Do politicians need to be educated?

 

What happened? 

Last week, Unacademy fired a teacher who, during an online class, appealed to the students to vote for educated candidates. The ed-tech company justified that the teacher, Karan Sangwan, had violated his contract by sharing his personal opinions and views. 

Why does it matter? 

In the viral video, Sangwan could be heard telling his students to ‘elect educated leaders who understand things and don’t just change names’. He was apparently discussing the recent bill tabled in the Lok Sabha by Home Minister Amit Shah that seeks to replace British-era laws (read our coverage of the bills here). That’s why many allege that Sangwan was fired due to political pressure. 

Whether teachers should be allowed to discuss their personal opinions in class or not is a separate debate, but his view raised an important point of discussion on the educational qualification of political candidates. The Constitution of India lays down certain eligibility criteria for MPs and MLAs, but educational qualification doesn’t find any mention. Do we need reforms? 

What are the arguments from both sides? 

Side 1: Education qualification must be a criterion: 

• Decision making: Education enhances a person’s decision-making abilities by providing them with knowledge and sharpening their critical thinking skills. An educated policymaker can better evaluate situations, arguments, and complex information. Therefore, they can make better decisions for the public good. 

• Development: We live in an age where the world is witnessing rapid technological growth. Educated policymakers will be better equipped to grasp the new technology and use them for the economic development of our nation. There’s empirical evidence that shows a correlation between a political leader's educational qualification and the region's economic growth during the leader's tenure in office. 

• Need for Reform: The reason why the criterion of education wasn’t included in the constitution is that when it was formed, illiteracy was rampant in India. And the constitution makers believed that such criteria would mean excluding most of the population from contesting elections. Now that the literacy rate has risen in India (by three folds), we need to reform the criteria. 

Side 2: Education qualification must NOT be a criterion: 

• Wisdom: A good policymaker isn’t required to be a highly-educated person. They need remarkable knowledge of society and the aspirations of the people they represent. Most uneducated policy-makers have practical wisdom, and they’re greatly connected with the people. Therefore, if education becomes a mandatory criterion, such qualified people wouldn’t be able to participate in politics. 

• Advisors: There are advisory committees in diverse fields that help the government make better decisions. The experts on the committee bridge the gap in knowledge and analytical skills and offer valuable insights to the policy-makers. Well-educated bureaucrats also provide their advice to policymakers. They’re actually the ones who translate the government’s policies into actionable plans and strategies. 

• Elitism: Though the literacy rate has increased in the past seven decades, India remains a very unequal place. Not everybody has access to the same resources for education. If the criterion is applied, historically backward castes and the poor class would be excluded from participating in politics. This would violate the very spirit of democracy. 

What’s next? 

Karan Sangwan, the ex-Uncademcy teacher, has clarified that his remarks weren’t targeted at any specific government or political party. 

Due to the lack of focused debate on the criterion of education qualification in the public sphere, it’s hard to say when the topic would be discussed in parliament. 

Sedition Law Repealed?

What happened?

On August 11, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced three new bills in Lok Sabha. These bills propose to replace the criminal laws, including the harsh sedition laws that originated during the British colonial era and were still used in India.

Why does it matter?

More than 160 years ago, Thomas Babington Macaulay laid down the Indian Penal Code. It has since been guiding Indian criminal law. It outlines what behaviours are considered crimes and the associated punishments. The new bills introduced in the parliament will reform the country’s judicial system significantly, especially its dealing with offences of terrorism, crimes against women, and acts that are against the State. However, they have also sparked a debate on the BJP-led government’s intentions to bring these reforms.

What are the arguments from both sides?

Side 1: They should be implemented: 

Colonial legacy: While introducing the bills in the Lok Sabha, Amit Shah argued that the existing criminal laws were laid down by the British to favour their colonial interests. They sought to protect the British and not the people of India. The new bills will help India shed the ‘colonial hangover’.

People-centric: The bills seek to reform the existing laws that were designed to instil fear in people’s minds towards the State. The reforms will focus more on providing justice to the people rather than punishing them. Punishment will be used to create a sentiment that prevents people from committing crimes.

Modern times: The outdated laws aren’t fit for practice in modern times. The nature of crime, the psychology of criminals and technology have changed drastically. Therefore, the existing laws need to be reformed to accommodate the changes and make criminal justice at par with the present.

Side 2: They should NOT be implemented:

Sedition 2.0: Experts argue that the new bills seek to strengthen the Sedition law rather than repeal it by creating vague provisions. The new bills replace the word ‘sedition’ with ‘subversive activities’ but offer no definition of what this actually means. Such vague provisions will increase the risk of unreasonable arrests.

Greater power to police: The proposed bills also offer more power to the police. Under the existing law, police could hold an arrested person in custody for a maximum of 15 days. But that has been extended to 60-90 days. Under such a provision, the new laws fail to be ‘people-centric’.

Existing problems: Larger parts of the bills simply reproduce existing provisions of the laws. This means they don’t solve the existing problem in the criminal justice system. For instance, there are no new provisions for solving the large numbers of undertrials (i.e. people who’re being held in custody and awaiting a trial). Another huge problem is police torture and the submission of torture-based confessions by using loopholes in the laws. If the Centre wants to introduce ‘people-centric’ laws, it must first create provisions to address these problems.

What’s next?

The bills are currently referred to the concerned committee in the parliament. With the committee’s approval, they will be brought into the Lok Sabha for debate and discussion during the next session of the parliament.

No Country for Muslims?

 

What happened?

In recent weeks, two incidents of communal violence and discrimination have taken place in different parts of India, raising concerns about the safety and security of the Muslim minority. In Uttarakhand’s Uttarkashi district, hundreds of Muslim families have been facing threats and harassment from right-wing Hindu groups after two youths - one being Muslim - were caught allegedly abducting a Hindu girl. In some towns, such as Barkot and Purola, Muslim-owned shops have been marked with an 'X' sign and asked to vacate within a week. Many Muslims have fled their homes, fearing violence.

In Kolhapur, Maharashtra, protests erupted last week over a social media post that allegedly glorified Mughal emperor Aurangzeb on the coronation anniversary of Shivaji. The protests soon turned violent as mobs from pro-Hindutva outfits attacked Muslim homes and shops, pelted stones and set vehicles on fire. The police had to use force to disperse the crowd and suspend internet services in the city.

Why it matters?

These incidents are significant because they reveal a trend of communal intolerance in the Indian society. They directly violate the constitutional rights of the Muslim community, denying them the dignity, equality, and freedom they deserve. Moreover, they highlight the failure of state authorities to protect minorities from mob violence and hate crimes.

What are the arguments from both sides?

Side 1: There is no threat to Muslims

• Intrinsically secular: India is a secular and democratic country that guarantees equal rights and protection to all its citizens, regardless of religion. Since independence, the judiciary and civil society have upheld these values, and there is no reason things will change now.

• Sporadic incidents in a large country: The incidents of violence and discrimination are isolated and sporadic and do not represent the views or actions of most Hindus, who are tolerant and peaceful. In fact, in the Kolhapur incident, a Hindu man saved a Muslim family from a group of rampaging youths looking to assault Muslim households.

• Law enforcement taking action: In both the Uttarakhand and Maharashtra incidents, the local law enforcement has claimed that it won't tolerate discriminatory or violent activities targeted at a particular community. Both incidents had trigger points and are not a part of some grand right-wing conspiracy. There were allegations of a Hindu girl being abducted in Uttarakhand, and some minors posted glorified messages about Aurangzeb on social media in Maharashtra. So, the police took action, but there is no plan to hurt or evict Muslims.

Side 2: There is a threat to Muslims

• Rise in hate crimes: India is witnessing a rise in communalism and Hindutva ideology, which seeks to marginalize and oppress Muslims and other minorities. The ruling party BJP and its allies promote a Hindu nationalist agenda to diminish the diversity and pluralism of Indian society and culture. A report showed that there were 646 hate crimes against Muslims between 2014-2022, most of which occurred in BJP-ruled states.

• Tacit support for hate speech: The incidents of violence and discrimination are systematic and widespread and are fueled by hate speech, fake news and political patronage of extremist groups. The Muslims face frequent attacks on their lives, property, places of worship and businesses by mobs belonging to pro-Hindutva outfits. The violence in Uttarakhand flared up after a hate speech by Hindu religious leader Darshan Bharti, who called for Hindus to banish Muslims in their towns. The police have taken no action against Bharti.

• Law enforcement colludes: In both Maharashtra and Uttarakhand, there have been allegations that the police have colluded with the perpetrators. Darshan Bharti met with the Uttarakhand DGP shortly after making his hate speech. In Maharashtra, too, the police have detained all the Muslim boys but have not taken action against Hindu mobs. Moreover, even Maharashtra Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis derogatorily referred to Muslims as "Aurangzeb ki aulaadein (children)," fueling further tensions.

What next?

In Uttarkashi, Hindu groups have given an ultimatum to Muslim traders to leave the district before a "Maha panchayat" on June 15. Muslims have been threatened with violence if they fail to do so. The local law enforcement and administration must ensure the situation is controlled. In Maharashtra, the situation has returned to normalcy, but it remains fragile. The law must deal with the disgruntled elements.

Can J&K claim sovereignty?

 

What happened?

The Supreme Court hears a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution that bestowed special status in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitions were last heard in March 2020.

Why does it matter?

Article 370 substantially limited Parliament’s power to legislate for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and gave greater power to the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature. In August 2019, through a Presidential order, the Centre scrapped the Article and bifurcated the state into two Union territories: J&K and Ladakh.

The Centre claims that after the abrogation of Article 370, life has returned to normalcy in the region after over three decades of turmoil. Stone pelting, bandhs and hartals have all stopped. But on the other hand, the people of J&K are questioning the Centre’s move to revoke Article 370 and divide Jammu and Kashmir without taking consent from the people.

Arguments from both sides:

Side 1 (The petitioners): Article 370 cannot be revoked

J&K’s accession to India was conditional: When the erstwhile state of J&K acceded to India, it never wholly integrated or merged but rather kept its autonomy intact through Article 370. Additionally, the Maharaja of Kashmir did not sign a revised instrument of accession like other states, giving complete control over its affairs to the Union government

Article 370 was permanent: The petitioners argue that according to Article 370(3), the special status of Jammu and Kashmir could not be amended or repealed unless the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir recommended it. Even the motion to change, amend and abrogate it must be initiated by the Constituent Assembly. Since the Constituent Assembly of J&K operated only from 1951 to 1957 and ceased to exist after that, Article 370 had attained permanence.

A Presidential order cannot remove it: Based on the premise that Article 370 was permanent, the petitioners argue that any attempt to change it would require a Constitutional amendment. But the revocation of 370 was done by dissolving the state legislature in J&K, imposing President’s Rule and passing the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019- hence it is against the principles of federalism.

Side 2: Article 370 can be revoked

It was temporary: The intention of the framers of the Indian Constitution could be gathered from the placement and the language of Article 370 since it was referred to as a “temporary” provision. It existed merely to temporarily manage the situation and ensure that a wider time frame is provided to complete the process of further integration and uniformity in J&K.

Parliament was not consulted while granting special status: The special status was bestowed on Jammu and Kashmir by incorporating Article 35A in the Constitution. It was incorporated by order of President Rajendra Prasad in 1954 on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The Parliament was unconcerned when the President incorporated Article 35A into the Constitution through a Presidential Order.

What’s next?

The Supreme Court has held that the “complete integration” of J&K was done when Article 1 of the Indian Constitution (which reads that India shall be a ‘Union of States’) included J&K as a part of the Union of India. The case hearing is expected to continue throughout the month and will resume on Tuesday next week.

Violence in Bengal Panchayat Polls.

 

What happened? 

On July 8, at least 15 people were killed and several injured during the Panchayat poll elections in West Bengal. There were instances of looting of ballot boxes and destruction of ballot papers. Consequently, the State Election Commission (SEC) declared voting in certain districts void on Sunday. Repolling was conducted on Monday in over 600 booths. As per the latest figures, the current death toll in the state is 20. 

Why does it matter? 

Instances of political violence in Bengal aren’t uncommon. Reportedly, 80 people died in the 2003 panchayat elections, 45 in 2008, and 31 in 2013. The toll increased to 75 in 2018. Despite the foresight, the authorities failed to contain violence in this year’s Panchayat elections. 

What are the arguments from both sides? 

Side 1: The state government is trying its best: 

• Central forces: The Calcutta High Court ordered the deployment of 822 companies of Central forces or nearly 70,000 personnel. The SEC complained that they were not given adequate information for properly deploying the forces. The forces even failed to reach on time, and in many places, they weren’t deployed at all. 

• History of violence: Violence has been an integral part of electoral politics, especially in rural areas. The Naxal uprising of the 1970s and the Tehbhaga movement (1946-47) have resulted in strong rural mobilisation. Past panchayat polls under both the current Trinamool Congress and the previous Communist Party of India (Marxist) government have witnessed significant levels of violence. 

Side 2: The state government is not doing enough: 

• Inaction: The ruling party in Bengal benefit from the rural political violence. Violence has been used as a tool to win elections. Reportedly, the TMC has encouraged violence and used it to weaken the Opposition. The government could’ve taken several measures to prevent the violence if it wanted. For instance, it could’ve implemented specific laws around electoral violence. 

• Opposing the forces: TMC Minister Shashi Panja admitted that the state government was against requesting the deployment of the Central forces. It believed the Bengal police was competent enough to ensure free and fair elections. This short-sightedness on the government’s part shows that it hadn’t assessed the situation properly beforehand. 

What’s next? 

The BJP has set up a four-member committee to probe poll violence. The delegation will visit the violence-affected areas on July 11. Meanwhile, the political blame game continues between the ruling TMC and the Opposition. The poll results will be announced on July 11. 

Will Byju’s Downfall Affect the Indian Ed-Tech Startup Ecosystem?

What happened? 

Ed-tech giant Byju’s is in the news once again after three of its board members handed in their resignations. The three members were representatives of venture capital firms Peak XV Partners, Prosus and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. This development comes when Byju’s is already caught in court cases with lenders, loan defaults, and delayed filing of its financial results. Previously, Deloitte, an international accounting firm, resigned as the company’s financial auditor after it found several irregularities in Byju’s finances (Read our previous coverage on Byju’s here).

Why does it matter? 

India is the second largest market for e-learning after the US. It’s currently valued at $6 billion and expected to grow to $10.5 billion by 2025, according to an estimate by Blume Ventures. Byju’s, India’s largest ed-tech company, faces legal disputes over a $1.2 billion term loan in the US. According to the ASK Private Wealth Hurun Indian Future Unicorn Index 2023, India added only three unicorns in 2023. For 2022, the figure was 24. Amid these developments, many are worried about the future of the Indian-ed tech startup ecosystem. 

What are the arguments from both sides? 

Side 1: It will affect the Indian ed-tech startup ecosystem: 

• Destruction of reputation: Byju’s fiasco will scare big global investors of Indian startups. If the most valued startup in the ed-tech sector delays its financial details and defaults on loans, it might raise a red flag for anyone planning to invest in Indian startups.

• Government regulations: Byju’s competitors also worry that following the series of developments with Byju’s, the government might start regulating the ed-tech sector like the Chinese government did two years ago. In 2021, the Chinese government banned out-of-school learning outfits from earning money and all foreign investments in the sector. Though the Indian government is less likely to take such severe measures, any form of regulation from its side will threaten the autonomy of the ed-tech companies, eventually stunting their growth.

• It will trigger consolidation and layoffs in the sector: Byju’s has been on an acquisition spree, buying up several domestic and international ed-tech companies in the past few years. However, some of these deals have been fraught with challenges, such as the integration of WhiteHat Jr, which faced allegations of misleading marketing and poor quality of service 3, or the delayed payments to Aakash Educational Services, which led to a dispute between the two parties. Byju’s has also laid off about 3000 employees in the past year, citing performance issues and business realignment. These moves could indicate that Byju’s is facing financial and operational difficulties and is trying to cut costs and streamline its business. This could hurt the sector, reducing competition, innovation and employment opportunities.

Side 2: It will NOT affect the Indian ed-tech startup ecosystem: 

• Market cycle: Though investment in ed-tech startups has dropped, things might not be the same forever. Market forces can catapult and the startups might see a brief funding boom, helping them set their finances in order. 

• The competitors: The downfall of a single company doesn’t mean the downfall of the entire ecosystem. Other ed-tech startups like Unacademy, Vedantu, and Toppr could benefit from the public erosion of trust in Byju’s and innovate their products and services to capture the market. This means that the ecosystem will continue to thrive in one way or another. 

• India’s potential: Despite all recent developments, one can’t ignore that India’s potential remains compelling. It has a sizeable market, high-quality founders, and the startups have shown prompt integration of technology in their operations. The ed-tech startups like Byju’s are at a nascent stage of building out the market and testing different business models. The ed-tech startup ecosystem needs the right people to tap into India’s unrealised potential.

What’s next? 

Byju’s is currently in the process of raising $1 billion from new prospective shareholders. It seeks to close the round within two weeks. The success of this fundraising round will help founder Byju Raveendran retain his control over the company. In a virtual meeting held on June 29th, Raveendran assured his employees that things weren’t as bad as they had been reading in the media and also promised to liquidate non-core assets if the company failed to secure funding.

Should India Implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?

 

What happened? 

On June 27th, while addressing BJP workers in Bhopal, PM Modi asserted the need for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). He said the country could not run with the dual system of 'separate laws for separate communities.' His remark has reopened the debate surrounding the UCC. Many opposition political parties, activists, and communities who oppose the UCC have slammed PM's remarks, claiming that it's a ploy by the government to erase minority practices and rituals. 

Why does it matter? 

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) proposes to replace personal laws based on religion, customs, and traditions and implement uniform personal/civil law. This law will apply to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc. It has been a topic of debate ever since the days of the Constituent Assembly that framed India's Constitution. It was included in Article 44 among the Directive Principles of State Policy, stating that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India". Directive Principles are not enforceable by the court. They inform and guide the government. 

What are the arguments from both sides? 

Side 1: The government should implement the UCC: 

• Equality and uniformity: A democratic state is built on the ideal of equality. Implementing UCC will promote equality and uniformity among all citizens and ensure that everyone, regardless of their religious affiliations, is subjected to the same set of laws. It will also promote integrity by establishing a shared platform for diverse communities.

• Gender justice: Under personal laws, women face several discriminatory practices. For example, the rights of women regarding inheritance differ based on their religion in India. Under the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, Hindu women have equal rights to inherit property from their parents and have the same entitlement as Hindu men. However, under Muslim Personal laws, Muslim women's share of the property is half that of Muslim men. 

• Simplification: Multiple personal laws makes the Indian legal system complex and confusing. The UCC will simplify and harmonise the legal framework and help individuals to understand and navigate the legal system better.

Side 2: The government should NOT implement the UCC: 

• Violation of rights: India is a secular nation. Articles 25-28 guarantee the right to freedom of religion to every Indian citizen. Under this right, an individual can practice any religion of their choice, including following its distinct practices and rituals. For instance, Article 26 allows every religious denomination to manage its affairs. Therefore, by replacing personal laws with UCC, the government will violate a citizen's fundamental right, i.e., freedom of religion. 

• Modification: In 2018, the 21st Law Commission, which brought up a consultation paper on 'Reform of Family Law', said that it was 'discrimination and not differences' that caused inequality against women. Thus, rather than replacing personal laws, the government should modify and codify the existing laws to tackle discrimination and inequality. 

• Cultural and Religious Pluralism: India has rich cultural and religious diversity. Personal laws preserve these distinct cultural expressions. Implementing UCC will undermine different communities' cultural and religious identities. In its statement in 2018, the 21st Law Commission said, "Cultural diversity cannot be compromised to the extent that our urge for uniformity itself becomes a reason for threat to the territorial integrity of the nation."

What's next? 

On June 14th, the 21st Law Commission sought fresh suggestions on UCC from various stakeholders, including public and religious organisations. On June 28th, the panel received 8.5 lakh responses, according to the Commission Chairman Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi. It will continue receiving suggestions until July 13th. AAP has come in support of the government for implementing the UCC, saying it approves of the code 'in principle'. Other stakeholders, however, have remarked that the government rethink its decision.