📰 Japan’s men-only island gets UNESCO heritage tag
Landmass manned by Shinto priests in ancient tradition
•A men-only island in Japan where women are banned and male visitors must bathe naked in the sea before visiting its shrine, has been declared a UNESCO World Heritage site.
•The tiny landmass of Okinoshima is permanently manned by a Shinto priest who prays to the island’s goddess, in a tradition that has been kept up for centuries.
•Limited numbers are permitted to land on the island in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) — this year it was 200 — for a yearly festival that lasts just two hours, but they must adhere to strict rules.
•Most importantly, they must be men, but they must also strip off and take a purifying dip in the ocean before they are allowed to set foot on the sacred ground of the shrine.
Mulling visitor ban
•Despite its inscription on the UNESCO’s World Heritage list — often the prelude to a leap in tourist numbers — shrine officials say they are now considering banning future travel for anyone apart from priests, partly out of fears the island could be “destroyed” by too many visitors.
•“The island has sometimes been said to ban women, but in principle anyone but the priests who pray there for 365 days a year is barred from entering,” said a spokesman.
•The ban on women visitors specifically “has nothing to do with discrimination against women,” the official said over phone. It is considered dangerous for women to travel by sea to get to the island and the shrine will not change the centuries-old rule, he said.
•The island, which sits off the north-west coast of Kyushu, the southernmost of Japan’s four main islands, was an important window for foreign trade in Japan since ancient times, forming part of a trade route that linked the archipelago to the Korean peninsula and China.
•Thousands of gold rings and other valuable items have been found there. “These treasures are believed to have been offered to the gods in order to pray for national prosperity and the safety of marine traffic,” says the website of Munakata Taisha, the shrine which owns Okinoshima.
•UNESCO’s heritage committee considered 33 sites for the prestigious status at its annual gathering in Poland.
•On Sunday it also accepted Taputapuatea, a portion of the “Polynesian Triangle” in the South Pacific thought to be the last part of the globe settled by humans, to the list.
•It also added Britain’s Lake District — muse for artists from William Wordsworth to Beatrix Potter — and the Valongo wharf in Rio de Janeiro where people from Africa were first brought as slaves to Brazil.
Caves and mines
•Ancient caves in west Germany with art dating back to the Ice Age and disused silver ore mines in southern Poland are also among UNESCO’s listings.
•The caves are in the western German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, where archaeologists have discovered ancient instruments and carvings made from mammoth ivory. One of the carvings is a 40,000-year-old figure known as the Venus of Hohle Fels. Historians say it is the oldest known image of a human.
📰 Do what is good for your faith, says CJI
Court dismisses plea to ban burning of Ravana’s effigy
•Every person has the right to do what he feels is good for his faith, Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar said in open court on Monday.
•“This court is not about good or bad. It is about what is legal and what is illegal. You do what you feel is good for your faith and let others do what is good for their faith,” Chief Justice Khehar addressed a PIL petitioner.
•Anand Prakash Sharma, the petitioner, had moved the court with a plea to end the practice of burning the effigy of Ravana, a demon king in the epic Ramayana, on the eve of the Dussehra festival. “Have you heard of Article 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution?” the CJI asked Mr. Sharma.
•The petitioner said such a practice does not find any mention in Valmiki Ramayana or Tulsidas’ Ramayana . Besides, it is harmful to the environment and public health. He said the burning of Ravana’s effigy “hurts some sects of people”. The Bench dismissed the case.
📰 The great Indian migration
The socio-economic aspects of north-south migration need to be analysed
•Despite the decline in total fertility rates (TFR) countrywide, 12 States continue to have TFR above 2.1 children per woman, known as replacement-level fertility. However, when the TFR declines, the drop does not stop at 2.1, as seen in Kerala (1.6), Tamil Nadu (1.7) and Karnataka (1.8). This leads to faster changes in the population structure characterised by a reduction in the proportion of young people and an increase in the proportion of the elderly.
•When all the States in India are clustered in terms of fertility levels, one sees a predominantly youthful north and a maturing south and west. This demographic divergence between States and regions is important from the policy perspective and forward-looking development planning.
•Most of the current and future demographic potential is locked in the northern States, and largely located in Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. As per population projections, these five States will account for more than 55% of population growth in India till 2030. Those who are under 15 years of age today will become India’s working population in the coming decades, and almost every second person in this age group resides in these five States.
Migration-friendly planning
•The proportion of the elderly started increasing in the southern States several years ago. Now, the phenomenon has extended to the western, extreme northern and eastern States. In the coming decades, they will require a young workforce to keep institutions functioning efficiently, and also to take care of the elderly. This need is likely to be met by people from the youthful north, with many moving to the ageing States. Already, the migration trend is evident, with established flows of young people from these States to other parts. The divergent demographic transition in the high-low TFR States will add further impetus to this movement in the coming decades.
•The socio-economic implications of young people heading south, leaving the children and elderly behind, need to be analysed. The challenges of moving into new communities that speak different languages and have different cultures need to be understood and addressed. Along with the migrants, the issues of the locals must also be appreciated.
•There is a need to gain deeper understanding of migration flows, so that estimations and projections can be made regarding changing need for housing and infrastructure, health care and utilities, education and skills. States need to work together to provide portability of identity proof and entitlements, as well as build support systems for families left behind.
•India urgently needs to take cognisance of the divergent demographic transition trends. Timely strategic action can develop human capacities to cater to future needs and build rights-based policies that work for migrants as well as locals. All adding up to help optimise development, employment and collaboration across States in the country.
📰 Bring the House up to date
The balance between fundamental rights and parliamentary privilege must be re-examined
•Parliamentary privileges originated during the long struggle for democracy and citizen’s rights in Britain, between a monarch and Parliament as kings used to get members who spoke or were likely to speak against the king arrested. Today, our legislators get citizens and journalists arrested.
•In our parliamentary democracy, where Parliament enjoys almost supreme powers, legislators face no threat from government. In fact privileges have become a tool in the hands of the ruling party. The case of the Karnataka Assembly imposing fines and imprisonment on two journalists for writing something against the Speaker when he was a legislator and against another legislator has once again revived the debate about the need for codifying privileges and giving primacy to a citizen’s right to free speech over legislative privileges.
•Why shouldn’t our legislators’ freedom of speech like the freedom of speech of citizens be subject to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, public order, friendly relations with foreign states, incitement of an offence or defamation as mentioned in Article 19(2)? The ‘sovereign people of India’ have a restricted right to free speech but ‘their servants or representatives’ have an absolute freedom of speech in the Houses. Even if one may reluctantly concede such a privilege to them in the interest of the smooth conduct of the House, why should there be the power to send people to jail for the breach of privileges? The Supreme Court’s decision in M.S.M. Sharma (1958), giving primacy to the privileges over free speech, was made in the first decade of the Republic during which the court had a lot of respect for legislators — most of them were freedom fighters. However, by 1967, the Supreme Court was convinced that Parliament should not have absolute powers.
Too wide a power
•Our legislators have the power to be the sole judges to decide what their privileges are, what constitutes their breach, and what punishment is to be awarded in case of breach. Is this not too wide a power which clearly impinges on constitutionalism, i.e. the idea of limited powers? The fault lies with the framers of the Constitution, who, while drafting the lengthiest constitution of the world, have left the vital area of legislative privileges undefined.
•Articles 105 and 194 clearly lay down that the “power, privileges and immunities of the legislature shall be as may from time to time be defined by the legislature, and until so defined, shall be those of the House of Commons”. The expression “until so defined” does not mean an absolute power not to define privileges at all. Legislators have been arguing that codification of privileges will harm the sovereignty of Parliament. Is Indian Parliament really sovereign? We want a uniform civil code but our parliamentarians do not want a codification of their privileges which will not require more than a couple of articles.
•Moreover, the drafters of the Constitution also committed the mistake of putting Indian Parliament on a par with the British House of Commons. De Lolme’s statement about the supremacy of British Parliament, that “Parliament can do everything but make a man a woman and a woman a man”, is not applicable to India. British Parliament was also the highest court till 2009. Thus, Indian legislatures and British Parliament differ not merely as regards their general political status but also in the matter of legal powers. Unlike England, in India the Constitution is supreme, not Parliament. Today by sovereignty, we mean “popular sovereignty” and not “parliamentary sovereignty”. The opening words of the Constitution are “we the people” and not “we the legislators of India.”
A comparison
•The codification of privileges is basically resisted because it would make the privileges subject to fundamental rights and hence to judicial scrutiny and evolution of new privileges would not be possible. In fact, the British House has itself broken from the past. Acts and utterances defamatory of Parliament or its members are no more treated as privilege questions. The U.S. House of Representative has been working smoothly without any penal powers for well over two centuries. Australia too codified privileges in 1987.
•It is strange that our legislators, to cover up corruption not only took cover behind privileges but also pleaded in courts that they were not even ‘public servants’. Our legislators also have protection from arrest in civil cases 40 days before the session, during the session and 40 days after the session. The exemption from arrest is also available for meetings. If we count the days of three Parliamentary sessions and meetings then our MPs have protection from arrest for more than 365 days in a year.
•There is an urgent need to have a fresh look at the vexed question of freedom of press vis-à-vis legislative privileges.
📰 Targeting trawling
Tamil Nadu must hasten the transitionfrom trawling to deep sea fishing
•Sri Lanka’s legislative amendment to prohibit bottom trawling, a destructive fishing practice, is a welcome move despite its likely near-term consequence of deepening the fisheries conflict in the Palk Bay region. Bottom trawling in the island nation’s territorial waters will now attract a possible two-year prison term and a fine of 50,000 Sri Lankan rupees. The practice, which involves trawlers dragging weighted nets along the sea floor, is known to cause great depletion of fishery resources, and curbing it is in the interest of sustainable fishing. The initial reaction from Tamil Nadu has been one of concern and consternation. Political parties claim the amendment is draconian, and that it is targeted at the State’s fishermen who regularly use hundreds of trawlers in Sri Lankan territorial waters. This criticism is way off the mark. In recent years, some fishermen in northern Sri Lanka have also adopted bottom trawling. If this practice continues to gain ground even among local fishermen, the long-term consequences on fishing resources in the contested Palk Bay region will be irremediable. The amendment is aimed at curbing local trawlers as well as deterring trawlers from Tamil Nadu. An appropriate response from Tamil Nadu would be to expedite the conversion of its trawlers to deep sea fishing vessels, and not merely condemn Sri Lanka.
•Fishermen from both countries have been in talks for a long time to resolve the conflict. Sri Lankan fishermen want an immediate end to incursions by Indian trawlers, and those from Tamil Nadu insist on a three-year phase-out period. The proposal to ban bottom trawling is two years old, but the amendment has come at a time when a Joint Working Group set up by both countries last year is in place. Tamil Nadu fishermen are arrested from time to time by the Sri Lankan Navy, and their vessels seized. If more are arrested and slapped with two-year jail terms after a summary trial, as the law now envisages, it may create new flashpoints. Ultimately, the solution lies in the transition from trawling to deep sea fishing, for which a beginning has been made. The Central and State governments plan to provide 500 deep sea fishing boats with long lines and gill nets this year, as part of a plan to replace 2,000 trawlers in three years. However, the question is whether Sri Lanka can be expected to wait for this plan to be fully implemented before enforcing its bottom trawling ban. Even while bracing for an escalation as a result of protests from Tamil Nadu, both countries should ensure that the situation does not disrupt regular meetings of the JWG. Besides the fisheries conflict, they need to discuss marine conservation, thus giving equal importance to protecting livelihoods and sustainable fishing.
📰 The Hamburg tussle
The G20 meet highlighted the capacity of world leaders to work around Donald Trump
•The gathering in Hamburg of the G20, a group of twenty developed and developing countries, last week was not unlike a large family event: some catching up, some patching up, and that unpredictable, rich uncle who needs to be managed and kept in good humour. The success of summits such as this should be judged with regard to the emerging global context: with the world’s most powerful country, the United States led by a President who wants to redefine the world order in narrow transactional terms; with economies changing due to digitisation and automation; with the strength of a country’s electoral process increasingly tied to its cybersecurity; with migration on an unprecedented scale; and with terrorism decentralised and dispersed. The G20 meetings in Germany reflected all this, either through the dynamics between leaders or in the wording of official statements that emerged from them. The summit also provided a much-needed opportunity for bilateral meetings, some of which went well beyond the ordinary renewal of commitments among countries. The meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin was their first after the election hacking scandal and Mr. Trump’s inauguration, while the interaction between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping came amid the face-off between the Indian and Chinese armies in Doklam.
•Most remarkable was the fact that the G20 managed to pull together a joint communique at all, given Mr. Trump’s recalcitrance on trade and the environment and the tension between interlocutors. It is reported that French President Emmanuel Macron was pivotal in bringing about unanimity by getting the U.S. on board. Yet the final statement did not hide the fact that U.S. policy currently runs against the global consensus, noting America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement but declaring that the other 19 countries recognise the pact is “irreversible”. Even so, a sentence about the U.S. saying it would help countries access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently struck an odd note. In terms of trade, members committed to fight protectionism while recognising “legitimate trade defence instruments”. While the G20 dynamics may have been strained, world leaders have clearly moved up the learning curve on how to handle Mr. Trump since his first international tour of West Asia and Europe in May, which saw rifts over the U.S.’s commitment to NATO, climate change and trade. The scale and violent nature of the protests in Hamburg too was notable, with tens of thousands showing up, and several hundred police officers injured. These were yet another reminder that all is not well with the world, and that the undercurrents of discontent developing countries have long been familiar with have now flowed west. The G20 and other international groupings must work to mitigate their underlying causes through dialogue and responsive measures.
