Indian Express Editorial Analysis
13 June 2020

1) Student plus politics-


CONTEXT:

  1. Delayed by the COVID-19 outbreak, the annual lists of the National Institutional Ranking Framework have finally been released by the Union HRD ministry.
  2. It makes sobering reading for those who had convinced themselves, and others, that academics and politics do not go very well together.
  3. The very campuses which have been demonised as dens of anti-national activity and bunkers of the “tukde-tukde gang”, the mythical bugaboo conjured up to warn university students off politics, have emerged among the most important nurseries for the leading citizens of tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

UPPER ECHELONS:

  1. The most politically active campuses in the country are in the upper echelons(category) of the list — Jawaharlal Nehru University, Calcutta University, Jadavpur University, the University of Hyderabad, Jamia Millia Islamia, the University of Delhi.
  2. That deflates the notion, popular in some form or the other in middle class society since the 1970s, that political activism distracts from academic excellence.
  3. The perception was birthed by the Naxalbari movement, but has unfortunately been applied indiscriminately to political activity of any colour.
  4. On the contrary, the rankings just published suggest that while academics the world over is cutting funding to the liberal arts, these disciplines, which teach students how to make sense of society and themselves, retain their importance.

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. There is no contradiction between academics and politics.
  2. In fact, politics only signals the willingness to join the fray for a better world.
  3. And therefore, a student on a campus which has suffered the coercive(harsh) attention of political thugs or the police is probably doing something right.
  4. Campus rankings reveal that the very institutions demonised as sanctuaries of ‘anti-nationals’ are leaders in learning.

 

 

 

2) A welcome waiver-

TRIVIA:

Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) is the usage and licensing fee that telecom operators are charged by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The contention is on the particulars considered to calculate the amount payable.

 


CONTEXT:

  1. In a major relief for non-telecom public sector enterprises, the Supreme Court, on Thursday, came down heavily on the Department of Telecommunications for issuing them demand notices for payment of dues related to the adjusted gross revenue (AGR) issue.
  2. Terming the move as a misuse of its order, the Court said that its earlier order pertained only to telecom operators and not non-telecom PSUs. The latest Court order is welcome.
  3. The inclusion of revenues from non-telecom operations in the definition of AGR was problematic.
  4. The DoT’s decision to ask PSUs such as GAIL, Oil India and Power Grid to cough up(pay up) fees pertaining to their non-telecom revenues, following the Supreme Court order, was deeply flawed(wrong).

 

 

 

 

UNCERTAINITY OF TELECOM OPERATORS:

  1. However, there continues to be uncertainty on the issue of payment of AGR dues by telecom operators such as Bharti and Vodafone.
  2. While the Court has taken cognisance of the telcos’ plea of allowing them to repay their dues over a period, it remains sceptical(doubtful) of the 20-year time horizon.
  3. Court has directed them to file a reply on the timelines of the payment of the dues, and the securities they can provide as guarantees.
  4. Telecom operators, though, will take some comfort from the fact that the Supreme Court showed flexibility in the matter and did not direct them to settle their dues immediately.
  5. However, given the quantum of the dues, it is conceivable that telcos may not be in a position to furnish the requisite bank guarantees as asked by the court.

 

AMBIGUITY OVER AGR:

  1. Previously, the court had sided with the government on the issue of what constitutes AGR.
  2. Telcos were of the opinion that only revenue from telecom services should be included in the assessment of AGR and not revenues from non-telecom activities like interest income and rent.
  3. The government’s continued reluctance to reconsider its approach has been short-sighted, to say the least.
  4. Given the ambiguity(confusion) over the definition, at the very least it could have withdrawn its demand on collecting penalties, and interest on penalties.
  5. How the government resolves this issue remains to be seen. But, so far, its handling of the situation leaves much to be desired.
  6. Timely intervention could have helped alleviate the pain.

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. At this critical juncture, rather than be driven by short-term revenue considerations, the government should consider the long-term implications of its moves on the telecom sector.
  2. The lingering uncertainty is in no one’s interest.
  3. Supreme Court order on AGR issue brings relief to non-telcos. But for telcos, uncertainty continues.

 

 

 

 

3) The Path not taken-


CONTEXT:

  1. Even after a harsh and unforgiving lockdown of more than 60 days, the curve of COVID infections refuses to flatten.
  2. The health infrastructure retains massive gaps, as two out of three districts lack testing facilities, and patients even in the national capital are dying because they cannot get beds.
  3. This, after the working poor suffered to the extent one cannot even imagine as they trudged hundreds of kilometres to return home.
  4. The contraction of the economy and the destruction of millions of jobs and supply chains signal a worrying surge of mass hunger and unemployment.

 

 

 

 

POLICY FAILURE:

  1. It is apparent the policies of the Union government to battle the pandemic have failed.
  2. People ask: What could the government have done differently?
  3. Wealthy industrialised countries like the United States have been felled by this deadly contagion, they say.
  4. What could a much poorer country have done differently to save the lives of thousands of its people?
  5. The stark answer is — virtually everything.
  6. Begin with the decision whether to impose a nationwide lockdown, that too without notice or preparation.
  7. Had the government consulted widely with public-health experts, epidemiologists, economists, social scientists, and studied the global experience carefully, it would have ruled out the lockdown as bad public health.
  8. You cannot save millions of working people from infection by thrusting them into mass hunger. And I would have ruled it out as immoral.
  9. In a country in which the large majority live in crowded tenements without water or sanitation, a policy of enforcing radical physical distancing manifests lack of empathy.
  10. We could have, instead, followed the example of South Korea, with a focus on extensive testing, public education and limited containment.

 

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE:

  1. For the period of a limited lockdown, it should have ensured that every household receives unconditional cash transfers of Rs 7,000, and a universal, expanded public distribution system (including also pulses and oil).
  2. Economists Prabhat Patnaik and Jayati Ghosh have calculated that for three and six months, respectively, this would cost not more than 3 per cent of GDP, and a manageable depletion of India’s foodgrain stocks of 77 million tons.
  3. The government should now arrange repayment of loans instalments of MSMEs for six months to ensure that they do not sink.
  4. A cornerstone of its revival strategy must, like the New Deal in America, rely on massive public spending for a greatly expanded employment guarantee programme, and its extension to urban India.
  5. The government should peg pensions at half the minimum wage, universalise these, and ensure during the pandemic that these are hand-delivered to older persons so as to not place them at risk.
  6. Migrants — and other citizens — should have at least a week to return to their homes before even a limited lockdown.
  7. Even at this late stage, it should restore full passenger train operations, and reserve all seats for a week for free travel by migrants on a first-come-first-serve basis.
  8. Even today, it has the capacity to accomplish this but is bereft of the will and the compassion required to do so.

 

WAY FORWARD:

  1. The government should ensure free water tankers to supply water in slum shanties throughout the day until the pandemic ebbs, to enable people to wash their hands regularly and secure personal hygiene.
  2. It should massively ramp up helplines for both mental health and domestic violence, as well as mental health OPDs and places of safety for battered women.
  3. It should empty custodial beggar homes, women’s homes and children’s homes for those in conflict with the law, and offer, instead, voluntary and dignified places of safety for all at-risk persons.
  4. To make prisons safer, I would use this moment to do what the Supreme Court has directed for decades: To grant bail or discharge all under-trial prisoners except perhaps those with the gravest charges.
  5. The government should discharge people held for petty offences.
  6. It would be impossible to overnight rebuild the public health system, broken for decades.
  7. But the government must, like Spain, deploy all personnel, beds and equipment of private hospitals for public use, free of cost, for the duration of the pandemic.
  8. It should by ordinance order that no patient is turned away or charged by any private hospital for diagnosis or treatment of symptoms which could be of coronavirus.
  9. It should also ensure that the treatment of all other ailments does not suffer during the pandemic. Beds for COVID should not be created by snatching away beds for other purposes.
  10. The government should, from the start, have incentivised public and private corporations to exponentially expand production of PPEs, testing kits and ventilators.
  11. Most frontline health workers like ASHAs and ICDS workers, and sanitation workers, are underpaid and lack job security.
  12. It should convert stadiums, universities and hotels into hospital and quarantine beds.
  13. It should guarantee that every person, regardless of class, would be entitled to the same quality of quarantine facilities.
  14. E.G- London moved homeless persons to all vacant hotel beds for the duration of the lockdown, paid for by the state.
  15. There is no reason for India to not do the same.

 

FINANCE?

  1. You may ask: Where would the money come from?
  2. Most countries which went down the road of lockdown have invested 10 to 20 per cent of GDP on public spending to cushion against hunger and unemployment.
  3. India’s additional public spending turns out to be less than 1 per cent.
  4. The government could impose a cess of 2 per cent on the wealth of just the top 1%, and an inheritance tax of 33%.
  5. This would be more than sufficient to raise all the resources we need for everything I have suggested here.

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. Are we likely to do any of this? The clear answer is no.
  2. But not because this is not feasible. It is. Other countries have done all of this.
  3. It will not happen because the government and people of privilege will not allow this to happen.
  4. We cannot blame COVID-19 for the humanitarian crisis which has engulfed us, growing into the worst in most of our lives. We must blame only ourselves.