The tragedy of a legal education is that it prepares you to be a free-spirited being in a regimented world. If John Grisham novels — where the protagonist wins “justice” after a gripping courtroom drama — got you hooked to the law in the first place, chances are law school will nurture that idealism to tell you how the world should be, not how it is. Fresh off the block from learning the rigours of constitutional law or legal ethics in your fourth year, you head for the hallowed Supreme Court of India, ready to right most wrongs. As an intern, no less. In the two months that follow, the long arm of the law beats you down with the big stick of reality. You are informed — usually by a court clerk or a senior lawyer’s private secretary — that the only way to succeed is by endearing yourself to your employer.
On the systemic failure of the Supreme Court to tackle sexual harassment under its watch, here.
It is 1994, and less than a year to Assembly elections in Bihar. The Indian economy is on the mend but the benefits of liberalisation are yet to reach semi-urban and rural areas. Standing in the way of government efforts to boost consumer spending is a little known international treaty called the Montreal Protocol. The Protocol requires India — which ratified it in 1992 — to control and phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons, which are considered Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). As a developing country, India has been offered a 10-year window to abide by its commitments to the Protocol.
Reining in CFCs could possibly dent the consumer goods market in India: they are used as refrigerants in automobiles, electronic appliances, plastics and pharmaceuticals, among other applications. Of particular concern is the market for refrigerators, which has witnessed an unprecedented boom. Having acceded to the Protocol, the government has no option but to hard-sell it to the public. Maneka Gandhi — who as Environment Minister negotiated India’s entry into the Protocol — opts for a novel approach to the issue at an election rally in Bihar, in a constituency located near a tiger reserve. Ms. Gandhi — she would recall to the late political scientist Holly Sims — spins the story of “The Lady, or the Tiger” around to ask the crowd: “Do you want a refrigerator, or a tiger?”
On why India’s ozone diplomacy is aimed at keeping US ties warm, here.
A few months ago, the most optimistic observers of international politics were not willing to hedge their bets on the Doha Development Round at the World Trade Organisation. The Doha Round negotiations have been stalled for more than a decade now — the West would like developing countries to remove import barriers while India, Brazil and China want the United States and the European Union to reduce the massive subsidies they provide to rich farmers. Neither side has conceded ground on its claims. But at the Bali Ministerial Conference this December, the U.S. will use a trump card to have its way with India and other emerging markets: our food security legislation. On the pretext of “allowing” India’s food security law to exist alongside its commitments to the WTO, the U.S. has wrested an in-principle agreement from New Delhi on the issue of “trade facilitation.” In other words, India has agreed to greater market access for western companies in order to ensure the survival of the Food Security Act.
On how the United Progressive Alliance is trading food security for market access by the West, here
(From ‘The Edit Room’)
The Hindu’s leader writers meet every day at noon in our Chennai office. The purpose of our meeting is two-fold: to identify crucial topics that merit an editorial and allot them to specific writers. The second is a rather straightforward process. Our team comprises writers who specialise in various topics, be it politics, science, the environment, sports, business, law or foreign policy – we are almost always sure who the best person to editorialise an issue is.
In this post, I want to focus on the first and most important part of our agenda. Which issues should the newspaper write editorials on? During a meeting last month, a colleague suggested we write a leader on the Miss America saga. Indian American Nina Davuluri’s achievement had been met by a barrage of patently racist commentary on social media. Indian media outlets had played the controversy up, with some turning the news of a beauty pageant into a peg for righteous outrage. Surely, The Hindu had something to say about it?
On the editorial debate around the Miss America episode, here
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reluctance to raise the slightest murmur of protest against the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) spying excesses during his American trip leaves us with one question: will NSA surveillance continue unabated? India has displayed a stunning lack of political will to even broach the issue with Washington D.C. Perhaps, this was inevitable: a Prime Minister humiliated at home by his own party can hardly be expected to sour the one foreign policy achievement that defines his legacy. Dr. Singh was busy ensuring the India-U.S. nuclear deal is operationalised before he demits office to worry about concerns that actually affect the lives and businesses of Indians.
On the simple steps India can take to help rein in the NSA’s surveillance programmes, here.
Within hours of the time of writing, the United Nations Security Council will pass a resolution that not only paves the way for the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons but also sets its crisis on track for a politically mediated settlement. For all intents and purposes, this will be the first time the Council would adopt substantive measures to tackle Syria, since conflict first broke out two years ago. The Council’s permanent members have signed off on the draft resolution, and its contents were discussed at a full-house meeting of all UNSC members on Thursday night. The UNSC draft resolution, which will be cleared without amendment, represents an unmitigated victory for Russian diplomacy: Moscow has extracted every pound of flesh from its bargain with the United States to destroy Syria’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and more.
On UNSCR 2118, which represents a major victory for Russia, here
As our readers would know by now, three years in a remand home is the maximum punishment that can be imposed under the JJ Act. Much of the anger, therefore, had been channelled towards the Act itself: while some sections of society sought its amendment to lower the age of juveniles from 18, others wanted to increase its quantum of punishment for heinous crimes like murder and rape.
We were faced with this question: how should The Hindu respond to popular demands to “correct” the Act? Should we tap into this narrative and lend support to the amendment proposals?
Read the full post here
Folks in HYD welcome