Is it justifiable for incumbent government at the Centre pass an ordinance on a bill when the Parliament is in session and when the bill in question is pending before the House? Does this ‘backdoor’ promulgation of ordinances on important bills bode well for democracy?

An ordiance cannot be passed during the session of parliament, but a pending bill has no effect on the passage of the ordinance.

The ordinance making powers of the president, under Article 123, were formulated with the intention that, when the parliament is not in session and immediate action is required, an ordinance may be resorted to.

Sometimes the immediate action may stem from the fact that impending circumstances require an action, or a logjam in the parliament prevents an important bill. It does not subvert legislative action in the long term as it has to be approved within 6 weeks of the first session of parliament. Although there is a provision for re-promulgation.

But using an ordinance to circumvent the very temple of democracy should not be a frequent occurrence. To prevent this situation, these challenging issues must be hammered out using outside institutions, like the Inter State Council. The Puncchi commission report recommended for the same.

This will ensure the true spirit of the ordinance is adhered to, and a parliamentary session may be put to better use.

The 70th report on the “Situation of Agricultural Households in India”, released by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), reveals that much is wrong with Indian farmers’ economic status, despite several programmes being run by the government to raise their incomes. Given below are some of the highlights of this survey.

The report given by the NSSO gives the record of the plight of the Indian farmers economic status.  It paints a rather sad picture of the state of affairs and reveals the poor economic health of the Indian farming sector.

 Inspite of the governments effort to provide banks and financial institution's services at door steps of the farmers Informal sector still remains relevant to meet the financial needs.There is too much dependence on the informal credits through the moneylenders at high rate of interest. As a result over half of all farm households remain heavily indebted. Loan from the formal sector are available to a limited section only and the penetration is not yet deep.

The average monthly income of an Indian farming household is merely Rs 6500 which is on a very low side based on international standards.


This also reveals the flaws in the government's implementation of agricultural development and social welfare programmes. Food inflation although having remained in double digits over the least 2-3 years, has not benefited the farmers in a sufficient manner. The reason for this can be attributed to the low awareness regarding the government's procurement programmes, and Minimum Support Prices, and also to the failure of many to sell their produce to the government agencies.

Lack of participation of the farm sector in crop insurance schemes makes them prone to income risk in case of crop failure. In the absence of crop insurance, which can enable farmers to hedge their production and income risks, they have to incur heavy losses at times

Participation in rural employment guarantee scheme is low and the percentage of small landholders and marginal farmers enrolled in the scheme is lower still.

This persistent economic distress has resulted in drop in the number of people involved in farming activities over the last 2 decades.

Better implementation of the government's agricultural development and social welfare schemes along with the awareness among the farmers is the need of the hour to strengthen this sector and safeguard the interests of the Indian farmers

Why some states are given special status by the Union government? What is the criteria stipulated to get the special status and its benefits. Do you think this mechanism is antithetical to federalism?

Special status is accorded to those states which are perceived as having some economic, social or geographical disadvantage, in order to make them eligible for additional central funds to eliminate these disadvantages.

The Gadgil Mukherjee formula for devolution of central assistance to states earmarked 30 percent of the central funds to special category states, i.e. states which intrinsically are hindered from achieving financial viability, or need additional funds because of extrinsic factors, and for the need of achieving regional balance in development.

It proposed the following criteria for special category states - hilly and difficult terrain; low population density; strategic location along international borders; economic backwardness; and non-viable State finances.

The National Development Council accords the special category status to various states. A special category state has the following benefits:

1. As against central assistance of 30% grant, and 70% loan, special category states get it as 90% grant, and 10% loan.
2. Special category states get favoured treatment from the Finance Commission with respect to devolution of central tax revenues.

But, this formulation is has been criticized as favoring certain states as against the others, and incentivizes poor performance as there is no incentive to shore up the state finances, develop additional sources of revenue or efficient performance.

Recently, the Raghuram Rajan report developed a multidimensional criteria for allocation of these additional resources, which is based on the performance of the states. But that too has come under criticism for being too vague and liable to political manipulation.

Special category status may be granted to the states to attain regional balance in development parameters, but the responsibility should be of the states themselves, with performance linked incentives granted by the centre, in a clear and transparent manner.

Understanding replacement levels of fertility. And should India attain it?

Replacement level of Fertility is a situation where if a population grows at that rate will lead to no population growth. 

For Replacement level of Fertility, Total Fertility Rate should be 2.1 i.e. on an average a female in her reproductive lifetime should give birth to 2.1 live children nationwide. 

In India the Total fertility rate in 8 states has fallen below 2 children per woman. Just nine States – all of them in the north and east, except for Gujarat – haven’t yet reached replacements levels of 2.1.

Earlier, based on the NSSO surveys and 3 decades Population census, it was estimated that India may reach the magic number of Replacement Level by 2035 but, seeing the current trend, it is expected to reach it around 2020 which is good news as it will control population.

Yes, India must attain Replacement Level of Fertility soon as it will have many benefits:

1. It will lead to population control, which is the major reason of misery and environment over-exploitation around the world.
2. It will lead to economic prosperity among families as the size will be small.
3. It will lead to healthy population, as focus of parents will be only on 2 children as compared to many in olden days.
4. It will lead to increase in skilled labour force in the country, as govt can effectively provide good education, skill-based trainings to a controlled population.
5. It will ensure that all govt schemes, and plans will work out properly in future, because there will be no factor for population growth for later years.
6. Environmental protection measures will be more effective and long term. Environment is worst affected by population explosion.
7. In rural areas, poor people will be most benefited with better health care, better land share and more budget allocations for their agriculture and primary activities.
8. Administering people and stopping migration will be easy.
9. It can make the idea of attaining inclusive growth and equitable distribution of resources a possibility in foreseeable future, and India can soon realize its dream to be a progressive developed country.

Hence, achieving Replace level of fertility is a win-win situation for Government as well as citizens.

Is it ethical to imprison human beings who have committed wrongs? Is the punishment only way to correct wrongdoers?

"Too err is human". We all must have committed some wrong in our lives. It is a natural tendency to believe that all wrongdoings must be meted out with a commensurate punishment. However whether any wrongdoing warrants a punishment that goes to the extent of imprisonment is debatable on ethical grounds.

 

Punishment is one of the way to reform people. It indicates that certain behavior will not be tolerated in society and one must conform to the rules of society for the greater good of society. Imprisonment, a form of punishment, is based on following premises

1) Isolation of accused from society to avoid repeat of the criminal act.

2) Retribution - By taking away freedom of free space, vocation and other rights , inherent values of accused is taken away, which is the price for breaking the laws of society.

3) Justice -It provides justice for the mental, physical, economic and social problem undergone by the victim.

4) Reform -Imprisonment provides time to rethink ones behaviour and reform his behaviour according to social norms of the time.

5) Deterrence to upcoming crimes

Punishment is not only way to correct wrong doings.  Love and acceptance, penance, and reform houses are other options. Though these options seems quite lofty, but are ineffective in practice if the criminal does not repent his crime. 

Many crimes are committed by those who are unable to find any employment and are made to commit some wrong out of necessity to earn livelihood. Also, crime done due to circumstances, temporary insanity, societal pressure or threat to life need not be punished by imprisonment. Also, crimes by minor should not be punished by imprisonment as it will morph his understanding of the society and leave an indelitable impression on him.

Thus, there is a need of balance to provide psychological support and rehabilitation with lesser degree of punishment like social work for lesser crimes while harsher punishment like imprisonment for harsher crimes and repeat offenders. After all the purpose of punishment is reform and rehabilitation of offender in the society.

 

Understanding Cyber vandalism. How is it different from Cyber warfare.

Cyber vandalism is an act of editing the data in electronic form on a computer system in a malicious manner which is intentionally disruptive. It can involve hacking and defacement of a popular website by editing, adding, removing or modifying the nonsensical, humorous or other content that may be seen as derogatory, humiliating or offensive.

Examples-

1. The defacing of the Indian government websites by hackers.
2.  Defacing Social media content, spreading false and fraudulent information or pictures about somebody.
3. The alleged attack on the Sony networks in US against the launch of a comedy movie "The Interview" by North Korea.

Cyber Warfare is politically motivated act of espionage and sabotage on the computer systems and networks.

Examples-

    Sabotage-

1.  Malware Stuxnet attack on the Iran nuclear facility by US-Israel.
2.  Blowing of a gas pipeline allegedly by Russia by hacking into the computer network and controlling the pressure in the pipelines.

    Espionage-

US surveillance system of "Prism" covering majority of the internet-collating and analysing sensitive and classified data of other countries without their knowledge.

Cyber vandalism would be an infringement on personal rights, freedom and liberties of an individual or organization and is considered as a minor breach or cyber threat when compared to Cyber warfare which compromises the national security of any country and can be construed as an act of war.