States should start preparing to implement the changes in the Motor Vehicles Act

The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill passed by the Lok Sabha this week will take a little more time to come into force, since it has not cleared the Rajya Sabha in the Budget session. But the changes that it proposes to the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act of 1988 are significant. The Centre assumes a direct role in the reforms, since it will introduce guidelines that bind State governments in several areas, notably in creating a framework for taxicab aggregators, financing insurance to treat the injured and to compensate families of the dead in hit-and-run cases, prescribing standards for electronically monitoring highways and urban roads for enforcement and modernising driver licensing. There is a dire need to have clear rules and transparent processes in all these areas, since transport bureaucracies have remained unresponsive to the needs of a growing economy that is witnessing a steady rise in motorisation. The bottleneck created by their lack of capacity has stifled regulatory reform in the transport sector and only encouraged corruption. There is some concern that the move to amend the MV Act overly emphasises the concurrent jurisdiction of the Centre at the cost of State powers, but the proposed changes come after a long consultation exercise. A group of State Transport Ministers went into the reform question last year, while the comprehensive recommendations of the Sundar Committee on road safety have been left on the back burner for nearly a decade.

It may appear counter-intuitive, but research shows that imposing stricter penalties tends to reduce the level of enforcement of road rules. As the IIT Delhi’s Road Safety in India report of 2015 points out, the deterrent effect of law depends on the severity and swiftness of penalties, but also the perception that the possibility of being caught for violations is high. The amendments to the MV Act set enhanced penalties for several offences, notably drunken driving, speeding, jumping red lights and so on, but periodic and ineffective enforcement, which is the norm, makes it less likely that these will be uniformly applied. Without an accountable and professional police force, the ghastly record of traffic fatalities, which stood at 1,46,133 in 2015, is unlikely to change. On another front, State governments must prepare for an early roll-out of administrative reforms prescribed in the amended law, such as issuing learner’s licences online, recording address changes through an online application, and electronic service delivery with set deadlines. Indeed, to eliminate corruption, all applications should be accepted by transport departments online, rather than merely computerising them. Protection from harassment for good samaritans who help accident victims is something the amended law provides, and this needs to be in place.

The Army must act quickly on reports of the use of a human shield by its personnel

Reports of Army personnel using a young man as a human shield in Jammu and Kashmir’s Budgam district must not only invite a swift inquiry and justice, but also compel the Army and the government to issue clear statements on the unacceptability of this shocking practice. A short video clip that went viral on Friday showed a man tied to the bonnet of an Army jeep being driven through the streets, as it escorted election officials on polling day in the Srinagar parliamentary constituency. Heard in the clip, on what appears to be the public address system of the vehicle, are the threatening words, “Paththar bazon ka yeh haal hoga (this shall be the fate of stone-pelters).” The man has subsequently been identified as Farooq Dar, a 26-year-old who embroiders shawls, and the Army personnel are said to belong to the 53 Rashtriya Rifles. There is a lack of total clarity on exactly what happened, including how long Mr. Dar was tied to the bonnet — he says he was subjected to this humiliation as the vehicle passed through 10 to 12 villages, while Army sources have been quoted as saying it was for just about 100 metres. But such questions relating to distance are hardly the issue. The larger point here is that if he was indeed forcibly strapped on to the bonnet, it amounts to an instance of gross human rights violation, and must officially be called out in clear terms.

Human shields have often been used cynically by terrorist organisations — theIslamic State uses civilians as shields in its battles, and the LTTE used them in the closing stages of the civil war in Sri Lanka. To use a person as a human shield is to abduct him, to hold him hostage, and to potentially put him in harm’s way. There is no argument that the Army, which is caught in a situation in which terrorists attempt to blend in with the civilian population, is fighting a difficult and unenviable battle. But the difficulties in fighting a hybrid war do not constitute a justification for the use of human shields, which is categorised as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions. Only a couple of days before the human shield video surfaced, another one — which showed CRPF personnel exercising admirable restraint as they were pushed and beaten by youth in Kashmir — had gone viral. It is ironic and hypocritical that some of those who commended such self-control are now defending the indefensible use of a human shield. It is true that the polling in Srinagar was held in a hostile environment, the abysmally low 7% turnout being a reflection of local alienation as well as intimidation by militants to keep people away from voting. But the security bandobast was aimed precisely to reassure the people and not to force an ‘us vs them’ binary. The Army must expedite the inquiry and act against the erring personnel where warranted. Its response must also publicly affirm its Code of Conduct vis-à-vis civilians, which includes the clause, “Violation of human rights… must be avoided under all circumstances, even at the cost of operational success”. To do any less would amount to being a party to rights violations.

Justice C.S. Karnan’s continuance as a judge makes a mockery of the rule of law

He has brought the judiciary into disrepute, flouted all norms of judicial conduct and thrown an open challenge to the Supreme Court. His continuance as a judge makes a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. The case of Justice C.S. Karnan is no longer just strange or curious; it is disgraceful and intolerable. The Calcutta High Court judge’s ‘order’ summoning the Chief Justice of India and six judges of the Supreme Court to his ‘residential court’ to face punishment under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is yet another unacceptable affront to the apex court’s authority. Justice Karnan’s conduct goes against the assurance he gave the Chief Justice of India last year that he would foster a “harmonious attitude towards one and all”. At that time, he had expressed regret for passing a suo motu order staying his own transfer from the Madras High Court to the Calcutta High Court, admitting that it was an “erroneous order” passed due to “mental frustration, resulting in loss of mental balance”. The latest instance of his misconduct is in response to thecontempt proceedings initiated against him by the Supreme Court for denigrating the judicial institution by making sweeping allegations, in a letter to the Prime Minister, against several judges. He had appeared in person before a seven-judge Bench on March 31, and was given four weeks to respond to the charge of contempt of court. It is quite apparent that he is only further damaging his own case.

The recalcitrant judge has a long history of alleging corruption among other judges, accusing some of caste discrimination against him, and often invoking his caste identity to take complaints against his peers and even Chief Justices to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. In the past, he has passed judicial orders on matters pertaining to the selection of judges, even after being barred by a Division Bench from hearing them. He had once barged into a court during a hearing, and on another occasion into the chamber of the Madras High Court Chief Justice, “hurling a volley of invectives”. Public criticism, transfer to another High Court, being hauled up for contempt and being denied judicial work — nothing seems to restrain him. The only option left is impeachment, but it is a political process involving Parliament and is something he himself may want so he can give full play to his alleged grievances, including those based on his caste. Justice Karnan’s case vividly exposes the inadequacies of the collegium system of appointments. Nothing makes a better case for the infusion of greater transparency in the selection of judges than his current presence in the High Court.

The stage is set for Turkey’s strongman to assume even more power,.,.,.,,.,,.

The path is now clear for Turkey to be transformed from a parliamentary democracy to a presidential republic, after a referendum on constitutional reforms proposed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (or AKP) gave the nod for handing sweeping powers to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The “Yes” campaign won by a relatively narrow margin, with a little more than 51% of the vote, and the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) cited irregularities, including the use of unstamped ballot papers. The three biggest cities, Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, voting “No” also indicates that much work remains to be done by the incumbents to bridge the rift within the polity. However, the head of the electoral body said the vote was valid. This remarkable turn of events, which will echo through the region and beyond, marks a step change from Turkey’s historical tryst with representative democracy. The idea of major constitutional reforms of this sort has been in the making at least since 2014, when Mr. Erdogan became Turkey’s first directly elected president. Nevertheless, many in Turkey and elsewhere, including anxious liberals across the EU, will watch with concern as the 18 major reforms on the table now will centralise power to an unprecedented extent in Mr. Erdogan’s hands, raising valid questions about the separation of powers in the Turkish government.

The new executive powers that will accrue to Mr. Erdogan if he wins the 2019 elections, a very likely outcome, include the abolition of the post of Prime Minister and the transfer of that power to the President; authority to appoint members to the judiciary; and the removal of the bar on the President maintaining party affiliation. These changes could presage overwhelming AKP control of state institutions, which in turn could lead to, for example, a purge in the judiciary and the security forces. Mr. Erdogan has in the past accused the judiciary of being influenced by the U.S.-based Islamic preacher, Fethullah Gülen, besides attacking members of the security forces in the aftermath of the failed coup in July 2016. That these fears are not exaggerated is clear from the fact that tens of thousands of officials have been dismissed and dozens of journalists and opposition politicians arrested since that time, not to mention Mr. Erdogan’s diplomatic spats with the Netherlands and Germany during the harsh campaign leading up to the referendum. Turkey today faces myriad problems, many stemming from the civil war in Syria. But the greatly empowered Mr. Erdogan would do well to design his future policies not only as a reaction to these forces but also as the means to enhance Turkey’s unique effort in reconciling pluralist democracy with political Islam, and Western-style liberalism with populist nationalism.

The HIV/AIDS Bill provides a solid base for further empowerment and treatment access,

The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Bill passed by Parliament does not guarantee access to anti-retroviral drugs and treatment for opportunistic infections, but there is no denying that it is a good base for an active health rights movement to build upon. Understandably, HIV-positive people in the country, estimated at over 21 lakh, are disappointed that the Centre’s commitment to take all measures necessary to prevent the spread of HIV or AIDS is not reflected in the Bill, in the form of the right to treatment. The law only enjoins the States to provide access “as far as possible”. Beyond this flaw, though, the legislation empowers those who have contracted the infection in a variety of ways: such as protecting against discrimination in employment, education, health-care services, getting insurance and renting property. It is now for the States to show strong political commitment, and appoint one or more ombudsmen to go into complaints of violations and submit reports as mandated by the law. Here again, State rules should prescribe a reasonable time limit for inquiries into complaints, something highlighted by the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare that scrutinised the legislation.

Access to insurance for persons with HIV is an important part of the Bill, and is best handled by the government. The numbers are not extraordinarily large and new cases are on the decline, according to the Health Ministry. Data for 2015 published by the Ministry show that two-thirds of HIV-positive cases are confined to seven States, while three others have more than one lakh cases each. Viewed against the national commitment to Goal 3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals — to “end the epidemic of AIDS” (among others) by 2030 — a rapid scaling up of interventions to prevent new cases and to offer free universal treatment is critical. Publicly funded insurance can easily bring this subset of care-seekers into the overall risk pool. Such a measure is also necessary to make the forward-looking provisions in the new law meaningful, and to provide opportunities for education, skill-building and employment. As a public health concern, HIV/AIDS has a history of active community involvement in policymaking, and a highly visible leadership in the West. It would be appropriate for the Centre to initiate active public consultations to draw up the many guidelines to govern the operation of the law. Evidently, the requirement for the ombudsman to make public the periodic reports on compliance will exert pressure on States to meet their obligations. In an encouraging sign, the Supreme Court has ruled against patent extensions on frivolous grounds, putting the generic drugs industry, so crucial for HIV treatment, on a firm footing. The HIV and AIDS Bill may not be the answer to every need, but it would be a folly not to see its potential to make further gains.

In Patidar bastion Surat, PM Modi sets tone for BJP with eye on Gujarat state polls

On his first visit to his home state Gujarat after a stunning victory in the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, a grand welcome for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Surat by the BJP set the tone for the crucial assembly elections to be held later this year.

Through the 12km long roadshow – also seen as a show of strength – in the city that has emerged as the nerve centre for the Patidar agitation for OBC quota, the BJP tried to assert its position in the state. For the BJP, which has already set its eyes on the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, holding on to its bastion for the sixth consecutive term will be another stepping stone after conquering Uttar Pradesh.

With the Congress making hardly any visible effort to resurrect after winning countryside in the 2015 local body elections, the Hardik Patel-led disgruntled Patidars, a crucial vote bank for the BJP, have emerged as the biggest challenge for the BJP in its 22nd year of rule.

Picking Surat for the roadshow is significant in more way than one for BJP. While it is the main centre of south Gujarat, reaching out to a large number of diamond polishers who have migrated from Saurashtra will also have ripple effects in this politically most important region of the state.

Opting to inaugurate the Kiran Multispeciality Hospital – built by the Surat Municipal Corporation with help from a trust financed by Patidar businessmen – will send out a loud and clear message that the community is with the BJP. Besides, Modi will also inaugurate a diamond factory where Patidars from Saurashtra form a major chunk of the workforce.

In a way, the roadshow was also seen as an answer to the embarrassment that the party faced after BJP president Amit Shah was forced to cut short his speech in September 2016 when Hardik’s supporters created ruckus at his rally venue.

The stretch from the city airport to the Circuit House witnessed a Diwali-like atmosphere, with a sea of people queuing up on either side of illuminated streets to catch a glimpse of the PM who kept waving at the crowd through the sunroof of his SUV. The lighting arrangement along the route was done to project the Tricolur.

Earlier, chief minister Vijay Rupani welcomed Modi at the airport. Muslim women in significant numbers were seen outside the airport, also waiting to welcome him. A kit held by them in their hands read, ’Bandh ho ye anyay, PM hai hamari aas’. It was seen as a reference to the issue of triple talaq against which the NDA government has taken a firm stand.

Known as the textile city that produces sarees, the route near the airport was decorated with sarees with development schemes and projects printed on it. A 20-foot statue and cutouts of Modi dotted the route.

Eye on Muslim women vote, Narendra Modi gets combative on triple talaq

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was combative, and certainly not defensive, when he spoke at the BJP conclave in Bhubaneswar about a ban on the Islamic marriage practice of triple talaq. He tried to achieve twin objectives: Touch a chord with Muslim women and drill into the head of BJP leaders that they don’t need to be defensive on this issue.

Modi asked BJP leaders to stand by every Muslim woman who fights for her rights and oppose the practice. Under Muslim personal law based on the Sharia, a Muslim man can divorce his wife by pronouncing talaq thrice. Muslim men are also allowed to have four wives.

BJP leaders have been given assignments to hold conferences, travel across the country and resort to other means to spread awareness about Modi government’s position on this centuries-old practice.

The Modi government’s position on triple talaq and the Prime Minister reaffirming that position at the party conclaves serves two purposes for the BJP.

It helps India’s ruling party to reach out to a large section of Muslim women who have been opposing the practice. Largely, Muslims in India vote against the BJP and a section within the ruling party expect Modi’s stand on triple talaq to win over a large section of Muslim women, at least in the future if not immediately.

Also, it helps the BJP drive home a point among Hindus that Modi, as their leader, was trying reform within Muslim community, which has perhaps not allowed equal opportunity and status to its women. Any aggressive posturing on the issue of triple talaq, BJP sources said, will be received well within the party’s core support base.

Gender equality is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and non-negotiable, the Centre told the Supreme Court in October last year while opposing the practices of triple talaq and polygamy in the Muslim community.

This was the first time the Indian government officially took a stand to oppose the contentious custom that has divided the community, with women’s groups and individuals advocating sweeping reforms in Muslim personal law that is tilted against women.

India has separate sets of personal laws for each religion governing marriage, divorce, succession, adoption and maintenance. While Hindu law overhaul began in the 1950s and continues, activists have long argued that Muslim personal law has remained mostly unchanged. 

Thanks god for providing