28 Aug 2020: Hindu Editorial Analysis

The Hindu Editorial Analysis
28 August 2020

1) An air-tight case: On Pulwama attack case charge sheet-

 

GS 3- Role of external state and non-state actors in creating challenges to internal security

 

CONTEXT:

  1. A year and a half before the dastardly(deadly) terror attack on a Central Reserve Police Force convoy in Pulwama killed 40 personnel.
  2. The National Investigation Agency has filed a charge sheet against 19 people including Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed, for planning the attack.

 

 

ROLE OF JeM:

  1. Considering the difficulties in piecing together the minutiae in the case, the agency’s painstaking effort must be acknowledged.
  2. The identity of the key perpetrators was never in doubt after the JeM claimed responsibility immediately after the attack in February 2019.
  3. The charge sheet details the role of the JeM’s handlers and its local associates in Kashmir and how the attack was in the works since 2016.
  4. The JeM’s role was in reconnaissance(exploration), training and indoctrination, but the group could not have procured and transported the high-intensity explosives without the involvement of the Pakistani security establishment.
  5. The chargesheet’s investigation, based on forensic evidence — DNA analysis of the remains of the suicide bomber, IP address tracking of the video released by the JeM claiming responsibility, examination of the battered vehicle that carried the explosives, among others.
  6. Therefore makes a thorough claim on JeM’s and Pakistan’s role in the attack.
  7. The Pulwama attack was followed by the bombing of a “terror training centre” in Balakot in Pakistan by the Indian Air Force and retaliatory air strikes by Pakistan.
  8. These have resulted in a breakdown of diplomatic ties and deterioration(worsening) of every aspect of relations between the countries.
  9. But the Pulwama investigation could present an opportunity for Pakistan to initiate meaningful changes in its approach towards cross-border terror.

 

RE-EVALUATING STRATEGY:

  1. Further clarity emerges on the JeM’s and Pakistan’s role in the Pulwama attacks.
  2. For the Indian government, the charge sheet presents a case not just for detailing the dastardly role of Pakistan and its proxy actors in Kashmir, but to re-evaluate its strategy.
  3. The involvement of a local Kashmiri youth in the attack as a suicide bomber, years after militancy had waned in the Valley, was also a warning about the alienation(going away) setting into the Valley.
  4. The abrogation(end) of J&K’s special status, the bifurcation(division) of the State and the demotion of J&K as a Union Territory; the detention of scores of political leaders including mainstream actors; and the continuing restrictions on access to broadband Internet have deepened the alienation.

 

CONCLUSION:

The prevention of terror attacks will entail not only security and diplomatic measures to isolate and destroy terror outfits such as the JeM, but also addressing the roots of alienation(seperation) that contribute recruits to the cause of terrorism.

 

2) A no-win situation: On JEE-NEET during the pandemic-

 

GS 2- Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Education

 

CONTEXT:

  1. A pandemic and the resultant delay in commencing(starting) admission to professional courses have put the Union Education Ministry in an unenviable(unpleasant) position.

 

 

STRIKING A BALANCE:

  1. It is under compulsion to strike a balance between ensuring physical and emotional well-being of aspirants and sustaining a merit-based admission process, while seeking to limit the academic disruption.
  2. The NEET is the only gateway for MBBS/BDS admissions in the country.
  3. In respect of engineering admissions, the JEE is not mandatory for State government-run and private institutions.
  4. Citing the Supreme Court’s recent order declining to interfere with the conduct of the two common entrance tests, Education Minister has contended that the issue is being politicised.
  5. His argument is that a “silent majority” favours the exams as an overwhelming number of registered candidates have downloaded their admit cards.
  6. From an academic perspective, the Supreme Court has rightly observed that the career of students “cannot be put in peril(risk) for long”.
  7. Mr. Pokhriyal is apprehensive that further delay could lead to a “zero academic year”, a concern shared by many academics.

 

PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS:

  1. Ground realities reflect the concerns from the other side. More than the fear of contracting COVID-19 from examination centres, aspirants face practical limitations.
  2. The NEET will be conducted in 3,843 centres across 155 cities, whereas the number of applicants is about 15.97 lakh.
  3. For an estimated 8.58 lakh aspirants, the JEE will be held in 660 centres in 12 shifts.
  4. With many States not resuming public transport services and hotels remaining closed, travel and accommodation for candidates from interior regions is a major challenge.
  5. Social and cultural pressures are such that girls from villages and tier-3 towns are likely to face hurdles as travelling alone would not be encouraged under these unusual circumstances.
  6. Even if hotels are opened at short notice, the fear of the pandemic might deter(prevent) a section of aspirants from staying there.
  7. Delay in admission to the IITs and medical colleges would also have an adverse bearing on BE/BTech seats in leading institutions including deemed universities as eventually they may go vacant when students opt out.
  8. Given this background, the government must explore alternatives such as allowing States to conduct medical admissions based on Class XII Board marks using standard normalisation.
  9. NEET could be limited to central institutions. Likewise, instead of the JEE, a nationwide marks normalisation could be examined but IIT Directors have argued that doing away with JEE would dilute the quality of education.

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. Extraordinary circumstances may require extraordinary solutions.
  2. Perhaps the examination slots could be staggered(arranged without pain) and the number of centres increased drastically. Pragmatic compromises are inevitable.
  3. Conducting JEE and NEET amid a pandemic is not easy, but options are limited.

 

 

3) Impartial, aloof and sober as a judge-

 

GS 2- Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability

 

CONTEXT:

Supreme Court decision convicting(holding guilty) Prashant Bhushan of contempt of court.

 

 

QUALITIES OF A JUDGE:

  1. A magistrate is a lowly cog(level) in the great judicial machine and not a judge of a superior court.
  2. Apart from integrity, in all its aspects including intellectual, and impartiality, the one word which comes readily to mind on the qualities of judges is sobriety(being sober).
  3. Indeed, sobriety in a judge is so significant that it is part of the simile ‘as sober as a judge’.
  4. Sobriety is not greyness or humourless grimness(serious) but a characteristic that denotes balance and connotes a desire to shun(avoid) the limelight.
  5. It is the opposite of flamboyance(attraction) which is in itself not a negative personal attribute and perhaps even appropriate for some callings, but is it so in judges?
  6. Judges in the past and most now too avoid being flamboyant. Sobriety and flamboyance are relevant in the Prashant Bhushan case but have not received any focus.
  7. This is because the Supreme Court has avoided any comment on the Chief Justice of India (CJI)’s photograph which has been, in a manner, the origin of the present action.
  8. In paragraph 62, the court in the Bhushan judgment notes: “The first part of the first tweet states, that ‘CJI rides a 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur without a mask or helmet’.
  9. This part of the tweet can be said to be a criticism of the CJI as an individual and not against the CJI as CJI”.
  10. It thereafter proceeds to mention the second part of the tweet where Mr. Bhushan says, “at a time when he keeps the SC in a lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental rights to access justice”.
  11. The court holds that the second part of the tweet was critical of the CJI as CJI and was contemptuous(disrespectful).

 

MAINTING THE DIGNITY OF OFFICE:

  1. The court has itself categorically opined that any comment on the photograph of the CJI cannot attract contempt.
  2. Citizens are safe from being hauled up(stopped) for contempt if they draw inferences as long as they do not make that a basis for making adverse comments about the the CJI’s role in the administration of justice in the country.
  3. This fortifies citizens to make observations on the photograph as well as the changing nature of conventions regarding the personal conduct of the judges of the superior courts so long as they do not imply any criticism of the judges’ functioning as judges.
  4. There too the court has discussed at great length how fair and constructive criticism of judicial functioning and of court judgments without attribution of motives is healthy for the functioning of Indian democracy.
  5. People who were knowledgeable about the incident said that the CJI did not know who owned the motorcycle and that he merely wanted to get a feel of it. It also claimed that he wants to buy a motorcycle after his retirement.
  6. The fact is that the photograph was unique for never has a superior court judge, leave alone a CJI, been seen astride a motorcycle.
  7. The question is whether the CJI was wise to do so while occupying the august office he does or whether he should have curbed(restricted) his enthusiasm till he had retired.
  8. What would he feel if many judges and magistrates follow his example, and photographs of them getting a feel of objects of their enthusiasm — for example, sports cars — appear?
  9. This is a question only he can answer after giving it the thought it deserves.
  10. I will only add that he himself knows that many lawyers on elevation to the bench have to curb their enthusiasm, change some habits and become sober in their conduct.

 

SHUNNING THE LIMELIGHT:

  1. In the immediate aftermath of independence, judges also maintained a tradition of aloofness(away from public). They did not seek public attention; indeed, they avoided it.
  2. For instance, unlike politicians and officers of the executive branch, they moved without pilots and escorts or sirens and red lights on their cars.
  3. It may now come as a surprise but it was only in the 1980s that High Court judges were provided with official cars.
  4. At some stage judges began to seek to be equated with executive officers and politicians in terms of some perks and privileges.
  5. This does not imply that the standards of judicial work were compromised but it did mean that they came more in the public eye.
  6. This led to a weakening of the strong norms of aloofness. The limelight was shunned. Official cars with sirens and red lights were symptomatic of the changing mores.
  7. There was yet another tradition that most judges strictly adhered to. They mainly confined themselves to their judicial work and only spoke through their judgments.
  8. This does not mean that they did not pursue their hobbies and write on non-judicial subjects in which they had expertise but they avoided issues of public policy which may come before the courts.
  9. Certainly, they did not give their views on controversial political and social issues. Largely this tradition continues to be pursued.

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. All in all, judges of the superior courts must, even in these changing times, ponder(think) deeply the old norms that earned them respect and public confidence, and pursue them.
  2. There is no surer foundation for the judicial branch of the state.