The two AIADMK groups are confused, being faced with conflicting pulls and pressures

The decision of the ruling faction of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, the AIADMK (Amma), to distance itself from members of the V.K. Sasikala family comes at a time when there is an unmistakable and growing public resentment against them. This has been compounded by what is allegedly Ms. Sasikala’s nephew T.T.V. Dhinakaran’s latest folly — a brazen attempt to bribe Election Commission officials to secure the election symbol of Two Leaves; the AIADMK’s deputy general secretary and other family members were becoming a political liability. At the same time, with the EC freezing the symbol, a section of the AIADMK (Amma) leadership saw a reunification with the splinter formation headed by former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam as essential to long-term survival. The choice seemed one between swimming together or sinking separately. Interestingly, neither Ms. Sasikala nor Mr. Dhinakaran seems to be putting up any stiff resistance to the ouster. Also, many in the group perceived to be close to the Sasikala family went along with the decision without a whimper. Given this, there is suspicion that the ‘ouster’, forced by circumstances and carried out in the larger interest, was not entirely bereft of a little stage management.

Ms. Sasikala and Mr. Dhinakaran may well regard what transpired as a strategic retreat rather than an irrevocable order to political exile. Both are aware they have at least a handful of diehard loyalists within the ruling camp — possibly enough to threaten the Edappadi K. Palaniswami government’s narrow majority in the Assembly. Many ministers remain beholden to the family and may well find it difficult to antagonise their one-time benefactors. It will be no surprise if both strive to retain their political influence, even while appearing reconciled to being sidelined. The party’s television channels, its publications, and resources remain in the control of the Sasikala clan. A shared desire for political stability, reflected in the fact that no MLA would want an immediate election, could ward off a total rupture in the ranks. Indeed, if such stability is to be reinforced and is to sustain in the longer run, a patch-up with the rival AIADMK faction is the only viable course. However, for the Panneerselvam faction, merging with the AIADMK (Amma) presents both an opportunity and a cause for dilemma. While they may get to rejoin the government, the worry lies in the risk of being swamped by the rival group. Also, given that the Panneerselvam faction was formed on the basis of opposition towards the Sasikala family, it would be suicidal to merge with the AIADMK (Amma) in the absence of clarity about the real nature of the ouster. The moves and counter-moves currently afoot reflect conflicting pulls and pressures — the basic dilemma here being the conflict between reflecting the public mood and remaining together for the sake for political power.

Afghanistan and its allies need a coherent, gritty plan to roll back Taliban advances. . . . . . .

.....The attack on a military base in Afghanistan on Friday, in which at least 140 people, mostly unarmed soldiers, died, speaks volumes about the state of security in the war-ravaged country. It was the deadliest attack by the Afghan Taliban since they were ousted from power in 2001. The 209th Army Corps base in Balkh province that was targeted is the army’s northern headquarters, responsible for security in nine of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. By running over such a fortified structure, the Taliban are effectively challenging the professionalism, resolve and resources of the entire force. Over the last few years, the Taliban had lost two of their topmost leaders. Besides, there were reports of factionalism and infighting within the group after the death of Mullah Omar. Yet, the Taliban made steady and substantial gains in the civil war over the last couple of years, since most American troops withdrew from Afghanistan as part of the drawdown plan. Now the group controls or has influence in more than half the country. In recent years it had carried out multiple attacks on government buildings, including the Parliament building, sending a clear message to the government and its international backers that there is no place in Afghanistan that lies outside the Taliban’s range.

Each time such an attack takes place, the Afghan government issues a statement on terror and vows to continue fighting. But despite these assurances, there is no real progress visible on the ground. Last year alone, more than 6,700 members of the Afghan security forces were killed, the highest since 2001. High casualties destroy the morale of the troops and erode the public’s faith in the country’s institutions, which already have a reputation of being highly corrupt. Kabul’s erratic and sometimes incoherent responses to the Taliban threat also expose its lack of conviction. Its overall security approach, as the latest attacks suggest, is in a shambles. The armed forces are not able to stall the Taliban’s advances. Its political reforms and attempts to reach out to the rural populace get nowhere as the Taliban are expanding their hold in the countryside. Even the attempts to reach a negotiated settlement were counterproductive, given the lack of cooperation from Pakistan and the Taliban’s refusal to make any meaningful compromise. But why would the Taliban compromise at a time when they think they’re making gains in the war? In order to forge a long-term political solution, the Afghan government first needs to alter the balance of power on the ground; and for that it needs international support. The U.S. would do well to help the Afghan security forces craft a credible, sustainable military strategy and provide them more resources and training to take on the Taliban. Theatrics such as dropping the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan may make headlines, but, as last week’s attack suggests, they hardly deter the militants.

It’s time 295A and 153A of the IPC are revisited, to end vexatious criminal prosecution.... ..... ....

...............................The Supreme Court has intervened to spare cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni the ordeal of facing a criminal trial for allegedly insulting the Hindu religion by being featured in the likeness of a deity on the cover of a business magazine. The court quashed a criminal complaint filed against him in Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, a provision that makes “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings” a punishable offence. The court said there was no deliberate intent on the part of the cricketer or the magazine to hurt religious sentiments. It drew upon the interpretation given to Section 295A by a Constitution Bench as early as in 1957 that it only “punishes the aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class”. It is a matter of satisfaction that the highest court intervenes from time to time to stymie attempts by those claiming that their religious sentiments are offended by some act or remark of celebrities and dragging them to courts in different parts of the country. Judicial relief does come in the end, but the bitter truth is that the process is the punishment; it is time our lower courts stop taking reflexive cognisance of trivial or vexatious cases filed on the basis that the religious, caste or cultural sensitivities of some group have been offended.

In essence, Section 295A is a thinly disguised blasphemy law — the only difference being that it is ‘secular’ insofar as it applies to all religions or all forms of religious insult. A close cousin of this provision is another much misused section of the IPC — 153A. Intended to punish those who promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence and language, and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony, this section has been employed to harass writers and artists and cast a chill on free expression. The problem with insult laws, irrespective of the form they assume, is that they are inherently subjective. There is no guessing what causes insult/offence/hurt to people, leaving it open for such provisions to be blatantly misused. In this respect, Section 295A and 153A resemble our controversial contempt of court law — there is no saying what will scandalise a judge and therefore no saying when and for what contempt may be invoked. The two IPC provisions encourage the creation of what novelist Monica Ali described as a “marketplace of outrage” — an economy that feeds on anger and hostility. They need to be read down, their scope narrowed in a way that moral vigilantes and those who affect an emotional victimhood can no longer exploit the law to serve their narrow chauvinistic ends.

French voters assert their anti-establishment mood in the first round of presidential polls. . . . . .

The French follow their hearts in the first round, and their heads in the run-off — or so goes the cliché about France’s politics. But the first round of this year’s presidential election was held in such a highly charged environment that voters did not have easy choices before them. And the outcome was unusual, though not totally unexpected. For the first time in the nearly 59 years of France’s Fifth Republic founded by Charles de Gaulle, neither of the mainstream left and right parties made it to the run-off, a clear indication of anti-establishment sentiment running high. All these years, France has been ruled either by a Socialist party leader or a conservative Republican. In the May 7 run-off, the fight is between Emmanuel Macron, an independent centrist with no substantial political experience, and Marine Le Pen, the far-right populist leader of the National Front. Mr. Macron, who campaigned on a pro-Europe political platform with promises of economic reforms and better governance, won 23.75% of the vote, while Ms. Le Pen, who during the campaign repeatedly attacked the EU, globalisation and France’s immigration policies to drum up support, came second, polling 21.53%. François Fillon of the Republican party finished third, while Benoît Hamon of the ruling Socialist Party came a distant fifth.

Opinion polls predict that Mr. Macron will win the second round as a majority of voters regard Ms. Le Pen and her party as dangerous for France’s democracy and its values. This is not the first time a National Front candidate is entering the second round. In 2002, Jean Marie Le Pen, Ms. Le Pen’s father, shocked France by making it past the first round, but lost by a massive margin to Jacques Chirac, the incumbent. Large sections of the French political spectrum, from the conservatives to the leftists, then rallied behind Mr. Chirac to defeat the far-right, Holocaust-denying Mr. Le Pen. This year as well, as soon as the results of the first round were out, most of the 11 candidates, including Mr. Fillon and Mr. Hamon, announced support for Mr. Macron. If this support reflects in the popular will, Mr. Macron will repeat history. Still, Ms. Le Pen’s chances cannot be ruled out. She has brought the National Front from the dark fringes of French politics to the mainstream by what analysts call “detoxifying” it — toning down the overt racist rhetoric of her father and broadening the party’s appeal by mixing a strong anti-globalisation position with extreme nationalism. Her attacks on open borders and immigration resonated with at least sections of the youth at a time when unemployment is in double digits. In the coming two weeks, the political landscape is likely to get more polarised. It is a stark choice for French voters. Their decision will have a profound impact not just on France, but Europe as a whole.

NITI Aayog’s shift away from five-year plans requires more substance. . . . . . . .

Narendra Modi is not the first Chief Minister to have gone on to become Prime Minister. But given his well-known disdain for the erstwhile Planning Commission’s control-and-command approach towards States and his oft-repeated emphasis on ‘cooperative federalism’, there were great expectations from the successor organisation, the NITI Aayog. The Five Year Plans — the last one ended on March 31 — were relegated to history, to be replaced by a three-year action plan. This was to be part of a seven-year strategy that would in turn help realise a 15-year long-term vision. When the Aayog’s Governing Council that includes the Prime Minister and all Chief Ministers met, it was hoped that the fine print as well as the big picture of the new planning approach had been worked out. However, all that was handed out was a draft action agenda for the three years till 2019-20, with 300 specific action points. This agenda is meant to be the first step towards attaining the envisioned outcomes by 2031-32. This ‘New India’, as NITI Aayog Vice Chairman Arvind Panagariya put it, will ensure housing for all, with toilets, LPG, power and digital connections; access to a personal vehicle, air conditioner and white goods for ‘nearly all’; and a fully literate population with universal health care.

Assuming that the economy grows at 8% annually hereon, the Aayog has presented estimates about the size of the economy and per capita incomes by 2031-32, though juxtaposing these with China’s performance in the last 15 years is a bit odd. India’s GDP will rise by ₹332 lakh crore in the next 15 years, the Aayog reckons. The bare details of the 15-year vision that have been shared seem like motherhood statements with some optimistic numerical guesswork. But even that is more than we know about the seven-year strategy. Without the larger strategy and vision in place, the three-year action plan is likely to be more of an abstract wish list that Chief Ministers will now evaluate and revert on. Effectively, till it is ratified by the Council, there is a vacuum in India’s policy framework — similar to the delayed starts of past Five Year Plans. It is not yet apparent if the 12th Plan’s innovation of painting alternative scenarios (of actions and outcomes) — a more useful tool for longer-term planning — has been adopted. Meanwhile, the PM’s message to States to speed up capital expenditure and infrastructure development is important as pump-priming the economy is not only the Centre’s task. All the same, asking the States to take the initiative on switching India’s financial year to match the calendar year is unusual as it requires the Centre to take the lead by making public the report of the committee that has recommended this. To make cooperative federalism truly effective, the Council, or Team India as Mr. Modi calls it, must meet more often — a nearly two-year gap in doing so is a recipe for communication breakdown.

Russia's Aeroflot airline accused of 'sex discrimination'. ... . .

Russia's flagship carrier Aeroflot is fighting a legal battle with several of its female flight attendants who say it favours slim and attractive cabin crew.

A Moscow court on Tuesday rejected a sex discrimination claim by stewardess Irina Ierusalimskaya.

She plans to appeal, and is backed by a top Russian human rights and trade union official, Boris Kravchenko.

The company argues that every extra kilogram of weight forces Aeroflot to spend more on fuel.

Its application form for would-be flight attendants requires details of height, weight and clothing size.

Staff have to meet a minimum height requirement because they need to store hand luggage in the overhead lockers, Aeroflot says.

The court will soon consider a similar claim from another Aeroflot flight attendant, Yevgenia Magurina.

"A heavy physical build makes it harder for a flight attendant to move around the cabin and provide a smooth service for the passenger," an Aeroflot official told the court.

A company statement said "stewardesses are the face of any airline, and the national carrier's stewardesses are the country's business card".

"One's first impression of Russia, and attitude towards Russia, depends on the stewardesses' appearance and customer service."

Image copyrightAFP

Image captionAeroflot has invested in many new airliners and high-profile global marketing

This week Brand Finance, a major international consultancy, rated Aeroflot as Russia's "most powerful brand".

It beat strong competition for the accolade from Russian business giants like Gazprom, Sberbank and Rosneft.

A Brand Finance report on Russia said Aeroflot "has the youngest fleet of any major airline and is investing heavily in marketing promotion, particularly in Asia".

The airline's brand promotion includes sponsorship of Manchester United FC, "which helps Aeroflot reach a vast audience across East Asia in particular", the report says.

Trade union warning

Aeroflot has improved its customer service since the Soviet period, when it was often the butt of jokes about grumpy stewardesses and unappetising food.

But Boris Kravchenko called Ms Ierusalimskaya's case "an unprecedented case of sex discrimination". He is a member of President Vladimir Putin's Council for Human Rights, and chairs the Russian Labour Confederation.

"The trade unions in this sector have teeth," he said, warning of possible strike action "if such discriminatory behaviour persists". He was speaking to Russia's RBC news website.

Image copyrightAFP

Image captionThe Russian state has a controlling stake in Aeroflot, founded back in Soviet times

In court, the Aeroflot representative said every extra kilogram of weight meant spending an extra 800 roubles (£11; $14) annually on fuel.

He also said a survey carried out for Aeroflot showed that passengers preferred attractive flight attendants and agreed that an airline had a right to stipulate weight limits and clothes sizes for its staff.

Aeroflot says it has "several hundred" stewardesses aged over 40 on its international routes.

'Not a 43kg girl's job'

Ms Ierusalimskaya, aged 45, wants Aeroflot to pay her 1m roubles (£14,000; $17,750) in compensation, Russia's Kommersant news reports. Her clothes size is 52 (XL, under the international system).

She said the airline had transferred her to domestic flights, cutting her income. She complained that Aeroflot's rules required stewardesses to be at least 160cm (5ft 3ins) tall and have a clothes size no larger than 48 (L; 16 in UK; 42 in Germany; 14 in US).

A decorated, veteran Aeroflot pilot, Oleg Smirnov, told BBC Russian that the build of female flight attendants "is an issue for every country's airline".

"Of course a stewardess must be quite elegant, to move between the seats, attend to passengers," he said.

But they also need to be strong enough to handle a heavy inflatable slide in an emergency, he said.

Mikhail Markov, another top pilot, said stewardesses have to be strong enough to lift heavy suitcases quickly. "It's no job for a 43-kilogram girl," he said.

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.