What Influences the Office of the Governors in India


The latest exit from the office of the Governor of Mizoram, before the expiry of his term, is bound to revive the controversy over the institution of Governors. Sadly, the debate on the issue, since the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government came to power, has generated more noise than thrown light. It is necessary to recapitulate.  The Constituent Assembly started with the proposition of electing Governors but settled for a process where Governors are appointed at the pleasure of the President. As in the case of most other constitutional offices, no qualifications other than citizenship and age were prescribed by the Constitution for the appointment of Governors. The Justice Sarkaria Com- mission and the Justice Venkatachaliah Commission looked into the matter and laid down broad guidelines which, however, have not been accepted by successive Union governments.

  • Criticism about selections

In the initial rounds of appointment of Governors, the choices were largely un- exceptional and fell on persons who served the country with distinction in one walk of life or the other. Even so, a major proportion of these appointments went to veterans of the political party in office at the Centre, thereby inviting the sly comment that the office of the Governor was being used to put retiring politicians to pasture. From the 1970s, the selections became increasingly vulnerable to criticism on grounds of political partisan- ship, favoritism, patronage and cronyism.
The misuse of the office of the Governor for political purposes started as early as in 1952, when the Governor of Madras took it upon himself the task of frustrating the prospect of a government dominated by the Communist Party of India. He persuaded the Prime Minister to agree to his proposal of nominating the would-be Chief Minister to the Legislative Council and proceeded accordingly to install a Congress government in office. Then came 1957, when the Communist government in Kerala was deposed by invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule). Such misuse of office was subsequently compounded in growing mea- sure, by abuse of power by errant Governors, thus bringing the office into contempt and public ridicule

In the absence of clearly laid down criteria for selection, the process of appointment of Governors has been from the beginning, political, and rightly so, be- cause of the political nature of the office. The quest is not for the best person available for the post. The test is whether the person chosen has a public record that is without blemish and above reproach. Necessarily, he or she has to be one known to the powers that are responsible for the choice, and acceptable to them, as also the State government which is in office in the particular State. The recent Supreme Court verdict on the appointment of Governors does not impose any restrictions on the government’s choice of Governors. It only cautions that the pleasure of the President cannot be withdrawn on grounds of political incompatibility or any arbitrary grounds. It does not provide any preemptive relief, but only asserts the jurisdiction of the court to look into the matter post-facto if the aggrieved were to approach the court.   In my view, it will be beneath the self- respect and dignity of any Governor to go to court. Besides, such a course of action damagingly detracts from the high constitutional status of the office itself. In fact, the situation should never reach the point of the President withdrawing his plea- sure. At the slightest hint of the Union government’s discomfiture with a Governor’s continuance, he or she should offer to resign, particularly when there is a change of government. An even healthier convention could be that incumbent Governors should offer to resign automatically when the Union government changes, as happens in the case of the Attorney General and other Law Officers. Mutual confidence is the crux of the matter. Such a convention could even be legislated as an addition to Article 156 Clause 3 of the Constitution. I may be accused of preaching what I did not follow in my own case. Therefore, a few facts may need to be stated. When the Union government changed in 2004, my immediate inclination was to offer to resign. But I was dissuaded by all those whom I had consulted on the ground that it would mean my admission of a political affiliation in spite of being a retired civil servant. Five months later, when the intention of the Union government to transfer me to a North-Eastern State was conveyed to me, I construed it as loss of confidence and offered to resign. I acted on the offer as soon as the government made up its mind.

  • Judges as governors

The office of the Governor is not employment under government. Thus, the Constitution has no bar on retired judges of High Courts or the Supreme Court being appointed as Governors. The only constitutional restriction on them relates to their practicing law after retirement. As it is, they are being appointed to positions that have the character of employment under the government. By a 1969 Act of Parliament, the Chief Justice of India is designated to act as President of India in the event of vacancies arising in both the offices of the President and Vice- President simultaneously. There has also been the convention of Chief Justices of High Courts filling casual vacancies of Governors. Where it was intended that constitutional functionaries should not accept employment under the government after retirement, the Constitution stated so explicitly. It is for Parliament to decide if superior judges should be excluded from consideration for appointment to any office, as it is for individual judges to decide if it is consistent with their dignity and self-respect to occupy such office.
Finally, a poser on the transfer of Governors within the prescribed five-year tenure. Article 156(3) of the Constitution does not contemplate such transfers un- like Article 217(1) (proviso 3), which pro- vides for transfers of High Court judges including Chief Justices. Therefore, is it constitutional to transfer a Governor from one State to another for the remainder of the five-year term instead of a fresh five-year tenure? That is a legal conundrum.

How Democracy Became a Reality in Bhutan


In March 2008, the kingdom of Bhutan, an often invisible Shangri-La tucked away strategically in the Himalayas between India and China, became the world’s youngest democracy. An absolute monarchy gave way to a constitutional monarchy, a new Constitution mandating a parliamentary democracy was adopted, and, for the first time, the people of Bhutan voted, on the basis of universal suffrage, to elect a new Parliament consisting of a National Council or Upper House with 25 members, and a National Assembly or Lower House with 47 members. Jigme Thinley became the country’s first democratically elected Prime Minister. In the second elections in 2013, his Peace and Prosperity Party was defeated by the People’s Democratic Party. Its leader, Tshering Tobgay, a young Harvard educated man in his mid-forties, is today the Prime Minister of Bhutan.
            When I went as Ambassador of India to Bhutan in 2009, many foreign observers believed that the adoption of parliamentary democracy was more a cosmetic exercise which essentially left untouched the unfettered sway of the monarchy. It is true, of course, that the monarchy continues to enjoy a very high degree of reverence and popularity. But it would be wrong to believe that democracy in this once absolutist kingdom is only symbolic, and has not altered the powers hitherto exercised exclusively by the King.
             To understand what has really happened in Bhutan, it is essential to go a little back into history. The Wangchuck dynasty came to power in 1907 by uniting a bunch of warring chieftains. The fourth king in this dynasty, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, assumed power in July 1972 at the young age of 17 following the untimely death of his father. Jigme Wangchuck brought to the throne a wisdom and sagacity that belied his youthfulness and lack of experience. Having laid the foundations of peaceful economic development and political stability with full support from India, he applied his mind seriously to the future course of his kingdom. Until the 1980s, Bhutan had sought to zealously preserve its geographical isolation, preferring to let the world go by.
            But this began to gradually change under the fourth king. First, he transferred most of his powers to a nominated Council of Ministers, thereby volitionally diluting the concentration of power in the throne. Then, in 1999, he allowed both television and Internet to make their entry into Bhutan.
           Finally, and most dramatically, in December 2005, when he was only 50 years of age, he announced his decision to abdicate from the throne in 2008 in favour of his eldest son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. This announcement was accompanied by a royal command that work on a new Constitution must begin immediately with the express purpose of converting Bhutan into a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy.
          Why did Jigme Singye Wangchuck, whom I had the great privilege of coming to know very well, take these momentous decisions which would curtail his own absolute powers, especially since there was no political restlessness seeking a change of the polity? In fact, most people in this sparsely populated kingdom (population 0.8 million) were happy with their king, and actually had to be persuaded to embrace democracy. The answer quite simply is that Jigme Wangchuck had the political incisiveness, rarely seen in monarchs, to pre-empt history. He knew that in a rapidly globalising world, Bhutan could not sustain its isolationist path; he also knew, looking at developments in neighbouring Nepal, that sooner or later there would be a democratic challenge to an absolute monarchy. In view of this, he chose to anticipate the inevitable by initiating change himself. In doing so he also created the most sustainable milieu for the perpetuation of his own dynasty.
          Today, democracy is taking roots in Bhutan. The young fifth king, Jigme Namgyel Wangchuck, wise beyond his years, and Queen Jetsun Pema, are loved by the Bhutanese. Prime Minister Tobgay, whose smooth transition from Opposition leader to Prime Minister I have been personally witness to, is an able leader. The National Assembly still functions — especially compared to our raucous standards — with monotonous decorum. Legislators rarely speak out of turn. There is no din in the House. But issues are debated with vigour and conviction. The king addresses the House at the beginning of a session if he chooses to do so.

          Otherwise his presence suffices. He remains above the democratic fray, but is very much bound by the Constitution. Although the process is cumbersome, the king can actually be impeached under the Constitution by Parliament. Moreover, the Constitution also mandates that a monarch must compulsorily retire at the age of 65. Democracy, albeit with a strong Bhutanese flavour, has come to stay in the Forbidden Kingdom, and India, as the world’s largest democracy, can only welcome it.  

Discussing the Flawed Policy of Western Powers Against ISIS

  
If there are any doubts about a global double standard when it comes to West Asia, then the reaction to the bombing of Yemen by Saudi Arabia and its partners will put them to rest. Here is a situation, where fighter jets of a Saudi-led coalition are pounding the capital of another country, Sana'a, without seeking any international mandate, and there is absolute silence from those who should object. Leaders in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin have not appealed to the United Nations nor have they asked for an end to the bombing of civilians in an effort to stop the advance of rebels. Despite the question of sovereignty — of more than 100 air raids in which dozens of civilians have died in the capital, human rights violations and even the basic worry of these raids helping al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in Yemen — there has been not one word of censure from them. In fact, Washington is backing the strikes, France and the United Kingdom are giving them “all possible” technical help, and Egypt, Turkey and even Pakistan plan to help with the “ground offensive” to back the Yemeni President, Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, against Houthi rebels.

  • For Western introspection

For those who say this is a justified attack to support a legitimate ruler, stop, think and rewind to 2012-2013, when the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, faced the most difficult pressure from armed Free Syrian Army fighters and Jabhat Al-Nasrah rebels (IS took control later). What would have been the Western reaction had Iran sent jets into Aleppo, Homs and Hama to back its ally, Mr. Assad? Wouldn’t these countries have set up a counter-attack within 24 hours, or at least convened the UN Security Council for a Right to Protect (R2P) mandate to do so? The rank duality in dealing with the situation in Yemen is not just the subject of some hand-wringing; it is the single largest reason why the war against IS and even its successor organisations will be unwinnable for these countries. Despite 3,000 air strikes by a United States-led coalition of 62 countries that began operations last August to counter IS, IS continues to control more than an estimated 55,000 square kilometres of area in Iraq and Syria. That IS is an evil terror group displaying unprecedented brutality is undoubtable. That it is a threat to every country in the world should be obvious from the way the group has targeted every nationality: beheading American, British, Japanese and Egyptian citizens alike, burning alive a Jordanian national, and broadcasting its terror worldwide in the most bestial way. It poses the biggest threat to the next generation as well, recruiting a record number of child soldiers, and training children as young as five to kill. If the coalition, which represents nearly a third of the world, which has the resolve, the firepower, and the experience of fighting terror groups in every part of the world, is unable to counter such a group, deep and searching questions must be asked about why that is.  

  • Down to logistics

To begin with, there is a basic problem of logistics. Despite the most sophisticated drones and surveillance of the region, an air strike on an IS target is ineffective without an accompanying ground force in place. Even if the U.S. and its coalition are able to strengthen Iraqi armed forces to conduct ground operations, it is meaningless until they are also able to enlist Syrian armed forces to launch a pincer-like action on the group that straddles both countries. Without the ground forces, all victories over IS territory are, essentially, pyrrhic. This was evident in the Syrian town of Kobane along the Turkish border where the U.S. Alliance drove IS out in September 2014 after two weeks of sustained bombing and 600 strikes. As journalists were allowed into the city, their cameras bore out the tragic truth: all that was left of IS-controlled areas was a vast wasteland. The reason that the U.S. coalition has been unable to engage the Syrian regime for help on the ground is of course the reason why it ignored the rise of IS in the first place. The West’s preoccupation with the removal of Mr. Assad and the funding and arming of the groups that opposed him since 2011 led to complete surprise at the rapidity with which IS fighters have taken over Syrian and Iraqi towns. In October last year, U.S. President Barack Obama finally conceded that underestimating IS’s rise had been a major “intelligence failure.” But it was more than that. It was the determined effort to ensure that “Assad must go” that led the Western and West Asian countries ranged against Mr. Assad to ignore his warnings about the nature of the fighters his army was battling. As a result, and in another example of the double standard, the 62-member coalition now routinely bombs areas that it wanted to stop Mr. Assad’s forces from bombing.

  • Misreading the Arab Spring

The other flaw with the West’s strategy is the pursuance of regime change, focussed on one leader as the single purpose of its wars in West Asia. Recent history should have taught the U.S., the U.K. and others that the removal of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi haven’t been the end of the conflict; they have merely marked the beginning of a more diabolical and deadly version of the conflict. Hanging Saddam and lynching Qadhafi hasn’t led to peace in Iraq and Libya, nor would the possible ouster of Mr. Assad do that. Instead, it has led to an erosion of what were once “secular” regimes, where minorities and women enjoyed a higher position than they do in other countries of the Arab world.
Another blunder has been the misreading of the “Arab Spring” by the West. While many of the crowds that poured into Arab capitals, from Tunis to Damascus and Sana'a, demanded democracy and positive change, many just wanted regime change. Democracy is better effected through the ballot box than it is through the crowding of main squares, which is a powerful image, but a misleading representation of the “people’s will”. “We no longer refer to it as the Arab Spring,” admitted a senior NATO military official at the “Brussels Forum” conference last week, where trans-Atlantic discussions on IS were held. “It is now seen as the Arab uprising instead,” he concluded. Interestingly, the countries in the West that rejoiced at the thought of democracy in the countries of the so-called Spring missed the most significant point: all the countries that saw their leadership change — Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen — were republics, whereas none of the eight monarchies — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the Emirates, Jordan and Morocco — were destabilised. This skew, particularly towards the Sunni monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, who are more focussed on fighting the “Shi’a crescent” of Iranian influence in the region, has led to another problem. The West has turned a blind eye, and even assisted these countries in the funding, training and arming of Sunni extremist groups to carry out attacks in Syria. They have been doing this by trying to draw a fine line between the groups they support — including the Free Syrian Army and Jabhat Al-Nasrah — and with IS. Anyone who sees the distinctions between the groups has to only read the account of the American journalist, Theo Padnos (now Peter Theo Curtis), who was taken hostage in Syria in 2012 and finally released by al-Qaeda in August 2014 in a deal brokered by Qatar. Padnos was handed over from one group to another in Syria, and found few differences between them. When he asked why his well-armed captors trained in Jordan by U.S. marines were holding an American hostage despite promises they would only target Assad’s regime, they answered: “Yes, we lied.” If it is naivety that allows the U.S., France, and the U.K. to continue to enlist their Arab allies in the war on terror and hope they will cut off finances and oil revenues to al-Qaeda and IS, despite evidence that they play both sides of the war, it is a very costly innocence that the world has paid for.
  • Joining IS


Finally, there is a need for introspection inside Europe, the U.S., and even Australia, which have seen growing numbers of their citizens get through Turkey to join IS. While the brutality of the Assad regime and economic distress in the region have been blamed for the thousands of Arab youth taking up arms for IS, what explains the hundreds of citizens joining it from the U.K., France and the U.S.? According to the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, 3,400 of the 20,000 IS foreign fighters are from Western countries. Why are British and French girls becoming jihadi brides, schoolboys and young doctors learning to kill, and teenage Americans travelling all the way just to join IS ranks? Could it be that in the early years of a push for regime change and sanctions against Syria, Western governments themselves promoted the propaganda against Mr. Assad’s government, allowing many of their Muslim citizens to think they had not just religious but national sanction to join the war? Significantly, some of the West’s actions are now being rethought. While concluding another round of P5+1 talks with Iran in the Swiss town of Lausanne last week, the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that the U.S. is now open to talks with Mr. Assad if need be. “If he is ready to have a serious negotiation about the implementation of Geneva I (2012 agreement), of course,” he said. “What we’re pushing for is to get him to come and do that,” he added, in an interview to CBS. But talks will only solve part of the problem in West Asia. If the West genuinely wants to fight terror and promote a peaceful future for the region, it will also have to confront its selective silence and dual standard on the serious challenges that threaten the region today.

Scorpene Class Submarine Built in Mumbai Launched Today



Defence Minister, Manohar Parikar, launched the first Scorpene Class submarine today. According to many defense experts this is a big push forward towards the modernization of the Indian Navy. The minister also said that from now on the Indian Navy will get a delivery of atleast one submarine every nine months. He pointed out that the project has experienced a lot of delay and has over shot the budget by more than 5,000 Rs all due to the previous governments lack of commitment in upgrading the aging fleet of Indian submarines.

  • Quick facts about the Scorpene Class submarines:



  1. Scorpene Class submarines were jointly developed by the French company DCN and Spanish company Navantia. The production of these submarines is now under the French company DCNS that specialises in defense and energy sector.
  2. Scorpene Class submarines are Disel-Electric Attack Class submarines.
  3. India order 6 Scorpene submarines in 2005.
  4. All of the submarines will be built in India at the Mazagon docks in Mumbai.
  5. Each Scorpene Class submarine can be fitted with a "Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome" (MESMA). This module uses ethanol and oxyen (at 60 atmospheric pressure) to run a convention turbine power plant. Installing this module allows the dispensation of Carbon dioxide at any depth and also allows the Submarine to stay under water for more than 21 days.
  6. The first submarine has been named as INS Khanderi.
  7. Four countries - India, Chille, Brazil and Malaysia have ordered Scorpene Class submarines.
India is also working on developing Nuclear fueled submarines and has already manufactured a prototype known as INS Arihant.


North India to Adopt Euro IV Standards: Understanding the European and Indian emission norms


Emission norms are a way of controlling pollution caused by automobiles and other vehicles with internal combustion engine. Starting from April 1, 2015, North India will switch to Euro IV fuel. The idea behind making this transition from Euro III to Euro IV is to control the pollution by upgrading the quality of fuel and by encouraging the automobile industry to manufacture more fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles.

You must have seen Euro III, Euro IV and Bharat Stage 1 or 2 or 3 stickers on the backside of a lot of cars. Lets read about them and get to know what these terms actually mean.

Bharat Stage Emission Standards are the Indian equivalent of the European emission standards. The government of India introduced the emission standards for the first time in 1991 for petrol vehicles and in 1992 for diesel vehicles. In the upcoming years, the government also made it mandatory for automobile manufacturers to install a "catalytic converter" in every petrol vehicle they manufacture.

In the year 2000, the Indian Government introduced Bharat Stage Emission Standards that were based on the European emission standards. These first emission norms were called Bharat Stage I. Bharat Stage I norms were based on Euro I standards.

In the year 2002, the government of India constituted a committee known as Mashelkar Committee. The role of this committee was to suggest a plan for the implementation of the European based emission norms in India. In its report, the committee suggested that future implementation of emission standards must be carried out in the major cities first and should be extended to the rest of the India gradually. The National Auto Fuel Policy was drafted on the basis of the suggestions given by the Mashelkar Committee.
Right now 13 cities have been classified as major metropolitan cities where new emission standards are introduced first. These 13 cities are New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Chennai, Jamshedpur, Sholapur, Lucknow, Pune, Surat, Hyderabad, Kanpur and Agra.
Currently these 13 cities have Bharat IV emission norms while most of the rest of India is still stuck on Bharat 3 emission standards that were introduced in 2005.
The Bhart IV emission standards also addresses the pollution caused by two wheelers and mandates that all two wheelers must be installed with Evaporative Control Units that prevents the evaporation of petrol when the vehicle is parked.

  • Effect of Emission Standards on The Quality of Fuel:

The introduction of stricter emission standards has resulted in better fuel quality. For example Bharat III complying fuel has sulphur content of 50mg per Kg of fuel where as Bharat IV complying fuel contains only 10Mg/Kg of sulphur content.

  • Criticism of Emission Standards in India:

While in Europe, Euro V standards have already been introduced. In India, most of the country is still stuck on Bharat III standards that are based on Euro 3 norms. Some experts suggested that there was an urgent need to skip the Bharat III standards and directly adopt Bharat IV standards. But this was ignored by the government as the automotive industry was showing reluctance in taking this leap.

Another point of criticism is that in India it is not mandatory for the manufacturers to label the Carbon dioxide limits on their vehicles. Norms for controlling the carbon dioxide emissions are absent in Euro standards too but in Europe it is mandatory for manufacturers to label all the vehicles with the carbon dioxide emission limits so that the customers are aware of the pollution potential of their vehicles..

Understanding the Land Acquisition Act and The Proposed Changes By The BJP Led Govt


Recently there was a lot of media attention over the proposed changes in the Land Acquisition Act. It was highlighted by the protest lead by Anna Hazare. Even though most of us know about the protest, but very few have a clear view on the actual points of contention in the bill. Lets take a look at what the actual bill was and what the BJP led government wanted to change in it. Please note that the government has already renewed the ordinance.

Tracing the roots of the original Land Acquisition Act:

The original Land Acquisition Act was passed in 1894 by the British Government. After the independence, the governments of both India and Pakistan adopted this act. Sine then the act has gone through a lot of amendments. This act was finally repealed and replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

This act of 2013, drafted and implemented by the UPA Govt gained popularity among the farmers and land holders. Many experts consider this act to be pro-farmer. It is this act of 2013 that the BJP led Govt is trying to amend. Interestingly a lot experts and NGOs have called the BJP's strategy to amend this act as Pro-Corporate instead of Pro-Farmers.


  • Following are 3 points that make this ordinance against the poor farmers of our country:
  1. According to the act of 2013, the government can take land only if a certain majority of land holders agree to sell their lands. In the ordinance brought by the BJP, this clause has been deleted so now the government is not liable to wait for anyone to give his/her consent.
  2. In the UPA's bill there was a provision which allowed the farmers to appeal in courts if they were not properly compensated for their lands. The new ordinance takes away this too.
  3. Modi led government is also against the Social Impact Assessment and hence has deleted this provision too from the new draft bill.











Indian Vultures: A Species on the verge of extinction

While growing up in India, i used to see hundreds of vultures flying in the sky and circling a dead animal. But today it's a rare site. I am sure those of you born before or in the early 90s must have seen a lot of vultures but unfortunately most of the children born in the last decade have never seen this majestic bird flying in the sky. It's because vultures are on the verge of extinction. The situation is that today there are only a few thousand vultures left in India. The problem has been officially recognized by the government and is popularly known as "The Indian Vulture Crisis".

  • According to the official figures, there were more than 80 million vultures in India before 1980. 
  • India had the largest population of white-rumped vultures.
  • The decline in the population of vultures was first noted by Mr. Vibhu Prakash of the Bombay Natural History Society. 

The cause of rapid decline in the vulture population:

In 2003, it was discovered that a veterinary drug known as Diclofenac was the cause for the rapid decline of the vulture population. Diclofenac is drug that is widely used all over India to treat animals (mainly buffaloes and cows) suffering from inflammatory disorders.
Diclofenac is not harmful to the animal that is treated with it but if a vulture eats the carcass of that animal then it proves to be highly toxic for the vulture.
Since Diclofenac was widely used all over the country, it had devastating effects on the vulture population.

The Solution to the problem: 

  • In 2006 the sale and use of Diclofenac was banned all over the country.
  • An alternative drug known as Meloxicam has been developed and made available in the market.
  • Neighboring countries like Pakistan and Nepal have also banned the sale of Diclofenac.

The situation in 2015:

Even though Diclofenac has been banned for use in veterinary medicine but the same drug is also used for the treatment of human beings and there is no restriction on its sale and purchase. Sometimes farmers buy the drug meant for human consumption and inject their cattle with it. Hence, now the problem can only be solved by educating the people about the deadly effects of Diclofenac.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)