Tamil farmers’ strike over, but agrarian crisis looms large. . . . .

On Sunday, Tamil Nadu chief minister Edappadi Palaniswami met the farmers protesting at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and assured them that their demands would be met in a month’s time. But by convincing the protesting farmers to suspend their agitation, Mr Palaniswami has not addressed the problem — he has only managed to avert what could have soon become a political crisis for both the Centre and state. In the protest that went on for 41 days, the farmers, to highlight their plight, adopted several extreme measures, which included biting into dead mice and snakes, eating grass, and even threatening to drink urine and eat human faeces. In a harrowing protest, farmers hung human skulls, which they claimed were of dead farmers, around their necks.
Though it has now been suspended, the protest highlights the agrarian crisis in Tamil Nadu and many other parts of the country. It is a pity and reflects poorly on the nation when its farmers are pushed to such disturbing, even macabre, means to attract the attention of authorities towards what should be treated as nothing short of a national crisis. If corrective measures are not taken now, it could lead to more farmer suicides and protests.

With an increasing unpredictability in weather patterns, the demand for water is only set to increase. Unless awareness is created on how to judiciously use existing resources and replenish reserves, the requirement for water cannot be met satisfactorily. Also, with supply far below demand, water-related tensions will increase in frequency. The issue of inequality in water availability is set to raise tensions between states, as is seen between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the Cauvery water dispute.

The Centre, along with the states, needs to come up with a solution to address such riparian tensions, and set a template that can be used in the future. But precious little has been done. Basic steps, such as rainwater harvesting, which increases groundwater reserves, have not been made mandatory for every building in urban India.

The farmers’ protests should be a reminder to the government, both at the Centre and states, to focus on addressing the problems faced by them and ensure that farmers are not forced to turn to such measures in the future.

Thanking God For providing me time to sacrifice for uplifting the knowledge of common people..........

India needs an integrated military, not jugaad, to fight future wars. . . . .

India took another small step towards ensuring its defence preparedness is a lot more integrated with the release of joint doctrine encompassing all three military services. The doctrine, an expansion of an earlier more limited version issued in 2010 after the Kargil conflict, also incorporates new domains like cyber-security, non-state terrorism and space.

Such doctrines are largely statements of intent rather than evidence of what is actually taking place operationally on the ground. India, after all, has been kicking around the idea of tri-service joint operations since the 1990s. And the Army, Navy and Air Force still operate 17 separate commands that can carry out military operations together on the basis of the officer corps’ jugaad rather than actual institutional togetherness.

Ad hoc operational co-ordination is a serious problem on a construction site or football team, it is downright dangerous when it comes to a country’s national security. The Kargil conflict, and the difficulties that the Army and Air Force had in combining forces, was the last time the issue of joint military action was take up seriously. Since then the concept has been kicked around by various papers, committees and reports with little evidence that the political system even saw the issue as important.

The new doctrine has taken the theoretical aspect even further, postulating tri-service coordination when it comes to cyberspace and other less tangible military theatres. While the mental homework on integrated defence continues, there remains little sign of forward progress in terms of making this a reality.

The first step towards making a joint doctrine actually functional would be the creation of a joints chief of defence staff and creating means for officers to be rotated through all three services and provide the backbone for such a position. The creation of the chief of defence staff has been reportedly on the Narendra Modi government’s to-do list for at least the past year.

The Supreme Court breathes new life into the Babri Masjid demolition trials,,,,

A nearly moribund prosecution has been given a new lease of life by the Supreme Court. By ordering a joint trial into two cases arising out of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, and demanding that the trial court in Lucknow hear the matter on a day-to-day basis, the court has reinforced the importance of reaching a speedy judicial resolution in a matter that has already been horribly delayed. It was a mere technicality that resulted in the case relating to the actual act of demolition by numberless kar sevaks being tried in a special court in Lucknow and another relating to BJP political leaders being tried in Rae Bareli on the charge of inciting ill-will and hatred. The Uttar Pradesh government’s failure to cure a technical defect in an earlier notification, and the failure of the CBI to challenge it at the relevant time, led to the situation of separate proceedings continuing for years. It is regrettable that a case relating to the promotion of communal disharmony, one that had a bearing on riots and reprisals in the following months, was mired in judicial stagnation and administrative apathy for a quarter century. The court order reinfuses life into this necessary prosecution and reinforces faith in the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has revived the charge of criminal conspiracy against senior BJP leaders L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others, a small but significant change in the nature of the prosecution in a case that relates to the speeches they made, which allegedly incited the kar sevaks to pull down the mosque. In political terms, this is an embarrassment for the BJP. It has always maintained that the Ayodhya case against its leaders was essentially political in nature, but this charge now has a hollow ring with the Supreme Court itself reviving the conspiracy charge and fast-tracking the trial. As for Mr. Advani, this draws a curtain on his long political career; if it is true that he nursed ambitions about becoming the country’s next President, this almost certainly puts an end to that dream. But more than Mr. Advani and Mr. Joshi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have cause to worry about how to deal with the continuance of Ms. Bharti as a Union Minister. Given that the party had demanded the resignation of charge-sheeted ministers in the previous government, it will now face the uncomfortable predicament of one of its own facing a criminal trial. There is also the question about the propriety of allowing Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh, the man who was the U.P. Chief Minister on that fateful day in December 1992, to remain in the Raj Bhavan. While it is true that he enjoys constitutional immunity because of his gubernatorial office, he will be subject to the law the moment he demits office. There is no legal compulsion for either of them to quit, but the issue for a government that waxes eloquent about probity in public life is to ask if there is a moral case for their continuance.

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.