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.