📰 India to protest Pak. claims on terror at UN
It will approach the Security Council chief on false claims levelled by Islamabad
•India will approach the UN Security Council President to bring to his notice a series of false claims levelled by Pakistan on terrorism, in one of the strongest responses by the Indian permanent mission so far, sources here said.
•The note will also include the fact that Pakistan’s UN Permanent Representative Munir Akram claimed to have addressed a UNSC debate on terrorism held on Monday, which was open only for Ambassadors of the 15 Security Council members, which don’t include Pakistan.
•“We fail to comprehend where exactly did the Permanent Representative of Pakistan make his statement since the Security Council Session today was not open to non-members of the Security Council,” the Indian mission at the UN said in a statement posted as a series of tweets on Tuesday.
•Earlier, Pakistan’s mission to the UN had released a note it claimed was a “Statement by Ambassador Munir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, at the Open Debate of the Security Council on the Report of the Secretary-General on the Threats to International Peace and Security posed by Terrorism Actions” held on August 24.
•However, the meeting was only open to the five permanent and 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, officials said. A video on the UN website of the event, that lasted about two hours also confirms this (http://webtv.un.org/watch/player/6184118855001_).
Lodging protest
•India is lodging its protest formally with the Indonesian Ambassador to the UN Dian Triansyah Djani, who chaired the UNSC meeting on terrorism, to discuss the latest report on Al Qaeda and ISIL (Islamic State) operations. These reports are provided every six months by the UN Secretary-General.
•This is not the first time Pakistan has tried to make allegations against India on the issue of terrorism. However, officials say they see a “pattern” in Pakistan’s recent statements, with a view to targeting India ahead of January 2021, when India will join as a non-permanent member for a two year term at the UN Security Council.
•In addition, Pakistan, that has been grey listed at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), is also trying to build a case given that India will face its routine scrutiny or “Mutual Evaluation Report” (MER) on terrorism financing and money laundering issues at FATF beginning February 2021, with a plenary discussion in October 20201. As a result, officials told The Hindu, it is increasingly necessary to call out “falsehoods and inaccuracies” in each Pakistani statement, given the larger repercussions.
It cites severe shock to consumption
•The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) foresees the economic contraction triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic extending into the second quarter, especially as the shock to consumption has been severe, and said government consumption would be key to the revival of demand.
•“High frequency indicators that have arrived so far point to a retrenchment in activity that is unprecedented in history,” the RBI said in its Annual Report for 2019-20, which was released on Tuesday.
Momentum lost
•“The upticks that became visible in May and June after the lockdown was eased in several parts of the country appear to have lost strength in July and August,” it said.
•Citing data, including the total issuance of e-way bills, a marker of domestic trading activity, as reflecting the loss of momentum in July, the central bank said its survey for the month of July indicated that consumer confidence fell to an all-time low, with a majority of respondents reporting pessimism relating to the general economic situation, employment, inflation and income.
•“Going forward, government consumption is expected to continue pandemic-proofing of demand, and private consumption is expected to lead the recovery when it takes hold, with non-discretionary spending leading the way until a durable increase in disposable incomes enables discretionary spending to catch up,” the RBI noted.
📰 Wide-ranging reforms must for sustainable growth: RBI
Annual report warns of downshift in output post-pandemic
•Cautioning that India’s potential output may undergo a structural downshift following the pandemic, the Reserve Bank on Tuesday made a strong case for deep-seated and wide-ranging reforms to regain losses and return to the path of sustainable economic growth.
•The pandemic will inflict deep disfiguration on the world economy and the shape of the future will be heavily contingent upon the evolving intensity, spread and duration of COVID-19 and the discovery of a vaccine, the RBI said in its ‘assessment and prospects’ which forms part of the central bank’s Annual Report for the year 2019-20.
•Post-COVID-19, the overwhelming sense is that the world will not be the same again and a new normal could emerge, it said.
‘Global competitiveness’
•“In a post-pandemic scenario, deep-seated and wide-ranging structural reforms in factor and product markets, the financial sector, legal architecture, and in international competitiveness would be needed to regain potential output losses and return the economy to a path of strong and sustainable growth with macroeconomic and financial stability,” the RBI said.
•“India’s potential output can undergo a structural downshift as the recovery driven by stimulus and regulatory easing gets unwound in a post-pandemic scenario,” it noted. The 2008 global financial crisis occurred after years of robust growth with macroeconomic stability; by contrast, COVID-19 hit the economy after consecutive quarters of slowdown, the central bank added.
📰 The marginalisation of justice in public discourse
In India today, while self-interest and national glory dominate, concern for distributive justice is rare
•Two ideas appear to dominate our public discourse today. One, somewhat implicitly, self-interest. The second, far more explicitly, national glory. How the pursuit of material or cultural self-interest affects others does not seem to bother us. There is little acknowledgement that the pursuit of greed and narrow self-interest leads to severe inequalities, to an unequal division of social benefits.
•Also missing is the thought that the burden of realising national goals such as development must be shared equally by all. True, nothing of importance is achieved without sacrifice. But why should some people sacrifice virtually everything they have and others benefit without forgoing anything at all? Given the compulsion to advance our self-interest, this burden is easily passed on to those among us who are powerless to desist it. Isn’t it wrong that the least paid workers and peasants in our society are expected to offer the greatest sacrifices for building the nation? Why this grossly unfair division of social labour? Yet, concern for a fair distribution of benefits and burdens — the core issue of justice — is rare in mainstream public discourse.
Sharing benefits and burdens
•What is distributive justice and why does it matter? Almost two decades ago, my younger daughter startled me by asking, “What is justice, baba?” I happened then to have a bottle of water before me. So, I began explaining to her. “There are many things I can do with this bottle. I can grab it, even if I am not thirsty, keeping it solely for myself. Or, out of love, I can give it to you even if I am thirsty. Finally, I can give it to some other person not because I love her, but because I can see that she needs it most. This is justice.” A few days later, as we stopped our car at the traffic lights, a ‘beggar’ came expectantly towards us and we gave him a packet of biscuits. My daughter immediately said, “That’s justice, no? We gave something away to him even though we don’t love him.” My daughter hadn’t grasped the concept of justice just yet, but she was on the right track. At the very least, justice requires that we not be greedy and grab things; instead, we share them with those we don’t know or love. Simply put, a sense of justice is born when we begin sharing things with strangers.
•In fact, the idea of distributive justice presupposes not only a social condition marked by an absence of love or familiarity, but also others which the Scottish philosopher, David Hume, termed ‘the circumstances of justice’. For instance, a society where everything is abundantly available would not need justice. Each of us will have as much of everything we want. Without the necessity of sharing, justice becomes redundant. Equally, in a society with massive scarcity, justice is impossible. In order to survive, each person is compelled to grab whatever happens to be available. Justice, therefore, is possible and necessary in societies with moderate scarcity.
•Justice also presupposes that people are neither totally alone nor organically united with others. If one was Robinson Crusoe, there would be no one with who to share. And, if one was totally fused with others, with no distinction between self and other, then again, sharing will be unnecessary. Surely, one cannot share anything with oneself! To sum up, justice acquires value in societies with moderate scarcity, where people are forced to deal with those who they don’t love. It presupposes a moral psychology in which humans are neither wholly selfish nor entirely benevolent. Since most societies share these conditions, we may safely conclude that justice is a necessary social virtue and has great moral value.
Giving persons their due
•But what is justice? The basic idea of justice is that ‘each person gets what is properly due to him or her’, that the benefits and burdens of society be distributed in a manner that gives each person his or her due. But this begs the question: what is meant by ‘a person’s due’? Here, a distinction must be made between hierarchical and egalitarian notions of justice. In hierarchical notions, what is due to a person is established by her or his place within a hierarchical system. For instance, by rank determined at birth. Certain groups are born privileged. Therefore, their members are entitled to a disproportionately large share of benefits, and a disproportionately small share of burdens. On this conception, justice requires that the benefits and burdens be unequally shared or distributed. To take just one example, in a society ridden with caste hierarchies, those born in high castes are entitled to a much greater share of wealth, power, cultural status and knowledge. Conversely, those born in ‘low castes’ get whatever is their proper due — very little, sometimes nothing.
•This conception of justice has rarely remained unchallenged. Innumerable examples can be cited in Indian history, where aspects of this hierarchical notion had been temporarily opposed — in the early teachings of the Buddha, passages in Indian epics, Bhakti poetry, and protest movements such as Veerashaivism. In our own times, however, this challenge has become robust, explicit and sustained. This is so because of the prevalence of the idea that each person, regardless of caste, class, colour, creed or gender, has equal moral worth. All have an equal, originary capacity of endowing the world with meaning and value because of which they possess moral worth or dignity. If so, we need a different conception of justice, of sharing or distributing, of giving people their due that is consistent with equal dignity. In societies still infested with live hierarchies, people must first struggle for recognition as equals, for what might be called basic social justice. Then, they must decide how to share all social benefits and burdens among equal persons — the essence of egalitarian distributive justice.
Needs and Desert
•Two main contenders exist for interpreting what is due to persons of equal moral worth. For the first need-based principle,what is due to a person is what she really needs, i.e., whatever is necessary for general human well-being. Since our basic needs are identical, justice requires their fulfilment in every single person. Beyond this basic threshold, our needs usually vary, and therefore justice further requires the fulfilment of different needs — say, the specific needs of a scholar, as well as the very different needs of a mountaineer.
•Second, the principle of desert for which what is due to a person is what he or she deserves, determined not by birth or tradition but by a person’s own qualities, for instance ‘natural’ talent or productive effort. In short, though we start as equals, those who are talented or work hard should be rewarded with more benefits and be less burdened. Conversely, those contributing unequally to the creation of wealth or cultural assets, don’t deserve the same benefits yielded by them. This underpins the idea of equal opportunity to all, albeit with justified inequalities of outcome.
Break the deafening silence
•Most reasonable egalitarian conceptions of justice try to find a balance between need and desert. They try to ensure a distribution of goods and abilities (benefits) that satisfies everyone’s needs, and a fair distribution of social burdens or sacrifices required for fulfilling them. After this, rewards are permissible to those who by virtue of natural gift, social learning and personal effort, deserve more.
•Our society is afflicted by deep material, cultural and knowledge-related inequalities. Worse, these inequalities are growing by the day. Sometimes they are accompanied by blatant assertions of unequal moral worth, though today, a deafening silence on social and distributive justice is more common. It is therefore imperative to ask where we stand in relation to different forms of egalitarian justice mentioned in our Preamble. Alas, we are falling way short of standards of social and distributive justice. When will this trend be reversed? Putting justice back into public discourse should be our priority. Or else, the dreams of our nation will never turn into reality.
📰 Magnets for manufacturing
Devising State-specific industrialisation strategies in coordination with the Centre will improve manufacturing
•Many think that in the aftermath of the pandemic, several manufacturing companies operating from China will relocate their businesses to other destinations, including India. Many American, Japanese, and South Korean companies based in China have initiated discussions with the Indian government to relocate their plants to India. Companies are expected to exit China due to three primary reasons. The first is the realisation that relying heavily on China for building capacities and sourcing manufacturing goods is not an ideal business strategy due to supply chain disruptions in the country caused by COVID-19. The second is the fear of Chinese dominance over the supply of essential industrial goods. The third is the growing risk and uncertainty involved in operating from or dealing with China in the light of geopolitical and trade conflicts between China and other countries, particularly the U.S. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on using the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to pursue the goal of a self-reliant India must be viewed against this background. Can India succeed in attracting manufacturing firms and jobs from China?
India’s position
•India lags far behind China in manufacturing prowess. China ranks first in contribution to world manufacturing output, while India ranks sixth. Against India’s target of pulling up the share of manufacturing in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 25% by 2022, its share stood at 15% in 2018, only half of China’s figure. Industry value added grew at an average annual rate of 10.68% since China opened up its economy in 1978. In contrast, against the target of 12%, the manufacturing sector has grown at 7% after India opened up its economy. Next to the European Union, China was the largest exporter of manufactured goods in 2018, with an 18% world share. India is not part of the top 10 exporters who accounted for 83% of world manufacturing exports in 2018.
•This contrasting trend is not surprising because compared to China, India faces numerous constraints in promoting the manufacturing sector. They chiefly include infrastructure constraints, a disadvantageous tax policy environment, a non-conducive regulatory environment, high cost of industrial credit, poor quality of the workforce, rigid labour laws, restrictive trade policies, low R&D expenditure, delays and constraints in land acquisition, and the inability to attract large-scale foreign direct investment into the manufacturing sector. Unless these challenges are addressed, the dream of making India a manufacturing powerhouse rivalling China would be difficult to realise.
Role of states
•Since India follows a federal government system, a lasting solution to these constraints cannot be possible without the active participation of State governments and effective policy coordination between the Centre and the States. Currently, manufacturing growth in India has been powered majorly by Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. An important requirement for the development of the manufacturing sector is the availability of land area. This could be one of the reasons why manufacturing activity is mainly concentrated in these five States which cover a substantial portion of India’s geographical area. However, what is of concern is that some States that also have large land area contribute disproportionately little in manufacturing GSDP. These include Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Telangana, and West Bengal. The reasons for less manufacturing activity in these States have to be carefully examined, and based on this, State-specific industrialisation strategies need to be devised and implemented in a mission mode with active hand-holding by the Central government. Strong and carefully designed policy actions on the part of individual States would improve India’s overall investment climate, thereby boosting investments, jobs, and economic growth. In addition to its initiatives aimed at attracting manufacturing companies looking to relocate their plants to India from China, the Centre has urged the States to evolve their plans. However, such a strategy would be more effective if the policy actions of the Centre and the States are well coordinated.
•In this context, a suggestion put forth by Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is worth attempting. To promote electronic manufacturing, he suggested forming a Strategy Group consisting of representatives from the Central and State governments along with top industry executives. The purpose is to instil teamwork and leverage ideas through sharing the best practices of the Centre and States. A similar approach is needed for developing the whole manufacturing sector.
