1. Pending for two years, SC to take up pleas against dilution of Article 370 on July 11
A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, will take up on July 11 a series of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution, which deprived Jammu and Kashmir of its special privileges and led to the bifurcation of the then State in 2019.
The five-judge Bench, besides the CJI, would have Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant as Associate Judges.
The five judges are the senior-most in the court and also members of the Supreme Court Collegium. Justices Khanna, Gavai and Kant are in line to be CJIs, as per seniority norm in the future.
The case was last mentioned by the petitioners on February 17 for early listing and the CJI had agreed to give a specific date for the hearing.
The Article 370 case has been pending in the Supreme Court for over two years. The case had not come up after a five-judge Bench refused to refer the petitions to a larger Bench in March 2020.
The petitions have challenged a Presidential Order of August 5, 2019, which took away special status under Article 370 of J&K. The Article had accorded special rights and privileges to the people of J&K since 1954 in accordance with the Instrument of Accession.
The special status was bestowed on J&K by incorporating Article 35A in the Constitution. Article 35A was incorporated by an order of President Rajendra Prasad in 1954 on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet.
Parliament was not consulted when the President incorporated Article 35A into the Constitution through a Presidential Order issued under Article 370. Following the abrogation, the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019 came into force and bifurcated the State into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
In a day, J&K had lost its full statehood and became a Union Territory. The move had been preceded by a state of lockdown in the Valley. The various petitions have challenged the Centre’s “unilateral” move to impose curfew and unravel the unique federal structure of India by dividing J&K “without taking consent from the people”. They have questioned the Centre’s move, under cover of President’s Rule, to “undermine crucial elements of due process and the rule of law”.
Separate petitions have contended that the August 5 order and the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019 were arbitrary. They have also challenged the proclamation of President’s Rule in the State in 2018. The petitions have said what happened to J&K “goes to the heart of Indian federalism”. They said the Presidential Order took cover of a temporary situation, meant to hold the field until the return of the elected government, to accomplish a fundamental, permanent and irreversible alteration of the status of the State of J&K without the concurrence, consultation or recommendation of the people of that State. The NC, the PDP and the CPI(M) welcomed the court’s decision to hear petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370.
2. Clearing the water
India must give a bigger push to scheme to deliver potable water
Access to potable tap water is a basic necessity. However, of the roughly 25 crore households in India (2016), a tap water connection that delivers 55 litres per capita every day of potable water is a rarity in most of rural India, which accounts for about 19.5 crore households. In August 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised that rural households would be assured of piped, potable water by 2024 — before his government’s tenure ended. When he made that commitment, only about 3.2 crore, or about 16% of rural households, were so connected. Today, those figures stand at 64%, a substantial increase but still below the target. In recent years, the Jal Shakti Ministry, which has labelled this plan of providing piped water connections as the ‘Har Ghar Jal’ missions, has consistently underlined the scale of the exercise. Since 2019, about nine crore households have their own exclusive access to piped water. This is apart from connections to village schools, anganwadis and community buildings. Yet, for all this scale, it is unlikely that all of rural India will be connected by April 2023, as per Mr. Modi’s claim. The COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war reportedly caused the mission to slow down considerably, government officials claim, by impeding access to pipes and civil construction necessary to the enterprise. Realistically, it is unlikely that even 75% of households will be connected by this time. While this too, by no means, is an insignificant achievement, the challenge is the reliability of these numbers.
The figures reported by the Jal Shakti Ministry are solely based on data reported by States. One proxy that presents a discouraging picture is the number of villages that have been certified as ‘Har Ghar Jal’, or having all houses fully connected. Only 1,68,157 villages have been reported by States as ‘Har Ghar Jal’ and only 59,000 or about 35% have been ‘certified’ — meaning their gram panchayats have formally acknowledged compliance. The overwhelming fraction of villages have somewhere between half or three-fourths of their households connected. An independent assessment commissioned by the Jal Shakti Ministry sampled about 300,000 households in 13,300 villages and reported 62% households as connected in October last year. That is good but too small a sample to be representative. It also emerges that the large States with 100% compliance, i.e., Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, already started on a fairly high base in 2019. The Centre must put in place a mechanism that discloses the scheme’s performance on the ground in a transparent way.
3. India should refuse America’s ‘NATO Plus’ bait
Sakti Prasad Srichandan is Assistant Professor, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
It was during a virtual press briefing in March 2023 on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) focus on South Asia and the Indo-Pacific region that the United States Permanent Representative to NATO, Julianne Smith, was quoted as saying that “the NATO alliance is open to more engagement, should India seek that”. Reflecting the same sentiment, the U.S. House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in May 2023, recommended strengthening the ‘NATO-Plus’ framework by including India in the grouping. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had rejected this idea by saying that “NATO template does not apply to India”. Yet on the eve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S., in June, Senate India Caucus Co-Chair Mark Warner shared his plans to table a bill to bring India into the NATO Plus fold.
NATO and NATO Plus
NATO is a transatlantic military alliance of 31 countries, with the majority of members from Europe. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, many thought that NATO would lose its relevance. On the contrary, NATO has not only survived but also expanded, with Finland joining as its 31st member (April 2023), and Sweden waiting in the wings. NATO appears to be getting the much-needed ground for survival, thanks to Russia’s tirade against it and the invasion of Ukraine. With NATO swelling its expanse, some analysts even see the onset of Cold War 2.0.
“NATO plus” refers to a security arrangement of NATO and the five treaty allies of the U.S. — Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, and South Korea as members — to enhance “global defence cooperation” and win the “strategic competition with the Chinese Communist Party”. Interestingly, the term ‘NATO Plus’ is not an officially recognised or established concept within NATO itself, but has been used in discussions and debates regarding the potential expansion of the alliance. The inclusion of these countries as members would require a complex process of negotiation and assessment of their compatibility with NATO’s principles, obligations, and defence commitments.
While NATO’s earlier target was the Soviet Union and now Russia, the focus of NATO Plus is clearly on containing China. Therefore, considering its disputes with China, India remains a missing link in the framework.
In light of increasing regional security challenges, India joining the NATO Plus framework could provide it with a security umbrella, with protection and deterrence against potential threats. India could also gain access to advanced military technologies, intelligence-sharing platforms, and inter-operability with other member-states. This could potentially strengthen India’s defence capabilities and modernisation efforts. But this bait needs to be assessed in the larger context of India’s strategic autonomy.
First, getting into any NATO framework will annoy Russia and China. Apart from the robust strategic partnership, Russia has been useful to India in dealing with regional security challenges and, importantly, moderating the stance of China. Even though Russia is getting over-dependent on China, post the war in Ukraine, Moscow remains a valuable partner for India. Should it join, in one stroke, India’s solidified strategic partnership with Russia will crumble. Balancing these relationships and managing potential geopolitical consequences would be a significant challenge for India.
Second, while aligning with a U.S.-led alliance system may be tempting due to the threats posed by China, it could ultimately prove counterproductive and detrimental. Having a military framework will limit India’s freedom of action and prevent it from pursuing an independent policy towards China. Moreover, at a time when India has its own bilateral issues with China and a strategy for the Indo-Pacific, hopping into the Taiwan strategy of the U.S. under NATO Plus will complicate India’s security, with the possibility of Chinese justification for further military build-up along the India-China border and frequent intrusion.
Third, India has traditionally maintained a policy of strategic autonomy, allowing it to engage with various nations and blocs based on its own interests. Joining a NATO framework would require India to align its defence and security policies with the objectives and strategies of the alliance, thereby potentially undermining India’s autonomy. While the non-aligned policy will get a quick death, it could strain relationships with countries, especially neighbours and regional organisations that value India’s independent stance, and could also limit its flexibility in engaging with other regional powers.
India’s priorities
India’s priorities lie in addressing its own regional dynamics that includes a unique set of security challenges such as border disputes, terrorism, and regional conflicts. While NATO has certain competencies to deal with such issues, its larger geopolitical agenda starting from Eurasia to the Indo-Pacific may divert resources and attention away from these pressing issues and, therefore, will not be of much help to India. For the time being, India’s posturing through the Quad (India, Japan, Australia and the U.S.; the Asian NATO as per China) looks more promising than the NATO Plus bait, though China remains an elephant in the room during its summits.
The focus of this NATO framework is on containing China, and joining it has the potential to undermine India’s autonomy
4. ‘Human error’ led to Balasore train tragedy, report says, pinning blame on signal dept.
Grave tragedy: The derailed coaches after trains collided in Balasore district in Odisha on June 3.
The Commissioner of Railway Safety says the triple-train collision on June 2 took place owing to lapses in the signalling-circuit alteration carried
out at the Bahanaga Bazaar station, which resulted in wrong signal to Coromandel Express; report submitted to Railway Minister, Railway Board
Lapses at multiple levels in the Signal and Telecommunication (S&T) department led to the Balasore train collision on June 2, which left 291 persons dead and over 900 injured, the Commissioner of Railway Safety said in a report submitted to the Railway Ministry last week.
Multiple sources in the Ministry told The Hindu that the primary responsibility had been pinned on the S&T department and that “human error” led to the triple-train collision.
The Commissioner of Railway Safety, South Eastern Circle, A.M. Chowdhary, who conducted the inquiry into the circumstances that led to the accident, said in the report that the rear collision occurred due to “lapses in the signalling-circuit alteration” carried out at the north signal goomty (of the Bahanaga Bazaar station) in the past. A goomty is a cabin that houses railway equipment.
The report pointed that the collision took place also owing to lapses in the execution of signalling work related to the replacement of electric lifting barrier at level crossing gate 94. On the ill-fated day of the accident that occurred at close to 6.40 p.m., the report said that the disconnection memo was issued at close to 4.20 p.m. for repairs. A reconnection memo was issued at 4.50 p.m. “After reconnection (which is ideally given after the work is complete), the S&T staff was still working on signal circuit,” the report said.
“These lapses resulted in wrong signalling to Train 12841 (Shalimar-Chennai Coromandel Express) where green signal was indicated for run though movement on UP mail line of the station, but crossover 17 A/B was set to UP loop line. This led to the train traversing on loop line, and eventual rear collision with the goods train,” it stated. There was also consequential derailment of train no. 12864 Yeshwantpur-Howrah Express in this course.
Sources said the 40-page report was submitted to Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw’s office, Director-General, Safety and Railway Board. While the Railway Board studies the CRS report, the latest in line to be transferred is Rahul Agarwal, Additional Member (Signal).
Accident was avoidable
While it is still not clear whether the angle of “sabotage”, as earlier alleged by the Railway Ministry, was involved, sources said there was human error and total failure of the “fail-safe method”, leading to fault in signalling. Criminal negligence on the part of the supervisory staff, including the stationmaster on duty, is also being probed.
Referring to a similar incident in the past where there was a mismatch between the intended route set by signals and the actual route taken by a train on May 16, 2022 at the Bankranayabaz railway station under the Kharagpur Division of South Eastern Railway on account of wrong wiring and cable fault, the CRS said that had corrective measures been taken after the incident to address the issue of wrong wiring, the accident at the Bahanaga Bazaar station would not have taken place.
Giving his recommendations to the Railway Ministry, Mr. Chowdhary said a drive should be launched to update the completion signalling wiring diagrams, other documents, and lettering of signalling circuits at site. Standard practices should be followed for carrying out signalling-modification work.
Before taking up modification of the signalling circuits, functional tests of the existing circuits, under alteration, should be done to ensure that the actual circuits are in accordance with the completed drawings. Any alteration to signalling circuits should be carried out with an approved circuit diagram, and in presence of an officer.
A separate team should be deployed for testing of modified signalling circuits and functions before restoration of the work. A competency certificate should be issued for carrying signalling modification work.
5. ‘Manufacturing growth eased in June’
S&P Global India Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) eases to 57.8, from 58.7 in May; new orders grow at a fast clip, compelling firms to ramp up output at a pace that is among the fastest in 18 months, businesses raise output charges
Manufacturing growth eased slightly in June, the survey-based S&P Global India Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) signalled, with the index easing to 57.8 from 58.7 in May. New orders, however, grew at a fast clip, compelling firms to ramp up output at a pace that was among the fastest in 18 months even as they raised output charges at the quickest pace since May 2022.
Reacting to strong demand and the uptick in output, firms hired more workers, albeit at a ‘moderate’ pace similar to May, even as overall business confidence rose to a six-month high, S&P Global Market Intelligence said.
While the increase in factory orders last month was among the strongest since February 2021, “positive demand dynamics and greater labour costs pushed charge inflation to a 13-month high”. Growth in export orders, however, slowed from May’s levels.
Though manufacturers raised prices for their buyers, their own input costs increased at a rate that was one of the lowest in three years, prompting them to purchase fresh raw materials at the second-strongest pace in more than 12 years, the firm said in a release.
“The surge in input buying underscored the optimism and proactive stance of manufacturers, as they sought to capitalise on favourable market conditions and obtain resources to support production growth,” noted Pollyanna De Lima, economics associate director at the firm.
“The latest increase in output charges reflected firms’ ability to pass on higher cost burdens… while maintaining a competitive edge,” she added.
