8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

1/10

1

CURRENT AFFAIRS (05.06.2013)

1. Why the death penalty must end

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, said Mahatma Gandhi.

The death penalty is unjust and inhuman. Its continued use is a stain on a societybuilt on humanitarian values, and it should be abolished immediately.

Many think that there could be nothing wrong with the death penalty as the IndianConstitution allows for capital punishment, which means that the founding fathersof this country must have also fully approved of it. In reality, several members ofthe Constituent Assembly were firmly opposed to the death penalty.

The architect of the Constitution, Babasaheb Ambedkar, admitted in theConstituent Assembly that people may not follow non-violence in practice butthey certainly adhere to the principle of non-violence as a moral mandate whichthey ought to observe as far as they possibly can. With this in mind, he said, the

proper thing for this country to do is to abolish the death sentence altogether.

On June 3, 1949, Professor Shibbanlal Saxena, a freedom fighter who had been ondeath row for his involvement in the Quit India Movement, spoke in theConstituent Assembly of how he had seen innocent people being hanged for

murder during his days in prison. Proposing the abolition of the death penalty, hesaid that the avenue of appealing to the Supreme Court will be open to peoplewho are wealthy, who can move heaven and earth, but the common people whohave no money and who are poor will not be able to avail themselvesof it.

Miscarriage of justice is, in fact, one of the biggest concerns about the deathpenalty. Is it possible that someone could be wrongly hanged in 21st century India?The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Studies conducted by Amnesty International andthe Peoples Union for Civil Liberties have shown that the process of deciding who

should be on death row is arbitrary and biased. The Supreme Court has itself

admitted on several occasions that there is confusion and contradiction in theapplication of the death penalty.

Instances of innocence

Last year, 14 eminent retired judges wrote to the President, pointing out that theSupreme Court had erroneously given the death penalty to 15 people since 1996, of

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

2/10

2

whom two were hanged. The judges called this the gravest known miscarriage ofjustice in the history of crime and punishment in independent India.

Some argue that the death penalty is the only way to deter heinous crime,especially violence against women and children. But a comprehensive study donelast year in the United States found that there is no credible evidence that the death

penalty has any deterrent effect on crime.

The Innocence Project in the United States [a national litigation and publicpolicy organisation dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individualsthrough DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system] has found, on theother hand, several cases where innocent people were given the death sentence.One such case is that of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 forthe deaths of his three young daughters. In 2009, reinvestigation of the case raised

serious doubts in the appreciation of forensic evidence in the case and the judgeconcluded that Willingham was wrongfully convicted. Another case is that ofCarlos DeLuna who was executed in 1989 for the murder of a young woman someyears before. In 2004, a study by Columbia Law School students brought to lightthe wrongful conviction of Carlos DeLuna, which turned out to be a case ofmistaken identity of the actual perpetrator of the murder. Lawmakers in India findit convenient to hold up the death penalty as a symbol of their resolve to tacklecrime, and choose to ignore more difficult but more effective solutions like socialeducation and police or judicial reform. The certainty of punishment, not severity,is the real deterrent.

Rajiv Gandhi case

The death penalty is little more than judicially sanctioned murder. Justice K.T.Thomas, who headed the three member bench in the Rajiv Gandhi assassinationcase, has said that executing Perarivalan, Murugan and Santhan, convicted andsentenced to death in the case, would amount to punishing them twice for the sameoffence, as they had already spent 22 years in jail, the equivalent of lifeimprisonment.

In recent months, the Government of India has shown an alarming tendency toimplement the death penalty. It is a fallacy to think that one killing can be avengedwith another. For, capital punishment is merely revenge masquerading as justice.When the government is trying to create a just society where there is less violenceand murder, it cannot be allowed to commit the same crime against its citizens inthe name of justice.

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

3/10

3

The DMK president, Kalaignar Karunanidhi, reiterated the partys stand last monthwhen he called upon the Government of India to commute the death sentences ofthe 16 men, including seven from Tamil Nadu, who are on death row. The DMK

president had made similar pleas to the Centre in August 2011 and October 2006.This has been the partys consistent position against this inhumane practice.

Rest of the world

The world is moving away from using the death penalty. The European Union hasmade abolition of death penalty a prerequisite for membership. The 65th United

Nations General Assembly voted in December 2010, for the third time, in favour ofabolishing the death penalty and called for a global moratorium on executions.Amnesty International reports that 140 countries more than two-thirds of theworld do not use the death penalty any more. India needs to recognise this

global trend, and act in step with it. Lawmakers are eager to appear resolute in thefight against crime, but seem to forget that certainty of punishment, not severity, isthe real deterrent

2. Shale gas policy should attract best companies, follow green norms and

share royalty

The government aims to finalise an exploration policy for shale gasand oil in the

next few months, and then auction shale blocks. Shale gas and oil are produced

from rock formations using "fracking" technology. This injects water and sand at

high pressure into wells drilled horizontally from a single drill pad in multiple

directions, tapping a wide area of shale to make production profitable.

Shale gas and oil have transformed the US economy. North America will become

energy-independent in 10 years. US natural gas costs onethird the Asian level of

$12 per unit. US shale gas became a big story five years ago. India has taken too

long to get its act together.

It has widespread shale deposits in all sedimentary basins ringing the Deccan

plateau.

The US has no federal shale gas policy. All minerals underground belong to

landowners, from whom oil companies buy drilling rights. This freedom to drill

enabled companies and state governments to experiment with many sorts of

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/shale-gashttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/shale-gashttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/shale-gas

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

4/10

4

drilling in many conditions, and come up with the right mix. The productivity of

shale wells has skyrocketed.

In India, the government owns all oil and gas, but lacks the funds or expertise to

develop shale gas. The ONGC has a poor track record. Private participation isvital, from foreign companies with the best technology. Unfortunately, policy has

been so restrictive and arbitrary that the multinationals have mostly steered clear of

India, leaving only small players like CairnBSE -0.88 % and Hardy. We Shale

Overcome

The new shale policy needs to attract the best companies in the world, and take

care of the needs of the environment and affected communities. Environmental

fears have delayed or halted frackingin some countries. However, the US has 20

years of experience in fracking, and China is going ahead with its own shale

programme. India must not fall behind.

For conventional oil and gas, companies in India bid for productionsharing

contracts. These allow companies to first recover drilling costs through "cost oil",

with profit oil being shared with the government according to a complex formula.

This created perverse incentives for companies to exaggerate drilling costs.

Allegations flew of corruption to approve inflated budgets. The companies, in turn,

complained of long delays in approving drilling budgets. It was, and is, a lose-losesituation. We must move to a revenue-sharing system, where companies bid for a

share of oil and gas produced, leaving the balance (maybe 30%) to the government.

This will end delays, gold-plating and corruption.

Second, global practice avoids all price and distribution controls. In theory, India

has a market price, but it is fixed by the government, which also allots gas to

priority users like fertiliser and power producers. Lack of free pricing has

discouraged production, and led to accusations (not proven) that Reliance is

underproducing gas till prices go up in 2014. Free pricing will end disputes andcorruption. The government can always sell its own share of gas cheap to fertiliser

and power companies. If this is politically impossible, a second-best solution is the

Rangarajan Committeeformula, based on a cocktail of global prices.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cairn-india-ltd/stocks/companyid-18772.cmshttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cairn-india-ltd/stocks/companyid-18772.cmshttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Hardyhttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Hardyhttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/frackinghttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/frackinghttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Rangarajan-Committeehttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Rangarajan-Committeehttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Rangarajan-Committeehttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/frackinghttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Hardyhttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cairn-india-ltd/stocks/companyid-18772.cmshttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cairn-india-ltd/stocks/companyid-18772.cms

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

5/10

5

In the US, explorers pay landowners for drilling. In India, the government owns

the oil and gas, so, landowners get nothing. States get royalties, but this disappears

to state capitals and is not seen by locals. Solution: a sum equal to the royalty must

be paid directly into a local panchayat account, and used solely for local benefits.

This will give locals a stake in the enterprise.

Come Rain or Seawater

Environmentalists fear that fracking will use up scarce water, contaminate drinking

water, lead to dumping of dangerous chemicals, and cause methane leakage and

earthquakes. These are serious issues. Initially, fracking must be limited to coastal

areas that can use seawater, and to high-rainfall areas prone to floods and

waterlogging: eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and the north-east.

Speciality chemicals are added to water before fracking. Every company mustspecify what chemicals it is using, and eliminate dangerous ones. All water that

flows back after fracking must be recycled into fresh fracking, not dumped

anywhere. This will conserve water while avoiding contamination.

Go Shale, but Go Green too

Gas drilling should be permitted only in deep formations far below acquifers used

for irrigation and drinking. New techniques of double-sealing to check gas leaks

should be mandated. Disposing of waste water deep underground has sometimescaused tremors, so this should be done in controlled fashion. New technologies are

being tested that use natural gas fluids instead of water. If these succeed, most

environmental problems will disappear. Green activists will try to get fracking

banned. This must be faced squarely. Green safeguards are essential from the start,

and local villagers must be made stakeholders with a share in royalties.

3. Build consensus, shun politics on Food Bill

After Union parliamentary affairs minister Kamal Naths remarks that all optionsto push through the controversial Food Security Bill were open, the law ministry isreported to have drafted an ordinance and sent it the cabinet secretary. It is now forthe government to decide whether it should adopt the ordinance route or opt for theconventional procedure of legislation through Parliament. Since most political

parties, including the principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, have agreed toadvance the Monsoon Session of Parliament, scheduled to start in July, resorting to

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/frackinghttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/frackinghttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/fracking

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

6/10

6

the presidential power to promulgate an ordinance to bring it on the statute bookwill not only amount to a grievous injury to the parliamentary system ofdemocracy but also have far-reaching implications for the Indian economy.

Under the Constitution, Parliament is the sole repository of legislative powers ofthe Union. The legislative powers to promulgate an ordinance have been vested inthe president to meet extraordinary situations demanding immediate enactment of alaw when Parliament is not in session. The Supreme Court has clarified that thelegislative power to issue ordinances is in the nature of an emergency powergiven to the executive only to meet an emergent situation.

If the Congress-led UPA government is really serious about providing foodsecurity to Indias poor, it must avoid playing politics on the issue and make a

sincere effort to build a consensus. BJP president Rajnath Singh has publicly said

that his party wants the Food Security and Land Acquisition Bills passed inParliament with some amendments. Though the Left parties have dubbed the bill inits present form defective and unacceptable and Samajwadi party is opposing itas anti-farmer, mobilising requisite support for its passage should not be difficultfor the government. Adopting short cuts to steamroll the legislation will prove thatinstead of being concerned for the poor, the Congress is driven by its politicalinsecurity in the run-up to elections.

After Union parliamentary affairs minister Kamal Naths remarks that all optionsto push through the controversial Food Security Bill were open, the law ministry is

reported to have drafted an ordinance and sent it the cabinet secretary. It is now forthe government to decide whether it should adopt the ordinance route or opt for theconventional procedure of legislation through Parliament. Since most political

parties, including the principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, have agreed toadvance the Monsoon Session of Parliament, scheduled to start in July, resorting tothe presidential power to promulgate an ordinance to bring it on the statute bookwill not only amount to a grievous injury to the parliamentary system ofdemocracy but also have far-reaching implications for the Indian economy.

Under the Constitution, Parliament is the sole repository of legislative powers ofthe Union. The legislative powers to promulgate an ordinance have been vested inthe president to meet extraordinary situations demanding immediate enactment of alaw when Parliament is not in session. The Supreme Court has clarified that thelegislative power to issue ordinances is in the nature of an emergency powergiven to the executive only to meet an emergent situation.

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

7/10

7

If the Congress-led UPA government is really serious about providing foodsecurity to Indias poor, it must avoid playing politics on the issue and make a

sincere effort to build a consensus. BJP president Rajnath Singh has publicly saidthat his party wants the Food Security and Land Acquisition Bills passed inParliament with some amendments. Though the Left parties have dubbed the bill inits present form defective and unacceptable and Samajwadi party is opposing it

as anti-farmer, mobilising requisite support for its passage should not be difficultfor the government. Adopting short cuts to steamroll the legislation will prove thatinstead of being concerned for the poor, the Congress is driven by its politicalinsecurity in the run-up to elections.

4. Wake-up call to control pollution in cities

The findings of a survey conducted by the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

have confirmed the fears that pollution has reached dangerous levels in six majorcitiesBangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai. The qualityof air and water in these cities has been plummeting lower and lower causingserious concern to the citizens. The root cause of the problem is the unplannedgrowth of the cities. The growing number of motor vehicles, for which there arenot enough roads, is mainly responsible for the worsening quality of air. Manyvehicles do not conform to international standards of engine quality and they runon substandard fuels.

The little achievement the national capital made when all public transport vehicles

like buses, autos and taxis were forced to go in for compressed natural gas (CNG)-based engines, has been offset by the constant addition of thousands of vehiclesevery day to the capitals vehicle fleet. Instead of promoting public transport, the

government and banks have been encouraging the common man to have his ownmotor vehicle for which loans on liberal terms are made available. The authoritiescharged with the task of controlling air and water pollution turn a blind eye toindustries in these cities and their peripheries diverting all their effluents to therivers. The state of the Yamuna, described by the poets of yore as the most

beautiful river, is comparable to that of a sewer.

The rising trend of pollution-related diseases in these cities is a grim reminder ofthe tragic consequences of neglect. It is said that a countrys development is

gauged not by the fact that the poor have their own cars but that even the rich usepublic transport. While steps to promote public transport and to shift pollutingindustries from these cities and their suburbs are necessary, the government alone

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

8/10

8

cannot do much. The civil society, trade and industry should join hands with thegovernment to ensure that air is breathable and water drinkable.

5. Thrust to India-Japan relations

Set up in 2006, Indian and Japanese prime ministerial summits are held every yearalternately in New Delhi and Tokyo. The summits are one of the few mechanismsto carry on bilateral relations that have become multi-dimensional over years, andnow stand qualitatively improved. The joint statement issued every time indicatesthe depth, strength, dimensions and potentials. It is both symbolic and substantial.

Sharing a strong strategic interest in expanding co-operation on maritime securityand promoting regional stability, both India and Japan realise that ensuring sealanes remain open and free as vital for the regional prosperity because of its

dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Prime minister ManmohanSingh visit to Japan primarily focused on firming up bilateral economic ties andco-operation in other areas.

Indias relations with Japan are important not only for its economic development

but also because India considers Japan as a natural and indispensable partner in ourquest for stability and peace in East Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

India and Japan have long expressed concern over potential threats to energysupplies due to sea lanes vulnerable to piracy and blockades. Both have shared

interests in maritime security, face similar challenges to energy securities.

Japan and India are working toward a deal on nuclear energy co-operation, asTokyo tries to boost exports of atomic technology and other infrastructure to helprevive its economy.

Armed with a trillion dollar foreign exchange reserve, targeting an achievable 2%domestic inflation, and a huge bulging bag of development assistance, Japanese

premier Abe Shinzo is eager to promote sales of Japanese nuclear technology aspart of its push to expand exports, especially in emerging markets in Asia and the

Middle East that have better growth potential than within Japan. Aided byAbenomics monetary easing and huge public expenditure policy, massivestimulus the yen has fallen by about 25% and Japan is looking for attractiveinvestment propositions abroad. India is certainly on the cards but not prioritysince development opportunities in Africa and Myanmar commands Japans

investment attention.

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

9/10

9

Recent Japan and India agreements on economic co-operation and investmentinclude continued assistance to 100 billion dollar plans for industrial corridors

between New Delhi and Mumbai, and between Chennai and Bangalore. Thoughthe former project has begun, it is moving slowly and may not meet the 2017deadline due to cost escalation and other problems.

The world has huge stakes in Japan returning to sustained economic growth, itscontinued leadership in enterprise, technology and innovation and ability to remainthe locomotive in Asian development. India offers increasing opportunities forgrowth and internationalisation of Japanese corporations.

Trade between Japan and India had never been impressive. Japans exports to India

in the fiscal year ending March 2013 were worth $8.25 billion. Imports were worth$5.7 billion. Indian bilateral trade with Japan for 2012-13 worth $14 billion is

dwarfed by Japan-China trade ($68 billion). Despite Comprehensive EconomicPartnership Agreement that envisages abolition of tariffs in 10 years, higher tradewith Japan has led India to register higher deficit of $ 6.2 billion for 2012-13.Japan has a goal of 30 trillion yen in infrastructure exports in its growth strategy tobe compiled in June. Since Indias plan is to invest $1 trillion (for five years), theIndia-Japan summit was a good chance to promote sale of infrastructure likerailways and other facilities.

India and Japan also will reinforce bilateral co-operation for massive infrastructureprojects. Joint research will be conducted for the construction of a high-speed

railway connecting Mumbai and Ahmedabad to enable introduction of bullet trains.Abe announced 71 billion yen in loans for the construction of Mumbai metro and17.7 billion yen for the IIT-Hyderabad. Indias economic growth declined to 6.5%in 2011 and 5% in 2012-13 and hence Japanese investment could be a catalyst. Inspite of sustained complementarities between India and Japan, Japanese firms areholding back investment waiting for further reforms relating to problems such aslaw, labour, land acquisition, tax and the like.

Though the civil nuclear pact could not come through this time, India and Japanhave agreed to accelerate talks to conclude a pact to facilitate Japanese firms toexport nuclear power generation technologies and equipment to India. Such a pactis problematic because India is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons. India plans to build about 20 nuclear power plants to increasethe share of nuclear power in supply from the current 4% to 25% by 2050. Theworth of Indias nuclear power market is estimated at $150 billion. Besides, the

8/12/2019 05.06.2013 CA

10/10

10

strong anti-nuclear lobby in Japan can create trouble even if the Abe administrationgains confidence to move forward politically.

Abe has already signed agreements with the UAE and Turkey to enable the exportof Japans nuclear power technologies and equipment. Such exports to India needto pay attention to the danger of nuclear power generation and need to thwartnuclear weapons proliferation.

Under pressure from the Bush administration, the Nuclear Suppliers Group,including the US, Britain, France, Germany and Japan, had decided to allowexports of nuclear power technologies and equipment to India. In turn India

pledged unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapons tests. The Indiancall for insertion of a clause in a Japan-India nuclear pact to ensure it would nothamper Indias nuclear weapons programme, besides right to reprocess spent

nuclear fuel from Japanese generation equipment, could continue to be a point ofdifference.

Japan has now offered the US-2 amphibious aircraft. The joint statement has alsomentioned India and Japan would regularly hold exercises between the MaritimeSelf-Defence Force and the Indian Navy and begin talks for the export of MSDFsUS-2 amphibious planes to India.

They will co-operate to improve counter-cyber attacks, ensure safe sea lanes andstrengthen coast guard authorities. The statement was obviously drafted with

Chinas increasing maritime presence in mind. Thus, the summit was symbolic andgains were substantial.