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.