Daily News Compilation (HINDU) June 24 - Editorials

Upholding the Five Principles

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Six decades ago, during Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai’s visits to India and Myanmar, Mr. Enlai along with Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Myanmar Prime Minister U Nu issued joint statements and initiated the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which are
1. mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, 

2. mutual non-aggression, 

3. mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, 

4. equality and mutual benefit, and 

5. peaceful coexistence. 

Since then, these principles have been widely recognised and observed by the international community, and have served as basic norms of state-to-state relations. They have withstood the test of time and made significant contributions to the cause of world peace and progress.

Historical background
The Five Principles prevailed against specific historical backgrounds. After World War II, the global colonial system collapsed and a large number of national states emerged independent in Asia and Africa. The most urgent task for these countries at the time was to safeguard national independence and sovereignty, prevent external invasion or interference, and establish relations with other countries on an equal footing, so as to strive for a peaceful international environment. China, India and Myanmar are among those countries that first won national independence in Asia and jointly initiated the Five Principles. In April 1955, the first Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, adopted these Principles. Since then, they have been written into a large number of important international documents.

Relevance today

The world today is very much different from that of six decades ago, with peace, development and cooperation becoming the trend of the times. China, India and Myanmar, along with other emerging markets and developing countries, are becoming more and more important in the international arena. While the international situation is moving toward a direction more in favour of peace and development, the world today is still faced with many difficulties and challenges. We still have a long way to go to establish an international order that is more just and reasonable. Under the new circumstances, we should continue to uphold and implement the Five Principles.

1. The first is to firmly safeguard sovereign equality among all states and stand against interfering in other countries’ internal affairs. 

2. The second is to actively seek peaceful and common development in order to realise our common dream. 

3. The third is to promote the New Security Concept featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination, and advocate common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. 

4. The fourth is to fully respect diversity of the world and encourage various civilisations, cultures and religions to respect one another. 

5. The fifth is to push the process of multi-polarisation and support larger representation and influence of developing countries in international affairs.

India-China relations

China and India are among the first to initiate the Five Principles, which have been the cornerstone of our respective foreign policies. Over the years, the Five Principles have helped us to properly handle our bilateral issues left over by history, such as the Tibet-related issue and the boundary question. We have pushed forward all-around cooperation in political, economic, cultural and other areas, established the Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, and become good neighbours.

Today, China and India are both faced with the task of developing the economy and improving people’s lives; therefore, both need a peaceful and stable neighbourhood and global environment. As two important emerging markets and members of BRICS, both countries wish to improve existing international governance, so that emerging markets and developing countries can have more say in international affairs. Compared to the situation six decades ago, the Five Principles have become more relevant to China-India relations. We should continue to uphold and carry forward this common property.
First, we will continue to respect each other and accumulate mutual trust. For historical reasons, there remain some outstanding issues between China and India. We should draw wisdom from the Five Principles, always treat China-India relations from a strategic viewpoint, and take stock of the whole situation, with full confidence that we have far more common interests than differences.
Second, we will continue to carry out practical cooperation based on mutual benefit. As neighbouring countries with the largest populations and greatest market potentials, China and India are highly complementary in economy, and are natural partners of cooperation. We are both implementing a 12th “Five-Year Plan.” China’s further opening up to the West echoes well with India’s “Look East” policy. China and India should give full play to each other’s advantages, deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, cooperate on the BCIM Economic Corridor, the Silk Road Economic Belt, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, and establish a China and India double-engine powered “Trans-Himalaya Economic Growth Region,” so that our dreams of development and prosperity can interconnect.
Third, we will continue to treat each other on an equal footing. We should proceed from overall interests of bilateral relations and handle the boundary question through peaceful and friendly negotiations to find a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution. Before that, we should improve relevant mechanisms on border affairs, properly manage differences and jointly maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas. With regard to the issues of trade imbalance and transborder rivers, we should treat each other on an equal footing, give full consideration to each other’s concerns and find a proper solution.
Fourth, we will continue to promote people-to-people and cultural exchanges to foster friendship among our two nations.

We should be inspired by our ancestors and encourage more youth, media, academia and other people-to-people exchanges to promote mutual understanding. And we should pass on our friendship from generation to generation, in order to make new contributions to world peace and development.

Far-reaching moves

Given the paucity of regulatory initiatives in the recent past to revive the primary capital market, the slew of measures announced by SEBI recently would appear to be far-reaching in terms of their impact.

The insistence on a 25 per cent public float for public sector undertakings, instead of the present norm of 10 per cent, is an important step that could have multiple benefits:

1. There will be more PSU shares available in the market for all categories of investors. 

2. The PSU disinvestment programme will be moved along as many more well-run government undertakings offload their shares to meet the new SEBI norm, which incidentally also levels the field with private companies that already follow the 25 per cent norm. 

A reservation for retail investors in the Offer for Sale (OFS) route and the provision for a discount for them are welcome steps, but it should be pointed out that the OFS and the IPP (Institutional Placement Programme) were created to speed up large divestments of shares, bypassing the cumbersome procedures of retail investment. Therefore, even if many more companies can now take the OFS route, the value of this relaxation to small investors is questionable.

Again, doubling the limit for anchor investors increases confidence-levels in individual issues and ought to be viewed as another step towards strengthening the primary market mechanism. 

SEBI is on the right track, but a genuine primary market revival may not happen in the short run. Such a revival can only ride on robust economic growth and consequent improved market sentiment. 

When the law gives no refuge

Data about refugees

According to data collected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), India has close to 2 lakh refugees living within its territory with the number constantly rising. However, unofficial reports place the figure at above 4.5 lakh. 

What Legislations we have for them

the general law applicable to foreigners, The Foreigners Act, 1946, applies to refugees as well. Refugee status determination, the process by which an asylum seeker is determined to be a ‘refugee’, is carried out by the UNHCR, but it has limited reach and resources.

Currently, only judicial decisions regulating specific situations govern refugees in India. 

There are also ad hoc administrative advisories by the Ministry of Home Affairs regulating specific situations concerning refugees, such as the 2012 Advisory on preventing and combating human trafficking in India. 

Effects of this lack of legislations:

Lack of standardised documentation for this category of persons and a lack of legal recognition has led to difficulties in their access to basic facilities such as decent living conditions, employment, free or subsidised medical facilities and education. This violates India’s obligations under customary international law.

 India’s national security interests are hampered by the absence of a coherent legal structure to ensure that all non-citizens residing in India are properly documented and have a legitimate reason for their presence in India.

What has been done previously

Many have advocated the need for a comprehensive legislation regulating refugees and their rights. An Eminent Persons’ Group under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati, drafted a model law in 2002. This was followed up by a draft Refugee Protection Bill, though it did not gain the political traction to get passed as a law. 

What can be done

A simpler set of reforms is necessary, which may not achieve the comprehensive changes that the earlier Bill aimed at, but is more easily achievable. Implementing these reforms could at least grant legal status to this ever-expanding group of people who are residing in India, but are unrecognised and unregulated by the law.

1. The foremost requirement is a definition of the term ‘refugee.’ This is essential for any legislation making any provision for refugees, since the term is not easily defined. The definition could be inserted in the Foreigners Act, since refugees are a special category of foreigners.
2. Second, the single most important principle relating to refugees in international law needs to be recognised in Indian law — that of non-refoulement, which means non-expulsion or non-extradition to the place from which the refugee has fled as long as the compelling circumstances for fleeing persist. The Foreigners Act penalises those who enter the country without valid identity documents, or may prohibit entry of such persons into India. This implies that refugee-seekers are liable to be returned to the country they are fleeing from. Exceptions must be carved out for those legally recognised as refugees, implementing the principle of non-refoulement, in the same statute.
3. A structured system must be put in place for refugee status-determination at the borders. Moreover, a procedure with such critical security implications should be controlled and carried out entirely by the government. As a result of this procedure, once a person is admitted into the country as a refugee, he/she needs to be issued a permit, either in form of a long-term visa or a refugee permit. This will serve as an identity document, and assist the government in maintaining records.
Two-fold advantage
The foremost advantage of these changes in the law is that it would allow the government to maintain greater accountability for its large non-citizen population. This would directly lead to advancing the interests of national security and order, apart from allowing this section of the population to enjoy basic rights and privileges.

Given the fact that it shelters a burgeoning refugee population, India has immense scope for playing a leadership role in the South Asian region in this matter. 

Independence from the government

A change in the occupancy of 7, Race Course Road, is spelling change in the composition of statutory bodies in India.

Although meant to function as watchdogs, human rights institutions in India are treated as subordinate departments with scant regard for their autonomy or statutory character. The political establishment uses them to accommodate their favourites and this explains the pressure on members to quit. Such brazen display of power is possible because of a lack of clear provisions in legislation on selection procedures along with a complete disregard for procedures for removal of members. In the case of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights, appointments are increasingly coming under the judicial scanner as governments have been sluggish in notifying detailed guidelines that can ensure open, transparent and competitive selections to these important public offices.  

In two separate judgments ( Association for Development v. Union of India, 2010 and 2013 ), the Delhi High Court emphasised the need for fair and transparent appointments and urged the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) to develop “objective evaluation methods” to appoint members to the NCPCR. 

After being judicially rebuked thrice, the MWCD amended the NCPCR rules twice this year (in March and May) to specify eligibility and selection norms.  Only Indian nationals who are graduates from a recognised university, who have no record of conviction or imprisonment for an offence or have been removed or dismissed from government service, are eligible. Vacancies have to be advertised in at least four national dailies and also publicised on the Ministry’s website. The Selection Committee is chaired by the Minister-in-charge, with the Secretary of the Ministry and one independent expert nominated by the Minister as members. These provisions may not entirely check political interference and are marginal steps toward streamlining the process.

In many States, appointments are being challenged for having been made on political grounds and this should compel State governments to amend their rules and include selection guidelines in order to insulate appointments from political interference.

 According to the Paris Principles Relating to Status of National Institutions (1993), which serve as an international benchmark, independence from the government is one of the most crucial elements in building effective human rights institutions. 

Individuals and institutions

 The world over, in fields ranging from politics to business and sports to media, the emphasis on personalities as a substitute for institutions is an evident trend. Strong personalities can strengthen institutions that they represent, but whether they can be a replacement for institutions is a question that comes up occasionally. The emergence of Narendra Modi as a strong Prime Minister, who won the election on the slogan ‘ Is baar Modi Sarkar’ (it’s a Modi government this time) brings this question to the fore once again. 

Mr. Modi’s emergence takes place against the backdrop of the awful weakening of the institution of the Prime Minister. His predecessor ran a government in which ministers ran their own environment and telecom policy. 

 Therefore, the case of re-establishing prime ministerial authority cannot be overstated and Mr. Modi has made a good beginning. In a stern message to his ministerial colleagues, he has barred them from handpicking private secretaries as they please. Personal staff and ministers often form a cabal that ruins norms of good governance by extending networks based on caste, linguistic or financially vested interests across various arms of the government and striking at the root of this rot has been a long overdue reform. The dubious role played by some private secretaries of ministers in the sensational scams of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime is still fresh. But this cannot and must not be an excuse for undermining another institution, that is the Council of Ministers.

The Modi government has pushed back on the autonomy of another crucial institution, the judiciary, by rejecting one name it recommended for appointment as a Supreme Court judge. The merits of the recommendation and the rejection apart — indeed there is an ongoing debate on the desirability of judges appointing themselves — the government’s refusal to accept the Supreme Court collegium’s unanimous recommendation does not bode well for the institutional prestige of the judiciary. Available indications are that the judiciary is likely to cede to the government’s line rather than assert itself. 

Indications are that this government’s engagement with the media is going to be limited. There is no disputing the fact that practices such as privileged access in exchange for motivated coverage and journalists doubling up as political and corporate dealmakers have thoroughly corrupted the terms of engagement between the media and the government. But is that good enough reason for the government to make communication a one-sided affair in which announcements will come on the website, with no scope for questioning or explaining?

The authority of some other institutions such as the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the future Lok Pal is going to be weakened for another reason. As there is no designated Leader of the Opposition, the decisions on appointments to these bodies will be taken without the Opposition playing any role. 

The checks and balances offered by institutions working within the constitutional scheme is the bedrock of democracy. The Council of Ministers is collectively accountable to Parliament; then there is the judiciary and other autonomous bodies such as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the CVC, and outside government, there are political parties, the media and civil society organisations.
The concept of checks and balances has become dysfunctional in recent years due to the aggressive overreach of some institutions and the corresponding caving in of some others, depending on personalities at the helm. While the authority and majesty of the office of the Prime Minister has to be asserted, and in fact, reclaimed from usurpers such as the CAG, the autonomy and prestige of other institutions must not be diminished in the process.