scorecardresearch
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeThoughtShotPratap B Mehta calls out 'insolent tyranny', Milan Vaishnav on India's 'unusual'...

Pratap B Mehta calls out ‘insolent tyranny’, Milan Vaishnav on India’s ‘unusual’ secularism

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

Follow Us :
Text Size:

Discrimination, not justice 

Pratap Bhanu Mehta | Contributing editor

The Indian Express

Mehta argues that we have “left the current generation of students a tattered constitutional legacy, weak institutions, an uncertain economic future, a poisonous public discourse and a corrosive politics”. He notes that the student protests will then have to “find its own vocabulary, leadership and strategy for moral and institutional regeneration”. However, there are some possible challenges here, writes Mehta.

He states that there are two battles at the moment, one against state authoritarianism and the other against communalism and argues that “they are two sides of the same coin — the government is fomenting both processes”. Furthermore, “the state has advantages in this fight,” namely “the power of repression”. He argues that “we are in an insolent tyranny, whose hallmark is that it will take the calls for ordinary justice, decency and liberty as signs of anti-national insurrection”.

A successful movement “will have to ensure that the exemplary power of what the students stand for is not overshadowed by the risky collateral that always accompanies large-scale movements”. Mehta maintains that “violence will not help any cause” but when the “state discriminates and calls it justice, when it stokes fear and calls it citizenship, and when it exercises control and calls it freedom, when it confuses prejudice with policy, it sets the seeds for disorder”.

From nation-state to state-nation 

Milan Vaishnav | Director, South Asia program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Hindustan Times

Vaishnav questions whether India is a ‘nation-state’ or a ‘state-nation’ and claims that the “answer will determine India’s democratic future.” He writes that there are two options before a country “when balancing the twin objectives of nation-building and democracy-building”.

The first is “the construction of a nation-state in which the political boundaries of the State mirror the cultural boundaries of the nation”. However, he writes that for countries with strong cultural diversity, the nation-state model is ineffective and recommends the model of the “state-nation” instead. He argues that while “a nation-state insists on alignment between boundaries of the State and nation, a state-nation allows for a multiplicity of ‘imagined communities’ to coexist beneath a single democratic roof”. The “power and force of this idea of India was that there was, in fact, no single idea of India”, writes Vaishav and adds that the only social cleavage in India that “can be reduced to a bipolar majority-minority contest is religion”.

The Modi government’s latest moves “suggest a departure from the state-nation model”. The “unusual definition of Indian secularism — whereby the State maintains a principled distance from all religious faiths, as opposed to a clear firewall — may have run its course” argues Vaishnav and writes that “it might be time to revisit the idea of separate personal laws for different religious faiths”.

Trump cards in the impeachment deck

Krishnan Srinivasan | Former foreign secretary

The Hindu 

In the United States, “the rule of law is in head-on collision with party politics”, writes Srinivasan. He notes that according to opinion polls, “the current impeachment inquiry launched by the Democratic Party majority in the House of Representatives faces a singular obstacle” which is that “nearly four in 10 Americans trust Mr. Trump more than they trust the nation’s public institutions”. Srinivasan writes that the Democrats “face an uphill battle in the political and perception fields” and they have to “convince the public they are not out to subvert the will of the people when 40% view the process, as does Mr. Trump, as a witch-hunt”.

The impeachment process is both legal and political, he writes. It is political because “this power is given to politicians and elected officials and not judges” and Srinivasan notes that the Democrats “recognise that the longer the hearings drag on, the more it will appear that they are trying to engineer an outcome that they cannot achieve through the ballot box”. In conclusion, he maintains that the “impeachment process looks like being politically wasteful for the Democratic party, both now and its bid to seize power from Mr. Trump in the presidential elections next November”.

The 2020 budget speech

Naushad Forbes | Co-chairman, Forbes Marshall

Business Standard

As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman gears up to present the Union Budget on 1 February, Forbes pens down what he would like to hear from it. In his piece, he writes in first person as Sitharaman and suggests eight measures to revive the economy. First, he proposes no changes in corporate or personal income taxes but rather “a timetable of reform, to move to a regime of lower tax rates with fewer exemptions”. He writes that given fears of tax terrorism, all financial offences except fraud should be decriminalised.

For more transparency, Forbes recommends setting up a “public portal to list all dues of the Centre, states and public-sector entities”. To address the ailing financial sector, NBFCs with an asset base above Rs 20,000 crore should be regulated by RBI, writes Forbes. He, further, argues that external trade can be buoyed by capping maximum tariff for raw materials, intermediate goods and finished goods, and re-engaging with RCEP.

Given skepticism regarding the accuracy of government statistics, Forbes recommends that an independent committee should be set up to “review statistical infrastructure, methodology and governance”.

Salt bureaucracy pounding salt

Bibek Debroy | Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the PM

Financial Express

Debroy discusses the legacy of salt in India and its “vestigial traces”. The salt industry has roots in the freedom struggle and various committees and legislation have been set up for it, he writes. India is the “third largest producer of salt in the world” and the “second largest producer of iodised salt … — 95% of production originates in private sector, 3.5% in cooperative sector”, adds Debroy.

Debroys traces the history back to the inland customs line and the ‘Great Hedge’ set up by the East India Company — a physical customs barrier to counter “illegal” salt production in salt pans, he explains. Today, the “legacy of salt” has been built over by the “roads of reform and GST (salt has 0% GST)”, he adds.

Despite this, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade’s Annual Report still has “a section on salt industry”. This is because 59,946 acres out of 6.47 lakh acres of land for salt production is owned by Salt Departments which they only exploit, lease out for salt production, he explains.

The Real Cost of Interventions

Hardayal Singh | Former chief commissioner, income-tax

Economic Times

Singh discusses state intervention in the economy and writes that “if not carefully considered, [they] can be both costly and ineffective”. He writes that any government scheme is ultimately “financed by citizens’ taxes”. He quotes the book In Service of the Republic and notes that “governmental expenditure of Re 1 to intervene in the economy actually costs society Rs. 3”.

State interventions run many risks, argues Singh. First, “inputs may not translate into outputs” and “outputs may not yield the desired outcomes”. Second, interventions have to be properly timed. Singh gives the example of rising onion prices — agricultural warehousing is a more viable solution than importing onions that will arrive in 2-3 months. Third, interventions can breed “unintended consequences”. For instance, take Punjab and Haryana’s farmers who were given highly subsidised inputs that led to excessive rice cultivation and thereby, stubble burning.

Finally, interventions that distort the price structure, like tax concessions, can be “confusing for both producers and consumers”. Singh suggests demands for such concessions “should be resisted”.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular