EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

NOIDA/DELHI THE HINDU

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 20178EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

CMYK

A ND-ND

EDITORIAL

When elections draw near, rivalries within

parties intensify. As Karnataka prepares for

next year’s Assembly poll, front-line leaders

of the two principal contenders for power, the Congress

and the Bharatiya Janata Party, have begun pressuring

their national leaderships for a bigger say in ticket dis-

tribution and in the election campaign. In the BJP, the

factional ight is between the State unit president and

former Chief Minister, B.S. Yeddyurappa, and senior

leader K.S. Eshwarappa. Mr. Yeddyurappa, who man-

aged to extricate himself from the legal tangles that

arose out of corruption cases, is the frontrunner for the

chief minister’s post in case the BJP wins. But when Mr.

Eshwarappa criticises the “unilateral style” of Mr.

Yeddyurappa, he strikes a chord with many in the

second line of the party. The BJP, which had lost heavily

when Mr. Yeddyurappa broke away from the party be-

fore the last Assembly election, did well on his return in

the Lok Sabha election three years ago. The party is

therefore in no mood to jettison the former Chief Minis-

ter; Mr. Eshwarappa cannot hope for much more than a

prominent role as second iddle. Mr. Yeddyurappa re-

tained the upper hand during the State executive of the

party in Mysuru, even if his rival made a deiant appear-

ance. In the absence of any encouragement from the na-

tional leadership, Mr. Eshwarappa has turned more

conciliatory. But the issures run deep and cannot be

easily plastered over. Mr. Eshwarappa and his Sangolli

Rayanna Brigade, a supposedly apolitical platform of

Dalits and Backward Classes, will continue to exercise

pressure on the chief ministerial aspirant.

In the Congress too, the leadership issue is more or

less settled. Denying Chief Minister Siddaramaiah an-

other shot at power would only weaken the party fur-

ther. In any case, in the latest round of by-elections he

held his own against a marauding BJP. But factional

pressures and caste dynamics are in full play as the pro-

cess of identifying a person for the post of president of

the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee rolls on.

After replacing former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister

Digvijaya Singh with K.C. Venugopal as the national

leader in charge of afairs in Karnataka, the Congress is

trying to plug the weakness in the organisational struc-

ture and bring together all factions. But there is simply

no way to please everybody. Even if Mr. Siddaramaiah’s

rivals are willing to reluctantly accept his candidature

for chief ministership, they are likely to want someone

who could stand up to him as the next KPCC president.

The Congress leadership may see a beneit in having

two power centres. Karnataka 2018 might turn out to be

a ight between Mr. Yeddyurappa and Mr. Siddara-

maiah, but the election will be won and lost on how

those lower down the hierarchy pull their weight.

The power of twoKarnataka’s political future will hinge on how

the BJP and Congress deal with factionalism

The election of the moderate Moon Jae-in as South

Korea’s President marks a decisive break from the

bitter divisions and scandals that unsettled the

country’s administrative and political equilibrium in re-

cent months. Mr. Moon won 41% of the vote, almost

double that of his nearest rival. In the wake of the polar-

ising tenure of his predecessor, Park Geun-hye, who

was ousted through the impeachment route, he ap-

peared conciliatory during the election campaign, em-

phasising the need to move on. Indications of Mr.

Moon’s willingness to engage with the troubling issues

in the region came after he was sworn in on Wednesday,

when he declared his intention to visit Pyongyang and

hold discussions with Washington, Beijing and Tokyo.

With this, the veteran human rights lawyer struck a pos-

itive note for the kind of multilateralism required to

lower tensions in the Korean peninsula. The bold an-

nouncement should allay the apprehensions of sceptics

who would have assumed that Mr. Moon may be rather

soft towards the North, as well as those who feared that

engaging Pyongyang could alienate the U.S. The fact re-

mains that any realistic prospect of containing North

Korea’s nuclear posturing depends on two inter-related

factors: marginalising the hawks in Washington and im-

pressing upon Kim Jong-un’s regime the economic and

political consequences of defying multilateral norms.

Mr. Moon’s other big regional challenge is the U.S.-

backed installation of the Terminal High Altitude Area

Defence (THAAD) anti-missile system on South Korean

soil. Interception of North Korea’s increasingly sophist-

icated missile launches is behind this, but the develop-

ment has raised concerns in Beijing, which thinks the

THAAD radar could undermine its own defence infra-

structure. Assuaging such Chinese fears will not be easy

and Beijing would like nothing less than the complete

withdrawal of the defence shield. Although Mr. Moon

has promised to renegotiate the THAAD installation, it

is premature to speculate on Washington’s response.

But a more rapid restoration of cultural, tourism and

trade relations between Seoul and Beijing appears pos-

sible given Mr. Moon’s accommodative stance. Peaceful

coexistence is imperative among neighbours, a consid-

eration that will hopefully prevail over other factors. At

home, Seoul has in recent months been rocked by the

inluence-peddling scandal involving Ms. Park and ex-

ecutives from top business houses, leading to her even-

tual ouster. After rallying a large number of citizens be-

hind the unprecedented protests, the President has

raised expectations of a more transparent and account-

able corporate governance culture in South Korea’s

conventional chaebol system of family-owned busi-

nesses. In realising that unenviable task, Mr. Moon can

count on a demonstrably vibrant and independent judi-

ciary and an efective parliament. It will not be smooth

sailing, but there is reason for hope.

A new day in SeoulSouth Korea’s new president faces many

challenges, but ofers a reason for hope

The Supreme Court today willbegin hearing arguments inShayara Bano v. Union of In-

dia, which has popularly come tobe known as the “triple talaq case”.This case, in which the constitu-tional validity of certain practicesof Muslim personal law such astriple talaq, polygamy, and nikahhalala has been challenged, hascreated political controversyacross the spectrum. The All IndiaMuslim Personal Law Board (AIM-PLB) has warned secular authorit-ies against interfering with reli-gious law. On the other hand,Prime Minister Narendra Modi haslent his support to the Muslim wo-men ighting against the practice oftriple talaq.

One would expect the judges ofthe Supreme Court to adjudicatethe constitutional validity of tripletalaq (and, if they choose, of theother practices under question aswell) detached from the politicaldebate, and strictly in accordancewith law. A closer look reveals,however, that the court cannot de-cide this case without engaging in aseries of complex and diicultchoices. In particular, the courtwill have to decide irst whether toadjudicate the case in a narrowmanner, which stops at assessingthe relationship between tripletalaq and Muslim personal law, ofwhether to undertake a broaderapproach, and ask whether per-sonal law can be subject to the Con-stitution at all.

The narrow view Proponents of the irst view —which include some of the inter-veners before the court — invite thejudges to hold that triple talaq is in-valid because it has no sanction inMuslim personal law. In responseto the AIMPLB’s claim that the statehas no right to interfere in the per-

sonal, religious domain, they re-spond that the religious domain,properly understood, does not,and has never, allowed for tripletalaq. They draw a distinctionbetween instantaneous talaq, ortalaq-i-bidat (where divorce is com-plete when “talaq” is uttered threetimes in succession) with talaqahasan, which requires a 90-dayperiod of abstinence after the pro-nouncement, and talaq hasan,which requires a one-month-longabstinence gap between utter-ances. The latter two are part of Is-lamic personal law, but the irstone is not.

Relying upon the SupremeCourt’s own judgments, they pointout that only those features of a re-ligion are constitutionally protec-ted which are “integral” or “essen-tial” parts of it. There is noevidence to show that talaq-i-bidatconstitutes an integral part of theIslamic faith and, consequently, itdoes not deserve constitutionalprotection. On this view, the Su-preme Court need not go intotangled and messy questions in-volving personal law and the Con-stitution; it can decide the ques-tion on its own terms. Althoughthis would involve secular judgeslaying down the law on what Islamdoes or does not consider an es-sential religious practice, the Su-preme Court has been engaging insuch religious inquiry at least since1966, and it is too late in the day tonow say that it cannot, or shouldnot. In fact, the Supreme Court it-self, in a number of cases, haseither doubted the validity of in-

stantaneous triple talaq, or gone sofar as to say that it is not a part ofMuslim personal law.

Such an outcome would be aneasy one for the court to achieve,and of a piece with decades of con-sistent jurisprudence. Historically,the Supreme Court has often “in-terpreted” or “modiied” elementsof religion to conform to a modern-ist, progressive world view, whileholding that such its interpretationis the true understanding of whatthe religion actually commands.Such judicial intervention hasprimarily — but by no means ex-clusively — been in the domain ofHindu law. In the words of onescholar, instead of subjecting reli-gion to external norms (such asthose prescribed by the Constitu-tion), the court has attempted toreform religion from within. Ofcourse, there is a very basic ques-tion here about the court’s compet-ence and legitimacy to undertakesuch a task. However, while thenarrow view would be the easy andnatural path for the court to take, itwould also entail missing a signiic-ant opportunity.

The broad viewThere is a broader, almost radical,path that the court might chart. Itmight hold that controversies suchas whether triple talaq is sanc-tioned by the Islamic faith raisequestions that a court cannot, orshould not, attempt to address. Farfrom entering the thicket of per-sonal laws, the court should simplyask whether a challenged practiceof personal law violates anyone’s

fundamental rights. This approach, however, runs

into one signiicant problem. In or-der to subject triple talaq — as aclaimed aspect of Muslim personallaw — to constitutional norms, thecourt must irst overrule a 1951judgment of the Bombay HighCourt (subsequently airmed bythe Supreme Court in anothercase) called State of Bombay v.Narasu Appa Mali. In that case,Justices Chagla and Gajendrag-adkar held that uncodiied per-sonal laws may not be scrutinisedfor fundamental rights violations.They did so on the technical reas-oning that Article 13 of the Consti-tution subjected only “laws” and“laws in force” to the scrutiny offundamental rights, and that “per-sonal laws” are neither “laws” forthis purpose, nor “laws in force”.Beneath this technical reasoning,however, was a deeper assump-tion: a distinction between law, ascreated by the state or its agenciesthrough acts of legislation on theone hand, and “personal law”,which had its source in the scrip-tures, and in non-state bodies forinterpretation and enforcement,on the other.

This view, however, sufers frombeing historically inaccurate.There does not exist — and thereprobably never existed — a “pure”domain of personal law, which hasits source in scriptures (the Koranfor Muslims, or the shastras forHindus) independent and un-touched by state inluence. The co-lonial courts of the British empire,in fact, played an active role in bothconstructing and shaping whatcame to be deined as personal law.They did this through selection of“authentic sources” (to refer to andcite in their judgments), throughcreating a hotchpotch amalgama-tion of common law principles andwhat they perceived to be ancientHindu (or Muslim) personal law,and by imposing binary categoriesupon luid and changing identities.In many cases, this led to a rigidiic-ation and ossiication of the dy-namic aspects of religion. It is nowwell-known, for instance, that inthe famous Aga Khan case in 1866,

the Bombay High Court treated theKhoja community as Muslim, des-pite their own protestations thatthey identiied neither withMuslims, nor with Hindus. It wasperhaps for this reason that theBritish administrator Elphinstonefamously observed that “we oughtnot to be guided by Hindu law,which is a new introduction of ourown.”

The choiceUltimately, the choice between thecourt is a stark one. Ever since theNarasu Appa Mali case, there hasbeen a domain of law — i.e., uncodi-ied personal law — that has simplybeen deemed to be beyond therealm of the Constitution, and bey-ond the scrutiny of constitutionalnorms such as equality, freedom ofconscience, and the right to per-sonal liberty. Not only has this cre-ated a paradoxical situation where,as long as personal laws are unco-diied, they escape constitutionalscrutiny, but the moment they arelegislated by the state (as largeparts of Hindu laws were in the1950s), they become subject to theConstitution; but it also seems tobe entirely at odds with the basicprinciples of a republican demo-cracy governed by a secular Consti-tution.

There is no doubt that tripletalaq violates women’s rights toequality and freedom, includingfreedom within the marriage, andshould be invalidated by the Su-preme Court. The larger question,however, is whether the court willstick to its old, narrow, colonial-in-luenced jurisprudence, and strikedown triple talaq while nonethe-less upholding a body of law thatanswers not the Constitution, butto dominant and powerful voiceswithin separate communities; orwill it, in 2017, change course, andhold that no body of law (or rather,no body of prescriptions that car-ries all the badges and incidents oflaw) can claim a higher source ofauthority than the Constitution ofIndia?

Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based lawyer

Triple talaq and the Constitution The Supreme Court cannot decide this case without engaging in a series of complex and diicult choices

gautam bhatia

R.V

. M

OO

RT

HY

Will Prime Minister Naren-dra Modi surprise every-one and participate in

China’s ‘Belt and Road Forum forInternational Cooperation’ whichbegins on May 14?

That would be the kind of boldinitiative he took in inviting leadersof our neighbouring countries tohis swearing-in in 2014, but with fargreater signiicance.

It would also be an appropriateresponse to China’s recent four-point initiative and test its intent.China has suggested starting nego-tiations on a ‘China India Treaty ofGood Neighbours and Friendly Co-operation’, restarting negotiationson the China-India Free TradeAgreement, striving for an earlyharvest on the border issue andactively exploring the feasibility ofaligning China’s ‘One Belt OneRoad Initiative’ (OBOR) and India’s‘Act East Policy’. To repeat Nehru’soutright rejection in 1960 of ZhouEnlai’s proposal to settle the bor-

der dispute would be a historicmistake.

With the long term in mindIndia’s response should be basedon its long-term interest and notshort-term concerns. First, treatthe Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) —which already has contracts ofover $1 trillion covering over 60countries — as enlarging areas ofcooperation; and push for India asthe southern node and a ‘DigitalAsia’. India cannot be a $10 trillioneconomy by 2032 without integrat-ing itself with the growing Asianmarket and its supply, manufactur-ing and market networks.

Second, complementary to Chi-na’s Initiative, develop commonstandards with the fastest growingeconomies in Asia that are on theperiphery of the B&R Initiative,such as Bangladesh, Vietnam andIndonesia, to facilitate trade, in-vestment and businessengagement.

Third, ofer a new cooperationframework in South Asia aroundglobal challenges. For example,sharing meteorological reports, re-gion speciic climate research andthe ‘Aadhaar’ digital experience,despite on-going securityconcerns.

Fourth, thought leadership

provides an avenue to increasingglobal inluence. Hinduism andBuddhism spread to East andSouth-East Asia with commerceand an urbanising Asia and world,and needs a new organising prin-ciple around shared prosperity —principles that dominated India till1800 making it the world’s richestcountry for over two millennia.

Economy as strengthIndia has the potential to be thesecond largest world economy andMr. Modi’s participation in theForum will not be as just one of the28 leaders and 110 participatingcountries but as a partner shapingthe changing world order.

Countries are now gaining inlu-ence more through the strength oftheir economy than the might ofthe military. However, analysts inIndia have yet to recognise theseglobal trends and continue to seethe re-emergence of China througha security prism. Calls for new alli-ances with Iran, Iraq, and Afgh-anistan “to create a two-front di-lemma for our westernneighbo[u]rs, but also en-circlement of our northern neigh-bo[u]r from the west” ignore thestrategic impact of the BRI whichall countries in Asia, except Japan,embrace and require new ap-proaches to secure our ownre-emergence.

As a continental power, China isknitting together the Asian marketnot only with roads, rail, ports andibre optics but also through cur-rency exchange, standards, shift-ing of industry and common ap-proaches to intellectual propertyrights. As the world economy is ex-pected to triple by 2050, Asia willagain have half of global wealth.China is seeking to ill the vacuumfollowing the U.S.’s withdrawalfrom the Trans-Paciic Partner-ship, and India should add ele-ments to it that serve its national in-terest as part of its vision of the‘Asian Century’.

The bonhomie around the Don-ald Trump-Xi Jinping meet in Mar-a-Lago, U.S., in April is a pointer tohow the global order changes. A100-day plan to balance trade was akey outcome here and the Forumhas the potential to do the same forthe Asian giants.

Change also raises the questionwhether existing approaches, in-stitutions and rules are the bestway of organising international re-lations. Coordination between themajor powers is emerging as thebest way of global governance in amulti-polar world. Despite theirterritorial dispute, strategic difer-ences and military deployment inthe South China Sea, China and Ja-pan have just agreed to strengtheninancial cooperation, and theForum could provide an impetus tosettling the border disputebetween India and China.

The BRI seeks “complementarit-ies between a countries’ own de-velopment strategy and that of oth-ers”, though its goals have yet to beformalised, and India would lend apowerful voice to a strategy andstructure that ensures commongoals will not be neglected.

Mukul Sanwal is former Director, UnitedNations

Navigating the new silk road China’s Belt and Road Initiative relects global trends and a new paradigm which India can support and shape

mukul sanwal

AP

Reining in KarnanThe way the Justice Karnancase has turned out remindsone regrettably of the oft-quoted Shakespeareandictum, “Something isrotten in the state ofDenmark”. Even if one setsaside Justice Karnan’s‘aberrant behaviour’ andhis ‘linging irresponsiblecharges of corruptionagainst several High Courtjudges’, one cannot glossover the perception createdthat the judiciary’s Augeanstables need cleaning. Someof the cases of corruptioninvolving those who arehigh proile make onebelieve what the judge hasbeen trying to put across.Many in the judiciary do notspeak out for fear ofcontempt of court (Editorial– “The recalcitrant judge”,May 10). C. Lovidason,

Thiruvananthapuram

■ Justice Karnan was given along rope by the SupremeCourt to course correct

himself. But his belligerenceagainst and disdain for thetop court was persistent. Tosentence him before hisretirement is not a blemishon judiciary. Had theSupreme Court bench notpassed such an order, itwould have sowed the seedsof doubt in our minds onwhether the allegations ofcorruption raised by JusticeKarnan were true. In ademocracy, the judiciary,the executive and thelegislature are coexistent.When one wing is indiiculty, the other twoshould step in. JusticeKarnan should have alsocome forward to show whatwelfare measures weretaken by him for the uplift ofDalits.R. Krishnamachary,

Chennai

■ The case once againreinforces the basic fact thatthere is a lack of amechanism to disciplinesuch judges outside theimpeachment process in

order to addressdelinquency in the higherjudiciary. I recall a 2004article by Rajeev Dhavan inThe Hindu that laid stress onthe need for a mechanism todeal with errant judges. Thebehaviour and attitude ofJustice Karnan, even takingshelter under his caste, saya lot about his way offunctioning. Gone are thedays when one led byexample. I cite the exampleof a British judge, LordDenning, who resignedafter his book, What Next inthe Law, created an uproarafter he argued that allBritish citizens were nolonger qualiied to serve onjuries because “the Englishare no longer ahomogeneous race”. Suddapalli Bhaskara Rao,

Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

A spark for scienceSPARK, or SustainableProgress throughApplication of Research andKnowledge, is a good idea ifit is directed at encouraging

research, design anddevelopment in theindustrial/private sector(May 10). Very roughly, theratio of R&D eforts asshared between thegovernment and privatesector is 4:1. This should bereversed to 1:4, whichmeans that the privatesector spend on R&D mustgo up by a factor of 16.Otherwise, science in Indiawill progress as it has always— over-managed and under-performing (“Duplicationisn’t synergy”, May 10).Gangan Prathap,

Thiruvananthapuram

Triple talaqTriple talaq is not justanachronistic, but violativeof the spirit of the Koranicprinciple of justice andequality between genders(The Wednesday interview -Salman Khurshid, May 10).Most Muslim countries havediscarded it and sectionswithin Indian Muslims donot follow it. Insistence on itowes itself to fear that one

compromise would lead toanother, leading to thecomplete dilution of theidentity of the community.Similarly, when the BJPlends support to the issue, itdoes not do it out of anygenuine concern for justicefor Muslim women. It hasnever spoken againstcustoms such as maitrikarar or khap panchayats.In fact I found the party’s

manifesto for the Assemblyelections in Meghalaya to bepromising continuation ofcustomary laws for themajority tribals in thatState, and not the UniformCivil Code which it nevertires of demandingelsewhere.M. A. Siraj,

Bengaluru

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Letters emailed to letters@thehindu.co.in must carry the full postal address and the full name or the name with initials.

more letters online:

www.hindu.com/opinion/letters/

corrections & clarifications:

A front-page story, “ICJ stays sentence in Jadhav case” (May 10,2017), erroneously referred to the “Geneva convention that dealswith Consular relations”. Actually, it is the Vienna convention.

The opening paragraph of “IndiGo to spread its wings into re-gional aviation market soon” (Business page, May 10, 2017) erro-neously said “IndiGo’s fourth-quarter proit rose 25% to 440crore”. It should have said declined.

Late correction: It was erroneously stated in the obituary re-port, “The Jewish bahu of Anand Bhavan — Fori Nehru (1908 -2017)” — (April 26, 2017), that Fori was the founder of the CottageIndustries Emporium. As pointed out by a reader, a few otherpeople including Subhadra Joshi, Indira Gandhi, and KamaladeviChattopadhyay were part of it in its early days. The report referredto a conversation at Dharamshala. It should have been Kasauli.

It is the policy of The Hindu to correct signiicant errors as soon as possible. Please specify

the edition (place of publication), date and page. The Readers’ Editor’s office can be

contacted by Telephone: +91-44-28418297/28576300 (11 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to

Friday); Fax: +91-44-28552963; E-mail:readerseditor@thehindu.co.in; Mail: Readers’

Editor, The Hindu, Kasturi Buildings, 859 & 860 Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002, India.

All communication must carry the full postal address and telephone number. No personal

visits. The Terms of Reference for the Readers’ Editor are on www.thehindu.com

https://telegram.me/TheHindu_Zone https://telegram.me/PDF4EXAMS

CMYK

A ND-ND

OPEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

THE HINDU NOIDA/DELHI

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2017 9EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

DATA POINT

The Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi said that the rulingparty and the Government were one and it did not make senseto her why newspapers were trying to make out that the twowere independent of each other. Mrs. Gandhi, who was speak-ing at a function organised by the Foreign Correspondents As-sociation, said, “the party cannot last without the Govern-ment, nor could the Government last without the party.” Shesaid the party could not have the opportunities to do things ifthe Government did not exist. Both were one and the same.

FIFTY YEARS AGO MAY 11, 2017

‘Party, Govt. not independent of each other’

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

FROM ARCHIVES

An American boy was recently sentenced to throw 1000stones in expiation of his offence of stoning two playmates.The youthful offender is now a sadder and wiser boy, lame ofarm and sore, but pretty effectually cured of his propensity.His promise that he will never throw another stone is likely tobe as well kept as any human promise can be. The novelty ofthe punishment inflicted has given the case a wide publicity.The local magistrate, having found the lad guilty, might havesent him to an institution; or he might have suspended sen-tence and put the youthful offender in the care of a probation-ary officer. The law could have kept its eye on him for a greateror less period until the consciousness of guilt was impressedupon him. Instead, he was subjected to a punishment as exem-plary as it was brief and is let go after a lesson in law and orderwhich will last him a lifetime.

A HUNDRED YEARS AGO MAY 11, 2017

A Novel Punishment

U.S. President Donald Trump’sdramatic decision to sack Fed-eral Bureau of Investigation(FBI) chief James Comeyhardly escapes comparisonswith the 1973 “Saturday NightMassacre”. On October 20 thatyear, Richard Nixon iredArchibald Cox, the special pro-secutor investigating Water-gate, after he subpoenaed thePresident for copies of White

House tapes. The decision triggered a immediate storm insidehis own Cabinet as two top law enforcement oicials — Attor-ney-General Elliot Richardson and his deputy William Ruck-elshaus — quit the government instead of obeying their boss.

Nixon may have thought then that he could save his presid-ency by removing a deiant prosecutor, but his action actuallydeepened the Watergate crisis which led to his eventual im-peachment a year later. Since then, no American President hasdismissed a top law enforcement oicial conducting an invest-igation which has a direct bearing on him, until Mr. Trump’sdecision. Mr. Comey had been heading an investigation to indif there was collusion between Mr. Trump’s campaign teamand the Russian government. Unlike Nixon, Mr. Trump ap-pears to have the support of his Cabinet members. The JusticeDepartment stands irmly behind him. Further, unlike Cox,Mr. Comey is not a special prosecutor designated to probe anyscandal involving the President. The White House says his dis-missal was over Mr. Comey’s handling of the Clinton e-mailleaks, and has nothing to do with the Russia probe. Still, Mr.Trump’s decision could have far-reaching consequences bothon the ongoing investigation and his presidency.

Linked to ‘Russiagate’The order comes at a time when ‘Russiagate’ is widening —

just hours before Mr. Comey was ired, former Acting Attor-ney-General Sally Yates testiied before a Senate Committeethat she had warned Mr. Trump that the credentials of MichaelFlynn, his initial pick for National Security Advisor, may havebeen compromised by his links with Russia. This only rein-forces the theory that Mr. Trump is wary of the FBI probe, andit is not a secret that Mr. Comey is beyond his direct control.

Further, in a short dismissal letter, Mr. Trump said: “...Igreatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occa-sions, that I am not under investigation...” The “investigation”Mr. Trump here refers to is the same ‘Russia connection’ hisadministration oicials are trying to de-link from the dismissaldecision, showing how entangled they are in ‘Russiagate’.

Also, Mr. Trump may have thought that his decision couldget support from sections of the Democrats particularly upsetwith Mr. Comey’s handling of the Clinton e-mails, which theythink cost her the presidency. However, the Democrats werethe irst to blast the “Nixonian” decision, and asked for settingup of a special prosecutor to probe the Russia link. If Mr.Trump doesn’t agree to that, suspicions about the real reasonbehind Mr. Comey’s ouster will only increase. If he does, ‘Rus-siagate’ will continue to haunt him. Either way, Mr. Trump hasjust made the crisis worse, like Nixon did by iring Cox.

Trump’s Nixon moment?His iring of the FBI head is reminiscentof the 1973 ‘Saturday Night Massacre’

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

SINGLE FILE

Stanly Johny

OD

YSSE

Y O

NLIN

E

May 8, the morning after the secondround of France’s presidential elec-tions, marked a new beginning forthe country, in much the same way itdid 72 years ago on Victory in EuropeDay when the Second World Warended. With the election of Em-manuel Macron, who beat Marine LePen of the Front National (FN) by amargin of more than 30 percentagepoints, France has been saved — thistime from itself.

Mr. Macron now stands at thethreshold of an opportunity to bringchange and greater unity to a countrythat is perceived by its people as hav-ing a stagnant economy, an ineffect-ive political class and growing socialdivisions. Outgoing president Fran-cois Hollande did not capitalise on asimilar opportunity five years ago.Having promised to heal a dividedcountry and change Europe, Mr. Hol-lande’s presidency was marked byscandals, terrorist attacks and a be-trayal of his Socialist base. He leavesoffice with record low approval rat-ings. Only time will tell whetherFrance is now at another Hollandemoment or something quitedifferent.

Far from wonWhile Mr. Macron may have secured66% of the vote, France remains farfrom won. First, Mr. Macron’s sharewas only about 44% when absten-tions and blank votes are accountedfor. Second, Ms. Le Pen representedan extreme right ideology, yet wonthe approval of nearly 11 millionpeople — an alarming developmentfor any liberal democracy, more sofor France.

The last time the FN made it to thefinal round was in 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen, Ms. Le Pen’s father,faced and lost to right wing JacquesChirac in the run-off. So outlandishwas the notion that a far-right candid-ate could make it that far, it was polit-ically acceptable and viable for Mr.Chirac to refuse to debate Mr. Le Penand still win by a margin of morethan 65 points. However, things havechanged dramatically since then —Ms. Le Pen has garnered almost twiceas much of the vote share as herfather did in 2002.

Ms. Le Pen has been more success-ful, partly because she has ostensiblydistanced herself from the xeno-phobic, anti-Semitic and homo-phobic views of Mr. Le Pen. Not onlydid she expel her father from theparty, she brought her openly gay ad-viser Florian Philippot to its centreand also progressively softened hertone on the European Union (EU). OnSunday night, Steeve Briois, theparty’s interim president, said it wasconsidering a name change as it pre-pares to fight the National Assemblyelections in June — a final touch in itsimage makeover

The FN may change its name but inmuch of its DNA is a thuggery basedon a notion of racial superiority.Some French voters endorse theviewpoint and hence support it. How-ever, others have voted for the FN be-cause of the bundling of its ideologywith promises to protect voters fromglobalisation, Europeanisation and aloss of a distinct French identity.Bundling, a concept borrowed fromeconomics, involves the selling of sev-eral products as a package when theconsumer is really interested in justone. In small but quick steps, the FNhas brought under its umbrella an in-creasing number of voters who feltdisplaced by the EU andglobalisation.

Much of Mr. Macron’s work willtherefore involve an unbundling ofthese issues, with a consequent sep-aration of the underlying electoralchoices, so that he can achieve hisstated aim of drawing a dividedFrance back from the extremes. Forthis, he will have to do three things:kickstart the French economy; effecta reorganisation of the EuropeanUnion and the Eurozone (the groupof 19 countries that uses the euro);

and promote a strong and inclusivevision of what it means to be French.

The French economy is growing atabout 1.2% annually, significantlyslower than either Germany or thesingle-currency eurozone as a whole.Unemployment is high, just under10%, and concentrated among theyoung — a quarter of those in the agegroup of 15-24 years are unemployed.Mr. Macron, in a nod to both the leftand the right, plans to invest €50 bil-lion over five years in various sectorsto create employment; and save €60billion by not filling 1,20,000 publicsector vacancies as civil servants re-tire. He also plans to make the labourmarket more fluid by making it easierto hire and fire people, reform the taxand pension systems and invest intraining.

Addressing issues with the do-mestic economy goes hand in handwith Eurozone issues, as the EU is it-self in an existential crisis and its ar-rangements do not work for all, espe-cially those who have been hardesthit by austerity measures, such as theGreeks. The idea of a union was abold experiment in tying together thedestinies of European countries thathad been ravaged by two wars. Thatpulling out of the EU is costly and dis-ruptive, and pulling out of the euroeven more so, is obvious and expec-ted, because that was part of theEuropean project’s design. However,the Eurozone will have to start mov-ing towards greater monetary and(ultimately) fiscal union or it will haveto be disbanded. Mr. Macron seemsto understand this and has proposeda type of European federalism. Hisplans include a Eurozone budget andparliament.

Nobel laureate and economistJoseph Stiglitz has argued that a

closer monetary union will involveadjustments — such as countries withtrade surplus like Germany inflatingtheir economies. Mr. Macron has star-ted his relationship with Germany ona promising note, but if he is not ableto convince Germany and other Euro-zone partners to move towards closerunion, which will involve coordin-ated adjustments on their part, it maybe time for all partners to questionthe raison d’etre and future of theeuro. Failure to either relaunch thedomestic economy or take the Euro-zone out of its current stasis couldmean Mr. Macron not winning asecond term.

However, prior to any of this, Mr.Macron will need to get a majority inthe National Assembly which goes tothe polls in June. This can happeneither by his party winning a major-ity alone or with others, through apost-poll coalition. Else, he will haveto enter into a situation called ‘cohab-itation’ with a Prime Minister from adifferent party, one that could poten-tially derail his programme. Themainstream parties, the Republicansand the Socialist Party, have alreadyfinalised their lists. Mr. Macron’smovement, now called La Répub-lique En Marche!, and that of Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insou-mise are finalising theirs. However,the battle has already begun — unionshave started taking out protestsagainst Mr. Macron’s proposed labourlaw changes

While critics have called Mr. Mac-ron “a little bit left and a little bitright” (in terms of his economicpolicies, his social policies are liberaland therefore aligned with the left)and criticised him for not choosingone over the other, this is perhaps ex-actly what the country needs — some-thing for everyone to heal deep divi-sions. The old ways have not workedand have pushed the country furtherright where a sinister ideology haslurked.

Although France has flirted with adangerous extreme, it has finallychosen an inclusive, hopeful, gener-ous and open vision for itself. At atime when there is a leadership va-cuum in the democratic world,where nativist and exclusivist ideolo-gies are rebranding themselves aspatriotic and populist — including intwo significant democracies, Indiaand the United States — France canprovide a strong counter-narrativeand leadership to a world in greatneed of it.

sriram.lakshman@thehindu.co.in

By choosing an open vision amid the rise of exclusivism, France has saved the Fifth Republic from itself

Marching away from the extreme

Sriram Lakshman

AF

P

In a dramatic session in the Delhi Assemblyon Tuesday, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAM) le-gislator Saurabh Bhardwaj used an electronicvoting machine (EVM) prototype to highlighta possible hacking of the actual EVM used bythe Election Commission of India (ECI). Themodel used by Mr. Bhardwaj had a similarlook and feel to the actual EVM and had itsown ballot and control units.

It registered votes for candidates (partiesin the prototype as opposed to candidateswith symbols in the ECI-EVMs) and allowedfor the ballot unit to display total votes polledby each candidates tallied at the end ofpolling. Mr. Bhardwaj also showed that theuse of malicious code (“secret codes”) by avoter affiliated to a certain party could fix theresults to be different from the actual tallyand in favour of that party and, ergo, demon-strated that the machine could be hacked. Hewent on to allude that this is how EVMs arebeing hacked in the country and that it is eas-ily possible to do the same with the ECI’sEVMs.

Different codesIn reality, the ECI’s EVM does not allow forany trojan horse (malicious code) enabledkey presses. Only one key press on the ballotunit is allowed during the act of voting andrecognised by the control unit, so the use of asecret code to lock the tally in favour of aparty as alleged by the demonstration doesnot hold true in the case of the ECI’s EVM.

Mr. Bhardwaj later claimed in his presenta-tion that a simple change of the “mother-board” in the ECI’s EVM was enough torender the manipulations of the kind hedemonstrated as possible. In other words, ifthe ECI’s EVM was manipulated by thechange of its microcontroller, it could func-tion in the manner he demonstrated. But forthat to happen, a large-scale operation ofchanging the microcontroller embedded inevery EVM to be used in an election is re-quired, and this is only possible if there is dir-ect collusion between the ECI authoritieswho are in charge of storage, commissioningand allocation (which is done via severalstages of randomisation) and the politicalparty that is orchestrating this mass fraud.That is, every administrative safeguard insti-tuted by the ECI would have to deliberatelyviolated by its own officials to allow for themanipulation that Mr. Bhardwaj implied ispossible through his demonstration.

In media interviews, he went on to claimthat the ECI as an authority is in charge of

only certain aspects of safekeeping and mon-itoring of EVMs and that many others — suchas procurement of microcontrollers fromabroad, calibration of machines — are doneexternally, and it is in these stages that themanipulation can be done beforehand. Butthis again negates the fact that quality controlchecks are done during and after manufac-ture, and besides these, the ECI's new models(M2 and M3) prevent tamper-proofing bytime-stamping key presses and provide forencryptions and tracking software thathandle EVM logistics.

In other words, the AAP’s EVM-hackingdemonstration did nothing to raise any relev-ant questions about the technical and pro-cedural safeguards that are already in placeand set by the ECI. It seemed more like anamateur-hour display of the use of a randommicrocontroller.

Theatrics in Parliament and Legislative As-semblies are not new. But this display by theAAP was qualitatively different. The partyhas been under tremendous strain recentlyto explain its underwhelming performancesin Assembly elections in Punjab and Goa andthe municipal polls in Delhi. It has taken theeasy way out (as have other parties such asthe Bahujan Samaj Party) to ascribe this per-formance to technological fault through EVMmanipulation.

The EVM, just as any other machine,needs to constantly evolve in order to remainsecure and workable under any conditionwhile at the same time keeping its operationssimple. The introduction of the VVPATshould enable another layer of accountabilityto the EVM. To seek to improve the use ofEVMs and to secure them better is one thing;to call them faulty machines which are beingdeliberately manipulated by a pliant systemthat is in cahoots with dominant political act-ors is another, considering the experience ofits use for the past two decades and repeatedclarifications and improvements made tothem by the ECI. This amounts to delegitim-ising the entire system of an accountable andindependent ECI that conducts electionswith the participation of other administrativeactors as watchdogs and checks over it.

The AAP is playing a dangerous game bydoing this. The answers to the present stasisin the AAP’s electoral growth lie in the applic-ation of its politics and not in technology.

srinivasan.vr@thehindu.co.in

It’s not the machineThe solution to the AAP’s problems lies in politics, not wildaccusations about EVMs

Srinivasan Ramani

TH

E H

IND

U

SpontaneousorderEconomics

The spontaneous emer-gence of order (from ap-parent chaos) in a marketeconomy without con-scious direction from anykind of central authority.The order is the result ofdeliberate actions by manyindividuals, but not theresult of conscious designby anyone. In a marketeconomy, the price systemhelps coordinate the ac-tions of countless individu-als to create an orderwhere production ofgoods is seamlesslyaligned with the actual de-mands of consumers. Theconcept has applicationsin other fields as well, in-cluding biology, linguist-ics, and physics.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

CONCEPTUAL

What is the ICJ’s role inKulbushan Jadhav trial?http://bit.ly/JadhavICJ

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

MORE ON

THE WEB 3

How has Hamas changedits policy towards Israel? Inits new policy document,Hamas has indicated thatit is willing to make someconcessions towards Is-rael. The document statesclearly that it is not waginga battle against the Jewishpeople but it is against thestate of Israel and wants a“fully sovereign and inde-pendent Palestinian statewith Jerusalem as its cap-ital along the lines of 4thof June 1967”. This aim ofestablishing a newPalestinian state along thelines of the pre-1967 bor-der indicates a willingnessto adjust to the new re-gional reality.

Is Hamas distancing itselffrom the MuslimBrotherhood? The newcharter abandons past ref-erences of the movement’sassociation with theMuslim Brotherhood.Closely linked to the pan-Islamist movement whenit was formed in the late1980s, Hamas has moved

away from the Brother-hood ever since the Mo-hamed Morsi regime wasousted in Egypt. Hamas,which rules the Gaza stripthat has been blockadedby Israel, is totally depend-ent on Egypt for access tothe outside world. AndEgypt is now ruled by a re-gime that has declared anopen war on the Brother-hood. Besides, Saudi Ara-bia, a benefactor ofHamas, is ideologically op-posed to the Brotherhood.So keeping a distance fromthe Brotherhood couldhelp Hamas cultivate bet-ter ties with both Cairoand Riyadh.

So what is the core agendaof Hamas? At the core ofHamas’s agenda is libera-tion of the Palestinians,and a return of all dis-placed people to a sover-eign Palestinian state.However, it is obvious thatHamas does not want togive up on any of its coreagenda items like religion,nationality and ethno-lin-guistic identity.

Does that mean afundamental shift? This isnot yet clear as it demandsfulfilment of all other con-ditions such as the returnof all people who were dis-placed by the establish-ment of Israel in 1948.What is particularly prob-lematic is that Hamas hasrejected all agreements,including the Oslo ac-cords, that tried to norm-alise ties with Israel,without quite spelling outwhat sort of negotiations itwould prefer. Its rejectionof past peace efforts is alsoa sign that Hamas cannotattain change just by pub-lishing a new agenda docu-ment.

So, is the issue of Jerusalemnow secondary? On thecontrary, Hamas has main-tained a tough position onJerusalem and has in factextended its claim not justto the Old Jerusalem butalso to its “surroundings”.A Palestinian state willhave to be built aroundOld Jerusalem according tothis new vision document.

Peace in Palestine?

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

FAQ

Reading the shift in the Hamas’s stance on IsraelKallol Bhattacherjee

https://telegram.me/TheHindu_Zone https://telegram.me/PDF4EXAMS