📰 India flags ‘green pass’ issue
Reciprocal restrictions for EU countries barring Indian entry, say sources
•India took issue with the European Union’s plans to institute a “green pass” from July 1, with government sources warning that India will introduce a “reciprocal policy” only allowing ease of travel for those European countries that recognise Indian vaccines Covishield and Covaxin.
•The latest twist to the controversy of the European Union’s Digital Covid Certificate came a day after External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met with his EU counterpart High Representative Josep Borrell Fontelles.
•In a tweet after the meeting, Mr. Jaishankar indicated that he raised the issue of possible restrictions on Indian travellers in the EU if they do not have one of four vaccines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), that include the European-made AstraZeneca vaccine but not the Indian-made Covishield by the Serum Institute of India (SII) or Covaxin by Bharat Biotech.
•“We have requested EU Member States to individually consider extending similar exemption to those persons who have taken COVID-19 vaccines in India, that is, Covishield and Covaxin, and accept the vaccination certificate issued through the CoWIN portal,” the sources said on Wednesday.
•“We have also conveyed to EU Member States that India will institute a reciprocal policy for recognition of the EU Digital Covid Certificate,” the sources added, making it clear that only citizens of those countries in the 27-member grouping who make exemptions for travellers inoculated with the Indian vaccines would be given an exemption from mandatory quarantine on arrival in India.
Letter of protest
•The government’s statement, made through officials who did not wish to be identified, came even though the European Union had issued a detailed clarification, denying its plan was discriminatory. The African Union had also issued a letter of protest over the EU proposal saying that it promoted “inequality” for those from India and “lower-income” countries for whom the Covishield vaccine was the “backbone” of the international COVAX alliance programme.
•The EU had also explained that SII had not applied for the requisite permissions with the EMA, and had promised to consider its case as soon as it applied. However, New Delhi now appears to be taking the position that the EMA must consider the Indian-made vaccine by accepting the CoWin certificate, regardless of the applications.
•The government’s stand is especially significant since while Covishield has received World Health Organization authorisation, Covaxin is yet to be cleared by the global health body.
Giving an injection requires ‘sophisticated and advanced knowledge’, states letter
•The Federation of Delhi Government Nurses has written to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal protesting against allegedly “allowing” people, after a training of two weeks, to administer injections and also calling them “community nursing assistants”.
•On June 16, Mr. Kejriwal had announced that 5,000 persons will be trained to work as assistants to doctors and nurses and will perform the tasks assigned to them.
•“The trainees will be taught how to measure oxygen, blood pressure and how to inject medicines,” the Delhi government said in a statement on Monday.
•The two-week training of 500 such assistants has already begun with an aim to tackle a possible third wave.
•“An injection is not just a mechanical process but it requires a sophisticated advanced knowledge of human anatomy to avoid fatal consequences. It is also suggested that only trained nursing personnel be appointed for injection and vaccination for patient safety,” the letter dated June 29 read.
•Jagdish Kulhari, the president of the organisation, said the development will be “disastrous” for people.
‘3- to 4-year course’
•“The government is saying that in two weeks these community nursing assistants will be trained for giving injections. They will be given a certificate after their training. But how can you train them to give injections in two weeks? We nurses have to undergo three or four-year courses and the government is now going to teach these people anatomy and how to give injections in two weeks?” he said.
•The letter said there are “thousands” of nursing personnel available in Delhi and waiting for a job. “Recently, many Delhi government hospitals like Indira Gandhi Hospital, Dwarka; LBS Hospital, Khichripur; Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Raghuveer Nagar; advertised for contractual jobs through walk-in interviews. Thousands of trained nursing personnel reached there and the hospital administrations were not able to manage the situation,” the letter said.
•Mr. Kulhari said the association has around 1,500 nurses from eight Delhi government-run hospitals.
📰 Cabinet approves viability gap funding to roll out BharatNet
The project will be implemented through PPP model in 16 States.
•The Union Cabinet on Wednesday approved a viability gap funding support of up to ₹19,041 crore for the implementation of the BharatNet project through Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model in 16 States.
•The project will be extended to all inhabited villages beyond the gram panchayats in 16 States — Kerala, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said.
•“The Cabinet has in-principle approved implementation of BharatNet in 16 States in a public-private partnership model with a total expense of ₹29,430 crore. The Government of India will only spend the viability gap fund of ₹19,041 crore,” the Minister said, adding that an estimated 3.61 lakh villages, including gram panchayats, would be covered via BharatNet.
•An official release added that the revised strategy will include creation, upgrading, operation, maintenance and utilisation of BharatNet by the concessionaire or the private sector partner, who will be selected by a competitive international bidding process.
High speed services
•“The PPP Model will leverage private sector efficiency for operation, maintenance, utilisation and revenue generation and is expected to result in the faster roll out of BharatNet. The selected concessionaire is expected to provide reliable, high speed broadband services as per pre-defined Services Level Agreement (SLA),” it added.
•The private sector partner is expected to bring an equity investment and raise resources towards capital expenditure and for operation and maintenance of the network.
•Extension of BharatNet to all inhabited villages will enable better access to e-services offered by various governments, enable online education, telemedicine, skill development, e-commerce and other applications of broadband, Mr. Prasad said, adding that this would help bridge the rural-urban divide of digital access.
📰 India’s 1991 liberalisation leap and lessons for today: Montek Singh Ahluwalia
The reforms were hugely successful but a lot remains to be done, says one of the architects of the transition
•Three decades after India embarked upon the path of economic liberalisation, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, one of the key figures of the reform process, former Deputy Chairman of the erstwhile Planning Commission and currently Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP), discusses in an interview with The Hindu the transition of the Indian economy, what remains to be done, and the road ahead after recovery from the slowdown induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Edited excerpts:
How would you describe the evolution of the economy since 1991?
•The reforms were aimed at unleashing the energies of the private sector to accelerate economic growth and to do so in a manner that ensured an adequate flow of benefits to the poor. They certainly succeeded in this objective.
•The full benefits took time to materialise because a gradualist approach was adopted — entirely understandable in a democracy — but the results are dramatic if we look at a longer time frame. The GDP growth averaged 7% in the 25 years from 1992 to 2017, compared with an average of 5% in the preceding ten years and 4% in the preceding 20! And as growth accelerated, poverty declined. Between 2004-05 and 2011-12, the last year for which official data on poverty are available, about 140 million people were pulled above the poverty line. This is not to say that there were no shortcomings. Some of the reforms begun in 1991, especially in the financial sector, have yet to be completed. We have not done as much as we should have in the health and education sectors; environmental concerns have not been adequately built into our development strategy. This only shows that a great deal remains to be done. After all, we are still at the lower end of the middle-income group of countries and many more reforms are needed to get to the top of the group.
In his book, Confessions of a Swadeshi Reformer, former Union Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha has said that a lot of the blueprint for the liberalisation was already on the table when the Narasimha Rao government took charge. Could you give us a glimpse of that period and what were the key changes being worked out before the change of the regime?
•I have written on this subject in my book Backstage, but let me attempt a brief encapsulation. To get a glimpse of the period, one should consider the main features of the control system before the reforms and see how it restricted entrepreneurship.
•The private sector was not allowed to invest in a number of sectors thought to be critical for development. The so-called “commanding heights” were reserved for the public sector despite its lacklustre performance. Where the private sector was allowed, it could invest only after getting an industrial licence, and that was especially hard to get for “large” industrial houses. Over 860 items were reserved exclusively for small-scale producers, including many that had very high export potential. Imports were more strictly controlled than in almost any other developing country because it was felt necessary to conserve scarce foreign exchange. Consumer goods simply could not be imported so domestic producers faced no import competition. Producers could import capital goods and intermediates needed for production, but this generally required an import licence. This was given only if the government was satisfied that the import was essential and domestic substitutes were not available. Finally, the import of technology was controlled and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) was discouraged.
•It was clearly not a system geared to encourage enterprise or innovation. I am reminded of George Santayana’s much-quoted words: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.” Since most of the population today has no recollection of the control system we had earlier, I hope it will serve to ensure that we never slip back to these absurdities.
•Efforts were made in the 1980s to liberalise the system but these were incremental changes. The system itself remained in place. By 1990, it was clear that drastic change was needed. I had the opportunity to prepare a paper outlining a core set of industrial and trade policy reforms, combined with exchange rate reform and reforms in the public sector. This paper, dubbed by the media as the ‘M Document’, generated a great deal of controversy, but several people supported the need for these reforms. Around that time, the Ministry of Industry under Ajit Singh (newly returned from the United States) proposed bold liberalisation of industrial licencing, but he was opposed by the Finance Ministry under Madhu Dandavate, and only a watered-down version was announced.
•As Commerce Secretary in the Chandra Shekhar government, I started working on trade policy reforms along the lines suggested in the ‘M Document’, including bringing in Eximscrips, as a first step in moving to a flexible exchange rate. In April 1991, Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was then Adviser to Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, delivered the convocation address at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, where he outlined what he thought were the key reforms needed. It included many of the suggestions in the ‘M Document’ and went beyond them.
•In other words, the ideas that finally went into the reforms were on the table before 1991. But they had not been approved politically. It was the P.V. Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh duo that implemented them in 1991. The fact that the economy was in a crisis helped, but their success is also due to the fact that there was a well-thought-out policy package to implement.
•Even so, it was not easy. Both the Right and the Left opposed the reforms. The Congress party itself had many who were not convinced. Indian businesses were also conflicted. They liked domestic liberalisation, but were unhappy at the entry of foreign competition, both through imports and FDI.
Some pending factor market reforms, in areas such as labour and land, remain hanging. Are they not holding up investment?
•Yes, these are key pending items. The need for labour market reforms was recognised, but it was thought that we should first get the industrial, trade and financial sector reforms to show positive results and take up labour market reforms later ... In a meeting with businessmen in 2006, PM Manmohan Singh was asked about labour market reforms. He said ... if we could get the economy to grow at 10%, it would be easier to persuade labour. We did grow at over 9% for a few years but persuading labour proved to be difficult. The current government has made a start on labour market reforms but we have to see how they are implemented.
•On the land market, I must admit that it was not on our agenda. One reason is that land is a State subject and the Centre had enough on its plate. In the UPA [United Progressive Alliance] years, it did get involved in land acquisition because this was an area with a lot of agitation and allegations of heavy-handedness. Unfortunately, the resulting legislation introduced too many conditions, which could greatly delay the process.
India progressively lowered import tariffs from an estimated 57.5% in 1992 to 8.9% in 2008, but this trend has been reversed over the past few years. While this appears to be in line with rising protectionism globally, can India afford to do this if it wants to play a greater role in world trade?
•I feel the reversal of a trend that was followed by several governments, including the NDA [National Democratic Alliance] government under former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, is unfortunate. It will hamper our stated ambition to become part of global supply chains. Indian industry has legitimate complaints about poor infrastructure, poor logistics and time-consuming trade procedures, which reduce its competitiveness. But the solution lies in addressing these problems directly, not in raising import duties, which will only raise costs in the economy.
•I also fear that once the government signals a willingness to raise duties to help individual products, it will encourage a flood of demands that will be difficult to resist. The government should engage with Indian industry and other experts to come to an agreement on what the average level of duties should be and how it should be reduced over time. The NITI Aayog under its first Vice-Chairman, Arvind Panagariya, had recommended that we should move to an average duty rate of about 7%, gradually narrowing the range of variation across products and eliminating duty reversals. This is the right approach.
Should we revisit our stance on the RCEP [Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership] even as we try to re-engage with markets such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia for free-trade pacts?
•I was surprised by the Centre’s decision to stay out of the RCEP. It went against the Prime Minister’s earlier positive signal of moving from “Look East” to “Act East”. I assume that there was lobbying from those who fear that the Indian industry would not be able to compete against China, a member of the RCEP.
•As I have already mentioned, the Indian industry has legitimate complaints about things that make India uncompetitive, and these must be addressed directly. The reduction in tariffs required under RCEP was to be accomplished over several years, giving ample time to take the steps needed to improve our competitiveness. As far as unfair competition from China is concerned, the solution lies in a faster method of imposing anti-dumping duties on China, not raising import duties across the board. We should note that geopolitics is forcing major countries to reduce dependence on China. India cannot expect to replace China, but it can reasonably expect to become a major player in non-China-dominated supply chains. RCEP membership would help as it will reassure partners that trade policy will not be arbitrarily changed.
•As for Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the U.S., Europe and the U.K., we have traditionally preferred trade liberalisation in a multilateral forum, but major developed countries seem to be moving away from multilateral negotiations. Working on agreements with important groups bilaterally seems to be the only hope for assuring market access. However, such FTAs will involve more give and take, including on contentious issues such as intellectual property rights and bilateral investment protection, and we must be willing to accept that.
The spectre of jobless growth was a matter of great debate in the UPA years. Did the situation worsen post-UPA even before the pandemic, which of course has led to severe income and job losses?
•Employment was a matter of concern during the UPA period, but it had some positive features. The period was the first time we saw a fall in employment in agriculture, which is a desirable structural shift of labour out of agriculture. But it was accompanied by sufficient growth in total employment in non-agriculture sectors, so that the labour displaced from agriculture was absorbed in non-agriculture. Total employment actually increased...
•The disappointing thing was that employment in manufacturing did not increase as rapidly as one would have liked. This was because we were not able to replicate the East Asian experience of rapid growth in the export of labour-intensive manufactures. Another disappointment was that most of the increase in employment, including in manufacturing, was not regular contractual employment but informal non-contractual employment. It is possible that rigid labour laws were at least partly responsible.
•The post-UPA period before the pandemic has been analysed in a recent study by Santosh Mehrotra and Jajati K. Parida. They find that the substantial slowdown in GDP growth after 2016-17 led to employment actually falling from 474 million in 2011-12 to 469 million in 2018-19. Employment in agriculture continued to decline, reflecting a normal structural change, but unlike the UPA years, non-agricultural employment grew much more slowly. So, open unemployment increased. The problem was most severe among the youth, who experienced unemployment of 18%.
•The COVID-19 pandemic has of course triggered a collapse in employment. According to provisional National Income estimates, GDP contracted by 7.3% in 2020-21. Many analysts say this underestimates the contraction as the adverse impact on the informal sector is not captured. In any case, a sharp fall in the GDP is bound to lead to a contraction in total employment, and we are seeing that in the data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy.
What do you think should be the priorities looking ahead?
•The economy is clearly recovering from the contraction induced by the pandemic, but how quickly it will recover is uncertain. Much depends upon whether we are hit by a third wave, and more importantly on how severe it is. The priority now must be to get the vaccination coverage expanded as soon as possible. This will create conditions conducive to a return to normalcy. The government has set an ambitious target of covering the entire adult population by end-December. Achieving this target or getting as close to it as possible will make the best contribution possible for a quick recovery.
•However, recovery will only take us back to the 2019-20 level ... The real question is, what will be the growth of the economy from 2022-23 onwards? If we only go back to the pre-pandemic growth rate of around 4% to 5%, we will get little respite on the employment front or on reducing poverty. Past experience shows that we need to get back to 7% to 8% growth if we want to make progress on poverty reduction and provide enough jobs for our growing labour force.
•Once the pandemic is brought under control and we are back to the 2019-20 level of production, the government would be well-advised to take a hard look at what caused the slowdown before the pandemic, and then come out with a clear statement of a set of mutually supportive policies that will counter these forces and lead to higher growth and higher employment. It should also come out with a target for post-pandemic growth.
📰 An attempt to silence the film fraternity
The proposed amendments to the cinematograph law will prevent film-makers from making certain kinds of films
•Can we remain silent when there is a proposal to muzzle our society’s voice of creativity and reflection? I have always believed in the power of cinema to transform society and I still do. The belief stems from my personal experiences as a film-maker and I have also seen first-hand what it is to defend one’s constitutional rights. The recent action of the Central government is one such. I am referring to the draft Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021 for which the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has asked for opinions before presenting it to Parliament.
The draft Bill
•My icon, M.K. Gandhi, failed to realise the full potential of cinema and so did E.V. Ramasamy. Imagine if righteous people like them had taken cognisance of this platform? The power of this medium has made me what I am today. Cinema is an auteur’s medium. But it is also the voice of the people and hence the voice of the institution of democracy. Now the Central government is keen to seize that voice of democracy by a single act of Parliament.
•The draft Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill proposes to add a proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act to grant revisionary powers to the Central government to direct re-examination of films that have already been certified for public exhibition. This is done predominantly with a view to empower the government to interfere and influence the independence of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) in certifying films and, more dangerously, to reopen records of already certified films.
•It is pertinent that we understand the present scenario to clearly perceive the excess of the proposed amendment. While the current censorship rules are archaic and redundant and we have been crying ourselves hoarse to abolish the same, inviting artistes to be their own censors, the amendment to provide for revisionary powers to any government after certification is a step further back. This amendment comes close on the heels of the government’s decision, in April 2021, to abolish the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the only resort available now to any film-maker who is aggrieved by a decision of the CBFC is to approach the relevant High Court which would be too expensive and time-consuming for most film-makers.
•Through this amendment, the Central government has sought to usurp powers that are held to be “unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court of India. Portions of Section 6(1) of the principal Act were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. M. Shankarappa (2000). The Court held that “Section 6(1) is a travesty of the rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution”.
Revisionary powers
•The impression that the Central government is trying to create now is that it is powerless to act against complaints received. I had the experience of a State government acting on a complaint and an imaginary scenario. I did showcase my film before its release to my brethren who expressed their apprehensions even after the Censor Board certified it. The imbroglio created over the film’s supposedly inflammatory nature led to the closing of doors of theatres in my own State, all due to political machinations. It is that avenue which this amendment opens out to any government to use its revisionary powers, which it anyway has.
•The government is well empowered to act against complaints received, by submitting itself to judicial review against decisions of the CBFC granting certification, instead of trying to impose executive excess, which was the core principle laid down by the Supreme Court through its order. The Central government seems to have manipulated and manoeuvred this situation since the Tribunal has recently been struck down.
•The draft Bill will only restrict freedom of speech and put a gag on the film fraternity, preventing film-makers from making films on bad governance, social evils, and so on. Further, any executive authority may be emboldened to ban films based on frivolous petitions of groups with vested interests or fringe groups.
•In this age of the Internet, every person is more than a mere soapbox orator. The government is aiming to silence its people. All those who trust and are invested in liberty, equality and fraternity should voice their protest. If temporary myopia is the problem of certain sections of the media and other political parties, then the Makkal Needhi Maiam and I will become the torchbearer.
•The time to rally is now, since the government has invited comments from the public till July 2 before the Bill is taken to Parliament. Acts once passed will affect generations to come.
📰 Reimagining examinations
Disruptions caused by the pandemic call for innovative and holistic methods of assessment
•For students, empowerment and acquisition of knowledge begin when they are properly evaluated in an appropriate examination system through a process that provides immediate results and success.
•The online pattern of examination should not only judge intellectual development, as is prevalent in the present-day examination system, but it must also test the holistic development of students. It is the responsibility of every academician and authority to find the ways and means to conduct online examinations with reliable standards amid the COVID-19 pandemic. To successfully complete examinations during this period, constructive strategies, particularly in the online mode, should be employed, rather than calling for the cancellation of exams.
•The Supreme Court had stated last year that students in higher education cannot be promoted without writing the final-year or terminal semester examinations, and a directive to the University Grants Commission (UGC) had said the States cannot promote students based on internal assessment or past performance. The court made it clear that the States could, under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, postpone final-year or final-semester exams, but they did not have the power to direct universities to promote students based on prior performance, as students’ assessment was the prerogative of the UGC. The UGC rules clearly stated that a degree cannot be granted without examinations.
Inclusive ways
•It is now mandatory that final-year semester examinations should be conducted either online, offline, or a combination of both methods. Therefore, a new examination pattern should be crafted. It must include the assessment of educational objectives of understanding, critical and independent thinking, problem-solving ability, reflective thinking, skill development, and application of knowledge. In other words, a revised system should assess analytical and application skills, rather than mere knowledge in a given time slot. This would enhance the quality and competence of students.
•To restrict copying, answer scripts may be assessed using plagiarism software. With technological tools, monitoring and supervision of students during online examinations is not a difficult task. Many of the world’s leading universities, some premier Indian institutes, and a few State universities conduct examinations online efficiently and fairly through suitable tools.
Looking for alternatives
•An alternative approach may be open-book examinations — it allows students to refer to textbooks or other source material while answering questions. Students are provided with questions before sitting for the exam, and they can even complete the test at home. This will help counter rote learning, which pervades the current examination system, while also sensitising students to real learning and analytical and application skills. Open-book examination is a well-accepted concept in many countries around the world.
•Last week, the Supreme Court directed States that have cancelled Class 12 examinations of their respective Boards to spell out their assessment plans. It has also cleared the evaluation criteria proposed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) for their Class 12 examinations.
•Testing the knowledge gained and the presentation of that is the essence of education. As Jiddu Krishnamurti said, “It is not that you read a book, pass an examination, and finish with education.” Criticism should be accepted constructively in order to frame an innovative examination system. It is the foremost responsibility of policymakers and educationists to tackle the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
