Tag: disruption

Parliament Adjourned as Chaos Over Protests by Treasury and Opposition Benches Continues

The BJP remains adamant about an apology from Rahul Gandhi for his remarks in the UK, the most important reason for continued disruptions in parliament. The Congress said opposition MPs’ microphones were muted at least thrice, citing it as an example of democratic processes being thwarted. 

New Delhi: Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were adjourned without much discussion for the second consecutive day on Wednesday, March 22. The opposition benches have been demanding a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) probe against the Union government’s alleged role in fuelling the Adani Group’s fortunes over the last few years. Their protests have largely met with silence from the treasury benches and the speaker. However, over the last few days, it was not the opposition that has been responsible for the political stalemate in parliament. Most disruptions came from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs’ insistence that Rahul Gandhi should apologise for his critical remarks against the Narendra Modi-led government in the UK that has blocked all scope for discussions. 

Although the Congress has categorically said that an apology is out of the question, Gandhi himself has been offering to speak in the Lower House. He has already written two letters to the speaker Om Birla, requesting to allow him to speak on the matter. However, until now Birla has largely been tight-lipped, although Gandhi claims that the speaker gave him a patient hearing. Yet, the BJP MPs have been insisting on an apology and not letting Gandhi respond to the BJP’s allegations. 

Congress has already said that Gandhi’s remarks were wrongly interpreted by the BJP, with its chief spokesperson alleging that the Union government is attempting to deflect attention from the grave charges of cronyism that the opposition has levelled against it. On Wednesday, Jairam Ramesh released Congress’s 100th question to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the Adani issue as part of its “Hum Adani Ke Hai Kaun” campaign that involves asking questions of the Union government and its institutions every day. The party has been posing specific questions about the Union government’s alleged failure to take action against the Adani Group, even though the group’s meteoric rise was dotted with alleged subversion of law that should ideally have raised eyebrows. 

That the government didn’t raise red flags and overlooked the Adani Group’s violations of financial laws from time to time is at the core of the Congress’s campaign. But over the last two weeks, the party has also had to deal with the multi-pronged attacks that the BJP has aimed at Gandhi over his remarks in the UK.

Ramesh summed up his party’s campaign against the BJP’s allegation that Gandhi has defamed India and its democracy on foreign soil, and that he has sought foreign intervention to contend with the nation’s problems. “Distort, Defame, and Deflect,” Ramesh said while describing the BJP’s attacks on Gandhi, alleging that the saffron party distorted Gandhi’s statements to vilify the Congress leader, and that all such efforts were only made to distract the nation from the more pertinent questions posed to the government on the Adani matter. 

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi Must Not Go Unanswered if Indian Democracy Is to Be Credible

BJP remains adamant about apology

Meanwhile, Gandhi in his letters to Birla spoke about parliamentary rules, precedents and law of natural justice to seek time for responding to the BJP’s charges on the floor of the house. He cited Rule 357, which says, “A member may, with the permission of the Speaker, make a personal explanation although there is no question before the House, but in this case no debatable matter may be brought forward, and no debate shall arise.” He also said that the BJP’s Ravi Shankar Prasad had invoked the same rule in 2015 to respond to (the then Congress leader) Jyoritaditya Scindia’s comments against him. 

But this has not stopped the BJP’s adamance in demanding an apology – which has been the most important reason for continued disruptions in parliament. The Union government, in pursuing the BJP’s agenda, has also not hesitated to bend the rules of parliament in the process. As the chaos over protests by both the treasury and opposition benches continued, the Congress said that the opposition MPs’ microphones were muted at least thrice, and citing it as an example of democratic processes being thwarted by the government – a contention that Gandhi made in the UK. 

At the same time, the Congress also launched a digital attack on the Prime Minister showing multiple occasions when his comments about India abroad could have been seen as defamatory. 

Tug of war likely to continue

The political tug-of-war is likely to continue for the rest of the Budget session. By keeping the Congress occupied with its constant attacks, the BJP has strategically avoided a discussion on the Union government’s alleged role in facilitating the rise of the Adani Group, which has been under fire for supposed financial irregularities pointed out by the US-based short seller Hindenburg Research.

The saffron party knows well that it had used similar allegations of cronyism and corruption against the Congress to come to power in 2014. Over the last nine years, both the prime minister and his party have seen to it that such allegations against the Modi government are avoided or discarded through a complex web of deflecting mechanisms. Like in the past, the prime minister has again chosen to remain silent on the allegations while BJP foot soldiers steer an all-out attack on the opposition.

Congress has made it clear that its demand for a JPC is not aimed at probing the Adani group’s alleged misdoings but to investigate the prime minister’s alleged role in letting the business house go scot-free. At the moment, the BJP, which is attempting to wriggle out of the situation, doesn’t appear to have an answer, nor a befitting political response to the allegations.

Jammu and Kashmir: 18 Out of 20 Districts to Continue With Restricted Internet Speeds

High-speed data services will continue only in Ganderbal and Udhampur districts.

Jammu: The Jammu and Kashmir administration on Thursday ordered the continuance of 2G mobile data services in 18 of the 20 districts of the Union Territory until November 26, 2020, citing apprehension about the misuse of high-speed Internet to disrupt the district development council and panchayat polls.

Principal secretary (home department) Shaleen Kabra issued an order on Thursday night and said high-speed data services will continue only in Ganderbal and Udhampur districts, while elsewhere, the Internet speed will be restricted to 2G only.

Postpaid SIM-card holders shall be provided Internet access. However, the same facility shall not be made available on prepaid SIM cards unless verified according to norms applicable for postpaid connections, the order issued by the home department said.

Fixed-line Internet connectivity with mac-binding shall be available, it added.

The order stated that these directions shall be effective immediately and remain in force up to November 26, 2020.

Kabra said that terrorists and separatists will make all efforts to disrupt the democratic process concerning the polls of 280 constituencies of DDC polls and 13400 panchayat and urban local body vacancies. Such unlawful acts rely on high-speed internet for disruption, he said.

Don’t Shackle the New Economy with the Restrictions of the Old

Old and new economy businesses have different ways of gaining some form of monopoly in a product or a service value chain. It remains incumbent on the government to regulate this through appropriate and suitable regulatory mechanisms.

Old and new economy businesses have different ways of gaining some form of monopoly in a product or a service value chain. It remains incumbent on the government to regulate this through appropriate and suitable regulatory mechanisms.

Credit: PTI

Old and new economy businesses have different ways of  achieving monopoly status. Credit: PTI

There is a perpetual tussle between the old and the new. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this better than the tensions between the old economy and the new economy. A large share of the billions of dollars of foreign investments into India are now linked to the new economy. The new economy in turn is one that benefits from the freer movement of capital that has been enabled through a gradual opening up of our domestic market. And this capital is ruthless. It is attracted by productivity and efficiency, and not the populist impulses of our political class. Conversely, the old economy does seem to care about social equity – insofar as at least giving back through entrenched political patronage. A number of fallacies persist in the manner in which the old is pitted against the new –  and recent debates on Uber versus traditional taxi operators illustrate this.

Perhaps the biggest fallacy is that there are no common traits between old and new economy businesses. Of course, both aim to maximise profit, albeit through different means. Old economy businesses rely on high barriers to entry, which in the case of traditional taxi services are achieved through manipulation of the political economy. Anyone attempting to use community parking spots in Delhi for instance, would quickly realise that taxi stand operators have managed to appropriate space in a number of them, by paying ‘rent’ to the local officials. No doubt the cost of this rent is lower than that which would have to be paid if this were a formal levy.

On the other hand, new economy businesses such as Uber, rely on the sheer efficiency of technology to minimise costs. A nifty mobile application matches demand and supply in the taxi market, through an interactive experience that both the driver and the rider can use. There should be no mistaking the fact that the objective of any technology that is applied commercially is to create a monopoly of some form. And this is enabled through intellectual property laws that are widely recognised as essential for innovation, with some governments also complicit in perpetuating this virtuous cycle. Indeed, old and new economy businesses have different ways to achieve the same objective of achieving some form of monopoly in a product or a service value chain. And it remains incumbent on the government to regulate monopoly formation through appropriate regulatory mechanisms – whether for the old or for the new.

Another fallacy worth pointing out is that foreign capital is very different from domestic capital in its ruthlessness. The first quarter of the 2016-17 fiscal year has already witnessed the highest capital raise through initial public offerings (IPOs) in India in nine years. While the sum is a relatively paltry Rs. 5,855 crores (less than a billion dollars), capital allocation patterns are illustrative of this fallacy. Three out the six of the companies that participated in these IPOs were previously funded through private equity or venture capital investments, which are in turn intrinsically linked to capital availability in the global markets. Distinguishing between foreign and domestic capital, at some level or the other, is a fool’s game.  If India has chosen not to remain isolated from global markets, it is incumbent upon policymakers to make capital available for domestic enterprise to flourish.

So how can policymakers resolve this regulatory debate? One would imagine that a first step would be to reduce entry barriers, including licenses wherever possible, in order to foster competition. This should include doing what it takes to increase access to capital as well as removal of arbitrary pre-conditions at every step. Instead, state governments are busy figuring out how entry barriers to technologically-enabled businesses can be made higher. Karnataka for instance, has issued “On-demand Transportation Technology Aggregators Rules, 2016”; wherein one of pre-conditions is that licensees should have a minimum of 100 taxis in their fleet. This is perhaps not the best way to ‘Start-Up India’.

An alternative could be to first revisit and reconcile existing regulations and to focus on institutional capacity building within government while finding ways to enforce transparency. It is neither the moral responsibility of the private sector to think beyond its stakeholders, nor is it the task of governments to save the old economy from disruptions. It is however necessary for technology-driven businesses to be transparent given their inherent complexities; and in turn for governments to manage inevitable transitions from old to new by through some useful form of ‘co-regulation’ that empowers consumers.  

The ability of government or for that matter, the judiciary, to regulate dynamic sectors is limited – most recently evidenced in the call-drop case wherein the judgement states that telecom operators should not be penalised for bad quality of service since the faults cannot be “traceable exclusively” to them. Consumer experiences can easily prove otherwise and therefore should be used as a metric within the regulatory paradigm.

The author is a partner at Koan Advisory Group.