India needs a new story
Sanjaya Baru | Distinguished Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi.
The Indian Express
Baru writes that three main developments shaped the ‘Rising India’ narrative in the past quarter century — India’s economic rise, India’s globalisation and the recognition that India was “liberating itself from the historical baggage of its neighbourhood”. However, according to him, recent events have posed a challenge to this narrative.
Baru argues that in the early 2000s, “a new narrative about independent India” began to circulate globally. India’s response to the Kargil War and the September 2001 terrorist attacks, which had a Pakistani connection, led to a “de-hyphenation” of India and Pakistan. However, he writes that the recent trend of “keeping terrorism in the news even when terrorist attacks are down” has contributed to the re-hyphenation with Pakistan. The decision to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution and alter the status of Jammu and Kashmir has only added to this, states Baru.
In this scenario, PM Modi’s decision to withdraw from RCEP has “derailed” India’s Rising India strategy and “added to a sense of siege”, he writes. Furthermore, India’s “domestic economic management”, the global consequences of Trump and China’s geo-politics also pose a challenge to ‘Rising India’, explains Baru.
Peace brought by unequal compromise
Suhrith Parthasarathy and Gautam Bhatia | Advocates
The Hindu
On the Ayodhya verdict, Parthasarathy and Bhatia write that the SC had a difficult task — while the case before it was a property dispute, “embedded within it was an act of political and religious violence: the destruction of the Babri Masjid”. They argue that in trying to address both issues, the judgment fell short on both law and justice.
In a “surprising” departure from the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 verdict, which split the site into three portions, the SC looked at it as a single unit, write Parthasarathy and Bhatia. Hindus continued to offer prayers in the outer courtyard of the disputed site, and Muslims showed “no interest” in that courtyard and this was “effectively held against them” despite the fact that they consistently used the inner courtyard like a mosque. Thus, the Hindus were “exempted from the need to demonstrate possessory rights over the inner courtyard beyond an exhibition of interest”, they add.
According to the authors, the five-acre land grant to the Sunni Waqf board is being praised by many in the legal community but “complete justice” would have entailed a restoration of the parties to their original position. They are especially critical of those who hail the judgment as “pragmatic” in order to ensure peace. Bhatia and Parthasarathy argue that there is a “crucial distinction between resolving a dispute on the basis of principle, and achieving ‘peace’ by endorsing the existing balance of power — or by not provoking the strong”.
Bringing transparency to the courts
Yashovardhan Azad and M. Sridhar Acharyulu | Former Central Information Commissioners (2013-2018)
Hindustan Times
Azad and Acharyulu write that the SC verdict that brings the Chief Justice of India’s office under the RTI act is a “strong signal” to democratic institutions to abide by the principles of transparency and accountability. The verdict also sends a message to public offices to facilitate more disclosure, write the former CIC officers.
They note that a word of caution in the judgment that the judiciary must be protected from surveillance through the RTI. Justice Chandrachud asserted that the information officers need to weigh the cause of public interest carefully, as “in the name of transparency, you can’t destroy the institution”. The judgment explained certain contextual limitations and exemption clauses, as disclosure and privacy need to be balanced, write Azad and Acharyulu.
According to the authors, the verdict echoes that good governance is linked with accountability and transparency, but more importantly, it brings back focus on the recent RTI Amendment Act 2019, which altered the tenure and salary structure of Information Commissioners at the Centre and states.
Drop the trade diffidence
Arvind Panagriya | Economics professor, Columbia University
The Times of India
Panagriya criticises India’s decision to not sign the RCEP. He writes that “we must drop our hesitations and act decisively, as we did during 1991-2007” and embrace trade liberalisation. He also debunks misconceptions and fears about India joining RCEP, mainly the threat of competition from China.
Thinking RCEP will widen India’s trade deficit with China is to ignore “the benign nature of bilateral deficits”, writes Panagriya. A country need not worry about trade deficits if its “goods and services is balanced in aggregate,” he adds.
The idea that joining RCEP would allow Chinese goods to flood India markets is “exaggerated”, he writes, unless local producers “remain inefficient and costly”. Competition helps domestic industries find innovative ways to survive, he adds and concludes by saying, “Trade liberalisation are too large to be foregone on account of transition costs”.
Once More, for the Road
Devashish Mitra | Professor of economics, Syracuse University, New York
Economic Times
Mitra debates whether joining RCEP would have made a difference to India since it “already has bilateral trade agreements with Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and South Korea, as well as an FTA with Asean.” Though the question sounds rhetorical, his answer veers towards “yes”.
Mitra points out that if India feared RCEP would invite a surge of Chinese imports, it should have negotiated for the “standard escape clause” in the agreement that is standard to any FTA. Also, such agreements call for tariff reductions to allow “equal exchanges of market access”. As a “major exporter of manufactures”, China has an advantage here while for India, the extent of reducing trade barriers “can’t be determined by simple calculations”, explains Mitra. This could have been a serious point of divergence but if trade liberalisation is done slowly and in phases, India’s services sectors, especially software and ICT, could benefit hugely, he writes.
Mitra hopes India will join RCEP in the future, “when it is also able to obtain better terms.” It could signal the birth of a “generation of reforms — those related to land and labour,” he adds.