquidity and in terms of absorbing potential losses”, writes Ghosh. Through privatisation, the central government should begin “aggressive monetisation of… [its] assets”, he suggests. Ghosh credits the Centre for recognising “sector-specific problems” be it telecom, roads, power and real estate and also celebrates the fact that it refrained from implementing any “negative sector specific policy surprises in the current uncertain environment.”