Not a full-fledged State- Delhi crisis

In maintaining that Delhi is just a Union Territory, the Delhi High Court has answered some major and unresolved questions about the constitutional status of the National Capital Region. The Court has held that the special provisions incorporated for Delhi, under Article 239AA of the Constitution, do not negate the effect of Article 239, which empowers the Lt Governor to act independently of his Council of Ministers; in other words, the concurrence of the Lt Governor is mandatory for administrative decisions. Unless the Supreme Court adopts a diametrically opposite view, the Aam Aadmi Party, which has engaged in a turf war with the Centre over who rules Delhi, will have to abide by the categorical ruling that the Lt Governor is not bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Given that the Supreme Court had taken a similar position in the NDMC vs State of Punjab case, the Delhi High Court judgment is no surprise. But the popular debate will continue about whether the right balance has been struck between the Union government’s responsibility in exercising control over an area in which Parliament, other key central institutions, and foreign missions are located and the democratic principle that people are ruled by a representative government.

At the political level, one may read into the developments a political setback to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, whose AAP enjoys a massive majority in the Delhi State Assembly. Mr. Kejriwal had been locked in a power struggle with Lt Governor Najeeb Jung and had championed the cause of making Delhi a full-fledged State. As for the Bharatiya Janata Party, it may read the judgment as a vindication of its position that Mr. Kejriwal must accept the constitutional limitations of his office. The AAP has questioned the relevance of holding elections if the winning party is not going to run the territory. It is also a fact that such a tussle for supremacy arises from personality clashes and particularly when rival parties are in power at the Centre and in the NCT. However, in the public perception, some questions will remain. Is it wise to put in place structures that are open to multiple interpretations about who really runs what aspect of the administration? Is it necessary to have an ‘aid and advice’ clause when the LG has a virtual veto, and the Union government the final say, over matters concerning Delhi? Would it also not be prudent to have a much less ambiguous legal and constitutional framework?

SOURCE:THE HINDU

Turkey talks tough with the EU- Syrian refugee crisis

Turkey’s European Union Affairs Minister, Omer Celik, has yet again said his country cannot overhaul its counter-terrorism laws in return for visa-free travel facilities for Turks. The much-derided quid pro quo forms part of the deal reached in March to stem the influx of Syrian refugees into Greece. Mr. Celik’s tough talk, coming in the wake of the failed coup in Turkey last month, will comfort nobody and surprise none. Many elements of the agreement between Brussels and Ankara on the deportation back to Turkey of large numbers of Syrian refugees who get to European shores already remains suspended de facto following the crushed rebellion, as noted by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This suspension is obviously of concern to the EU. For the March deal had led to a substantial reduction in the flow of migrants, falling from a daily average of about 1,700 prior to the agreement to as few as 48 by June, according to official figures. Mr. Celik’s reasoning against any relaxation of counter-terrorism provisions is that the exiled cleric, Fethullah Gulen, whose followers allegedly masterminded the coup attempt, is a terrorist in the eyes of Turkey’s government. Even assuming the allegations against the cleric are merited, the argument that protection against extremism can be enforced only through repression is a disingenuous one.

Such an assertion at best gives a handle to the potent politics of anti-immigration that has fed into the already toxic atmosphere of euroscepticism in parts of the 28-country bloc. Its most serious ramification was felt when Britain recently voted in a referendum to leave the EU, emboldening right-wing parties in France and the Netherlands. Against this backdrop, hard-line right-wing resistance against the grant of visa-free travel facilities for those holding Turkish passports was perhaps to be expected. The EU’s Schengen visa-free travel area, covering more than 20 countries, made it possible for migrants reaching European shores to move to destinations of their choice with ease. One of the fundamental principles of the bloc thus became a bone of contention among some of the founding-members and more recent entrants. Some among the latter began to barricade their borders, much to the chagrin of EU leaders. In the absence of a concerted approach to deal with the refugee crisis, the move to allow Turks to travel without visas was always going to be controversial. The EU continues to drag its feet over the issue. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, long reviled by Europe for his authoritarian inclinations, is clearly in no mood to be deterred by pious sermons after the failed coup.

SOURCE:THE HINDU

The crisis over Crimea

Russia’s claim that it had blocked attempts by Ukraine-backed saboteurs to carry out terror attacks in Crimea is the new flashpoint between the two countries. Ever since the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, Moscow has had a heavy military presence in the peninsula. Russian President Vladimir Putin has now issued a stern warning to Ukraine against “supporting terrorists”, while Kiev has put its army on combat alert. It is not clear who is actually behind the latest flare-up. There are two theories afloat. One is that Mr. Putin is talking up the attack in Crimea to up the ante against Ukraine. The episode allows him to portray Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, an ally of the West, as a supporter of “terrorists”. The other theory, the official Russian version, is that militants and Ukrainian special forces were indeed involved in the sabotage attempt, and two Russian soldiers were killed in exchange of fire. For now, there are independent reports confirming that there was a firefight on the Crimea-Ukraine border on Saturday night. Militants had targeted Crimea earlier as well. Last November, anti-Russian saboteurs had blown up electrical pylons, plunging Crimea into darkness. The real question is whether such militant groups have the direct support of the Ukrainian government. If so, Ukraine may be committing a major mistake. Retaking Crimea from Russia using force is simply not practical. What it could possibly do is to destabilise Crimea by violent means. But even this won’t serve Ukraine’s interests as violence in Crimea by external forces is likely to prompt Moscow to step up proxy wars in Eastern Ukraine, destabilising the country further.

Russia sees Ukraine as a front of the West in a larger geopolitical game, and is unlikely to make major compromises unless there is a deal between itself and Western countries over Ukraine. Kiev is but a small player caught in a great power game. It should make its choices carefully as ties with Russia could be pivotal for its survival as a stable, peaceful nation in the long term. The West has to realise that its belligerent response towards Moscow over the annexation of Crimea, including sanctions, has only complicated the crisis further. It should rethink its policies and enter into meaningful talks with Moscow to dial down tensions over Ukraine. Restoring trust between Russia and the West is crucial in tackling several other global challenges as well, including the Syrian civil war and the fight against the Islamic State. For its part, Russia has to get its priorities right. What is it gaining from destabilising a tiny neighbouring country and damaging its own position as a global power when its economy is bleeding? There is room for all actors to make compromises in their mutual interest.

SOURCE:THE HINDU

Giving India a global-scale bank-merger of SBI and associate banks

The proposed merger of the State Bank of India with its five associate banks and the Bharatiya Mahila Bank is a long-delayed and welcome move on the path to banking consolidation, especially among state-owned lenders. SBI’s takeover of its five subsidiaries and the three-year-old niche provider of banking services for women will, once consummated, vault the merged entity higher up the rankings ladder on the global banking stage. The resultant benefits to the lender and the economy are evident. The increased balance sheet size will enable the bank to obtain better pricing on both internationally sourced funds and domestic deposits, thus helping it lower lending rates and improve profitability. The added branch network and customer base will also help it expand reach and enable the lender to rationalise resources across the board. There are various estimates of the potential cost savings, with one projection putting the possible reduction in cost-to-income ratio at 1 percentage point. The lender’s increased size, in terms of assets, will also give it the requisite muscle to take on new competition from larger banking entities that are likely to be created by consolidation in the banking industry. The Bank Board Bureau has been tasked with overseeing a restructuring among public sector banks in keeping with the government’s aim of reducing the number of state-owned lenders and improving their financial health.

The merger will, however, pose its unique set of challenges. The scale of the task is substantial given the total staff strength. With more than two lakh employees, the parent will add close to one-fifth that number by way of additions posing a huge test in terms of integration of roles, salary, perquisite and pension structures and, no less importantly, work cultures. Much of the opposition from the bank unions stems from concerns relating to these issues. Customers of the smaller, community or regional market-focussed subsidiaries such as the State Bank of Travancore may be discomfited by having to deal with a larger, more impersonal lender, one where the size of their accounts may be viewed as comparatively marginal. For regulators, the new entity will throw up interesting oversight issues. Already identified by the Reserve Bank of India as the country’s key Domestic Systemically Important Bank, or too big to fail in simple terms, the enlarged SBI’s capital adequacy norms will climb and may require far more by way of infusion of funds than the Centre has committed so far. But such challenges must not be used to undermine the obvious benefits of merger.

Source:The Hindu

Setback at The Hague-ISRO

The verdict against Antrix Corporation, the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal in The Hague is yet another example of how its dispute with Devas Multimedia has been mishandled by the Centre from day one. As a sovereign state, India has the right to cancel agreements and licences given to private entities if it concludes that there are irregularities or gaps in the manner in which they were inked. The Supreme Court’s verdict in the 2G spectrum and coal block allocation scams highlights this in no uncertain terms. That the agreement between Antrix and Devas over use of spectrum and lease of transponders was flawed has been reiterated by several independent agencies. For instance, the report of the High Powered Review Committee comprising B.K. Chaturvedi, Member, Planning Commission, and Professor Roddam Narasimha, Member, Space Commission — appointed on February 10, 2011 — reflects several concerns. The Cabinet Committee on Security, based on an internal inquiry, faulted the deal on technical, commercial, managerial and financial grounds. A one-man committee appointed by the Department of Space also found loopholes in the drafting of the contract.

Despite such documentary evidence in support of scrapping the deal, it is baffling how India’s legal hawks failed to defend its position effectively. A reading of the final award of the International Court of Arbitration (International Chamber of Commerce) given in September 2015 reveals that Antrix may have conceded too much ground to Devas Multimedia by failing to nominate an arbitrator or have a say in fixing the terms of reference for the arbitral tribunal. The ICC ruling, which ordered Antrix to pay $672 million to Devas, reveals Antrix did not even send its nomination for the three-member arbitration tribunal to the ICC. Rather, it chose to petition the Supreme Court to start separate arbitration against Devas, a plea that failed. Antrix wrote to the court raising concerns about the appointment of one of the members on the panel but did not pursue the matter; no further challenge was made despite the ICC asking it to file an appeal under relevant rules. On several other occasions Antrix did not turn up for the initial proceedings, including a preliminary conference that was held to discuss draft terms of reference. It is also not clear why the Centre used the force majeure clause in the agreement to cancel the deal. Instead, the findings of the various committees could have been used to establish that facts related to the deal were misrepresented and not fully disclosed to the entire chain of decision-makers. The Centre can still make changes to its legal strategy when Devas comes after it to enforce the arbitration award.

Source:The Hindu

Reaching out to the Valley

Two weeks after protests in the Kashmir Valley caught the authorities by surprise, a semblance of calm has been restored. It is a tenuous one, built on extended curfews, and it has come at a huge price. Even as the government faces difficult questions about the blunt tactics employed to disperse crowds of stone-pelters across Kashmir, there is an evident effort at political outreach.

Speaking in the Lok Sabha, Home Minister Rajnath Singh sought an all-party meeting to address the problem. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti chaired another such meeting in Srinagar that asked Delhi to engage in a larger political dialogue with all stakeholders, “including separatists”. These are important, necessary steps.

But given the record of outreach in the Valley, the Centre needs to get its framework for a political conversation right. If the proposal to include stakeholders in a larger process is to be credible, the idiom must be genuine. Regrettably, far too much of the vocabulary on Jammu and Kashmir is platitude and hollow cliche.

The challenge before the government is to demonstrate that it is not reaching out as an automatic response learnt from some worn-out troubleshooting manual — but to show it has acknowledged the outrage, weariness, and distress in the Valley. That it cares enough to be open to being nudged out of its certitudes.

Former Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s suggestion this week that India assure the people of Kashmir that it is conscious of the spirit of the grand bargain promised at accession almost 70 years ago has invited a rebuttal from a senior BJP Minister at the Centre. Even the Congress party has reacted cautiously to the wide-ranging interview to India Today TV in which he emphasised the importance of carrying Kashmiris along.

But if national politics means to respond to the cries of agony from the Valley this month, it must adopt Mr. Chidambaram’s touchstone — that the issue in the Valley is not about land but about people. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had forged a way forward by seeking talks within the framework of “humanity”, thereby sidestepping the issue of allegiance to the Constitution.

The gains of that breakthrough have long since been dissipated. Mr. Chidambaram’s appeal that India accept an “asymmetric devolution of powers” for J&K, which it has recommended for the Tamil provinces in Sri Lanka, is one such idea that could open a route forward. It should not be reflexively dismissed.

Source: The Hindu

Scandals and boycotts that have been a blot on Olympism

If the Olympic Games helped heal the wounds of two World Wars, violation of its spirit slashed open fresh ones, wracking it to the roots at times.

While incidents of esprit de corps that the movement embodied far outweighed those that assaulted it, forever etched in public memory will be episodes that the world could well have done without.

The mind’s eye immediately latches on to images inextricably intertwined with events of the day. In spite of remarkable achievement and record-breaking endeavours, the 1968 Mexico Olympics brings back recollections of the ‘Black Salute.’ In the next edition, photographs of masked gunmen peering from a balcony recreate the horrors of what became known as the ‘Munich Massacre’.

The 1988 Games at Seoul will conjure up the portrait of a Ben Johnson, bravado getting the better of him as he approached the tape. The forefinger raised in triumph and a condescending look over his shoulder at the competition in his wake would tell the story of glory in its most fickle form. So would the Canadian sprinter’s big eyes reveal fear, as in a frightened rabbit, in a terrifying aftermath of sports’ most spectacular scandal ever perhaps.

Cancellation
The first edition to face the brunt was the 1916 Berlin Games. Laying bare its imperialistic designs, the Fatherland chose to cancel the sixth in the series of the modern version. Budapest had scored over Lyon and Amsterdam to host the 1920 Games. Politics came into play when the Hungarian capital was set aside, since the Austro-Hungarian empire had collaborated with Germany in WWI.

Antwerp was picked by a French-dominated International Olympic Committee (IOC), more comfortable with its Belgian neighbour. As member states of the Central Powers alliance, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary and Turkey were seen as not welcome to the port city. Isolation of Germany was extended to the 1924 Paris Games, made famous by ‘Flying Scotsman’ Eric Liddell’s refusal to run on a Sunday as being contrary to his Christian beliefs.

The 1932 Los Angeles Games was rocked by ‘Flying Finn’ Paavo Nurmi’s exclusion, the IOC’s obsession with professionalism enforced strictly by Swedish officials, who accused the nine-time Olympic gold medallist of receiving too much money for his travel expenses.

Propaganda and ‘racism’
As if to make amends for the past, the 1936 Games were allotted to Berlin. Adolf Hitler however hijacked the event for propaganda purposes, prompting Spain’s Popular Front government to boycott it. A People’s Olympiad was proposed instead, which didn’t materalise following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

Controversy dogged the Games further when Helene Mayer was the lone Jewish athlete in the German team, while Gretel Bergmann, Lilli Henoch and Wolfgang Furstner, also of the same ethnicity, were dropped, deemed as being racially undesirable. Hitler not shaking hands with Jesse Owens was seen as a racist snub to an African-American, but another view holds that the German Chancellor shook hands only with winners of his own country.

With the WWII raging, the 1940 Games originally scheduled for Tokyo and the 1944 edition were called off. Germany and Japan, the two major Axis powers vanquished in the war were not invited to the 1948 London Games, while the Soviet Union decided not to attend.

The boycott bug grew in dimension by the 1956 Melbourne Olympics. Following the Suez Canal crisis, which found France and Britain assisting Israel in attacking Egypt, the last-named nation, Lebanon and Iraq avoided the Australian showpiece. Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands kept away following the Soviet invasion of Hungary.

Politics and apartheid
South Africa was prohibited for the 1964 Tokyo Games for its policy of apartheid. Tanzania led a 22-African nation boycott of the 1976 Montreal Olympics in protest against New Zealand’s rugby union team’s visit to the country ostracised in the earlier edition. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the USA, a sporting super power too, boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games. The Soviets did likewise to the 1984 Los Angeles Games.

Subsequent editions saw cheating through drugs assume alarming proportions, sports administrators appearing unequal to the task of stamping out the scourge.

Source:The Hindu