Sensex opens 44 points down on profit-booking, Nifty below 7,700

The benchmark Sensex fell almost 44 points and the NSE Nifty slipped below the 7,700-mark in early trade on Tuesday following profit-booking by investors after recent gains amid mixed Asian cues.

The 30-share barometer declined 43.81 points, or 0.17 per cent, to 25,241.56, with IT, banking, technology, FMCG, and infrastructure stocks taking a big knock.

The index had gained 608 points in the last two sessions on increasing prospects of a lower policy rate and sustained foreign fund inflows.

Also, the NSE Nifty cracked below the 7,700-mark by falling 31.30 points, or 0.41 per cent, at 7,672.95.

Brokers said that apart from profit-booking in recent gainers, mixed trend in other Asian bourses influenced sentiment.

In the Asian region, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng shed 0.37 per cent while China’s Shanghai Composite index was down 0.41 per cent in early trade on Tuesday. Japan’s Nikkei rose 2.01 per cent.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended 0.12 per cent higher in Monday’s trade.

Read More

Why AMU should be an exception

Every institution of higher learning develops its own character and identity based on its history, leadership, scholarship and student body. Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), which occupies a unique place among pre-Independence universities in India, carries an identity which depicts the idea of India in its character of pluralism, inclusiveness and unity in diversity. It may or may not be a minority institution in the strict legal sense, but it is an institution for minorities fully financed by the Indian state which showcases how minorities are treated in the Republic even after the forced Partition of the country based on religion.

A vehicle for community uplift
Like the author of this essay, thousands of non-Muslims who could not have access to higher education in the so-called leading universities in the country were attracted to Aligarh because of its low cost, excellent academic ambience and equal opportunities provided for learning and research. For several decades, AMU continued to be the destination for Muslims from all over India seeking higher education, with the result one finds many of them in leadership positions in nation-building activities across the country and beyond. In Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and a few other States, every educated Muslim has some link or the other with AMU which, in turn, helped to fulfil the mission of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of AMU, to uplift the community from backwardness and isolation. I would argue that if a large section of Muslims refused to migrate to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and preferred to stay back in secular India, it is partly because of the influence of AMU education on them and their families. Thus perceived, AMU requires special treatment in the Indian scheme of things.

The liberal democratic polity India adopted provided abundant space to test its strengths and weaknesses. Despite having paid a heavy price, India stood by its ideals and endeavoured to cultivate an inclusive society based on democratic values, showing to the world that diversity can be a virtue in peaceful development and coexistence. If this analysis still holds good, one need not get upset by occasional manifestations of extremism and distrust raising its ugly head in campuses, including Aligarh. To be fair, AMU has been relatively peaceful and free from extremist activities for several years now though it also had its share of violence in the past.

One may recall an ugly incident from the 1960s to illustrate the point. A distinguished diplomat from an aristocratic family and a personal friend of the then Prime Minister was the Vice Chancellor. The faculty and the students broadly belonged to three segments, one group communally inclined and active, another group Left-oriented and ideologically motivated, and a third neutral group devoted mainly to academic pursuits. A rumour floated that the new Vice Chancellor was handpicked by the Central government to compromise the perceived minority character of the institution. Aligarh being a small town and the university the only dominant public institution in the city, rumours emerging from the university got quick currency in every home. One day when the Executive Council was in session, a section of students led by the union president barged into the hall, disrupted the meeting, assaulted the Vice Chancellor and physically dragged him out, hitting him mercilessly. All this happened near one of the hostels of which I was the warden. Subsequent events proved that there was no substance to the rumour and that it had been orchestrated by a few extremist elements to advance their own agenda of having monopoly control over the institution.

A university that doesn’t discriminate
Such instances happen on other campuses as well and things return to normal when facts are brought to light. In my seven years at Aligarh, initially as a postgraduate scholar and later as a member of the faculty, I never experienced any discrimination whatsoever and received friendship and respect from all sections of the AMU family. Everyone eats the same food supplied at heavily subsidised prices by the university and gets equal access to all facilities on campus. The teacher-student relationship is exemplary. Of course, the student body is predominantly Muslim and that is what it was meant to be; but no meritorious student is excluded on the ground that she is not a Muslim. Given the fact that there is inadequate representation of Muslims in many universities outside, it is not surprising why AMU’s staff and students are predominantly Muslims and that too from the lower income groups. The university is a source of livelihood to thousands of poor Muslim groups in the neighbourhood.

It is clear that AMU is an institution of national importance and should be treated as such by the Central and State governments. Of course, there is scope for negotiated settlement of friction points which arise from time to time. The university stands to gain monetarily and otherwise if it has minority status. Even without that, the government can treat it differently from others acknowledging its unique character in the government’s policy of inclusion which is manifest in the slogan “sabka saath, sabka vikas”. The university on its part should recognise its social responsibility under the Constitution by giving preference in admission to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe groups and backward sections across communities. A memorandum of understanding between the university and the government with an oversight body representing the two sides should be able to get the objectives of the two sides accomplished to each others’ satisfaction.

Like every other Aligarian, I was happy when the President, as the Visitor of the university, allowed AMU to set up campuses in West Bengal, Bihar and Kerala where the respective State governments — realising the potential it holds for minorities’ education in their States — liberally made land grants. The brand name has its own value; but the quality of education and character of the institution depend on the local leadership and the relationship it builds with the parent university. The beginning in Malappuram in Kerala, where it got over 300 acres of prime land, was impressive and promising. Students across all communities applied in large numbers for its programmes despite the fact that classes were to be held in rented buildings. Contract teachers assembled hurriedly worked under a curriculum set by the Aligarh faculty that wasn’t customised to local requirements. Yet learning went on, examinations were held and programmes completed on schedule, giving the message that AMU is capable of imparting quality higher education anywhere in the country.

There is no reason why the initiative should be thwarted because of some legal or technical hurdles. It is now a question of the future of thousands of students and the prestige of a great university which has established its credentials in higher education for almost a century. After all, State governments have invested in the venture and people everywhere have supported it. Given the fact that the representation of the largest minority group in higher education is still very low, there is no reason why the Central government should not be equally enthusiastic and encourage it as it has done before. Of course, the present role of AMU in these campuses is that of an incubator and eventually they must become independent universities possibly competing with AMU for quality and excellence in scholarship. It is also not necessary that all campuses outside Aligarh should be alike in structure, programmes and management. They can develop through public-private partnerships as institutions of excellence primarily catering to higher education needs of minorities and backward classes, paving the way for inclusive development of all sections.

Read More

Honour killings are a separate horror

V. Shankar, the young Dalit engineering student brutally murdered in full public view at Udumalpet in Tirupur district, Tamil Nadu, is a martyr in the fight against the caste system. The countless young men, a large number of them Dalit, and the young women, their chosen partners, most of them caste Hindus, killed or injured like [his wife] Kausalya, whose lives have been destroyed because they dared to love across caste and community, should also be thought of as martyrs, as heroes.

B.R. Ambedkar had said in the context of a discussion on inter-caste marriages: “Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous man than a politician who defies government.”

Shankar may not have been a conscious reformer, but he and numerous others challenged social tyranny and in doing so lost their lives. They held up the mirror to the real dishonourable face of Indian democracy, tainted, scarred, coloured by the toxins generated by the caste system, often combined with the inequalities created by class exploitation and the deeply embedded patriarchal notions and practices of control over a woman, her mind, her body, her sexuality. Occurring typically at the intersection of the three Cs, caste, class and control over a woman, honour crimes have been described by the Supreme Court as “barbaric, brutal, committed by bigoted persons with feudal minds”.

A sustained state of denial


Yet in spite of the increase in the number of crimes in the name of honour, in spite of judgments and expressions of outrage in courts across India, successive governments have displayed criminal negligence in their approach to these crimes. There is no definition of the crime, no legal recognition of the various aspects of the crime, no protections legally afforded to couples in self-choice partnerships, no measures to prevent such crimes, no accountability, no punishment. And additionally, since there is no legal recognition of the crime, there are no statistics available. In the records of the National Crime Records Bureau, such crimes do not exist.

During the Vajpayee regime, the state of denial was public knowledge. Such crimes occurred in Pakistan and other Islamic countries, it was said, not in India. S.S. Ahluwalia, present MP of the Bharatiya Janata Party, was the Indian representative at the UN’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee discussing the Special Rapporteur’s report on violence against women. On instructions of the government, he contested the mention of honour killings in India. Women’s organisations strongly protested against this blatant falsehood, but there were no corrections made.

It took another five years of struggle to at least get the issue heard in Parliament. For the first time there was a discussion in the Rajya Sabha, initiated by the Left, on the issue of honour crimes. In July 2009, in a calling attention motion, members across party lines spoke on the issue of honour crimes and supported the demand for a separate law. In response, the then Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, said: “I think the demand for a special law is the one that has been made most eloquently. But I am afraid that it is a very simple demand… the answer is not to make another law. Whatever law we make, honour killing is murder… I would look into this whether we can define honour killing, but prima facie I am not sure whether that will take us very far.”

Although words of condemnation were spoken in recognition of the crime, the operational part as far as policy was concerned, from the side of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, was only marginally better than that of the Vajpayee government. Mr. Chidambaram, too, in essence continued the regime of legal leniency towards this crime.

However, with direct reference to the discussion in the Rajya Sabha and the sustained efforts of the Left parties, the issue was referred to the Law Ministry, which came up with a set of recommendations in 2010 called “The Indian Penal Code and Certain Other Laws Amendment Bill 2010”. In keeping with the flawed understanding expressed by Mr. Chidambaram, the Ministry proposed a piecemeal approach which dealt only with the crime of honour-related murders, not any of the other torture faced by young couples. There were other serious infirmities in the draft.

As expected, the weakness of the draft gave a reluctant government the further opportunity to shelve the discussion by referring it to a Group of Ministers (GoM), the famous UPA strategy to postpone a decision. In any case, those amendments would have done more harm than good.

Long road to legal protection


In August 2010, the legal cell of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) headed by Kirti Singh, in consultation with many women’s organisations and individuals, drafted a comprehensive law entitled “The Prevention of Crimes in the Name of Honour and Tradition Bill” and gave it to the government. The Bill defines honour crimes in relation to a violation of the rights of the couple. It reads, “All persons including young persons and women have the right to control their own lives, a right to liberty and freedom of expression, and a right of association, movement and bodily integrity. Every man and woman has a right to choose her/his own partner in marriage or otherwise and any action listed below to prevent the exercise of this right shall amount to an offence under the provisions of this Bill.” The Bill goes on to list the various types of crime, in addition to murder; it suggests preventive measures, it provides for punishment of varying degrees, it includes khap panchayats or other bodies acting in the name of caste or community, it ensures accountability of the police and administration. Based on the experiences of women’s organisations actually dealing with the issues, the Bill covers all aspects.

The Bill was supported by the National Commission of Women, then headed by Girija Vyas, which gave a similarly named Bill to the government. But in spite of the united efforts of the Commission and women’s organisations, neither the GoM nor Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was approached several times on the issue, cared to take it forward.

Two years later, in August 2012, the Law Commission of India, to which a reference had also been made by the government, brought out its own version of the Bill in its 242nd report. Although it stated that its draft was closer to the one submitted by the National Commission of Women, in fact it was extremely narrow and conservative in its approach. Entitled “Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011”, the Bill dealt primarily with the “unlawful assemblies” called by caste panchayats to prevent a self-choice marriage. Obviously this was a far cry from the actual realities which needed to be addressed. But it is this Bill which was sent by the government for consultation with the States.

A few months after the advent of the Modi government, an AIDWA delegation met Law Minister Sadananda Gowda on the issue. He seemed to be against having any law at all, commenting that it was liable for misuse “just like Section 498A [of the Indian Penal Code, relating to dowry harassment and domestic violence]”. In August 2015, his Ministry sent a letter stating that they were still awaiting the responses of the State governments to the recommendations of the Law Commission.

And that is where it stands. One step forward, two steps back. India needs a law, a strong law that will afford protection to self-choice partnerships and punish those who in the name of honour and tradition seek to obliterate that right.

If we do not have such a law, it is because vote-bank politics, that requires the appeasement of the most retrograde social forces such as those who lead the orthodox caste panchayats, supersedes the responsibility of those in government, or for that matter any who aspire to be in government, to protect the constitutional and democratic rights of citizens.

Dr. Ambedkar had resigned as Law Minister in protest against the dilution of women’s rights in the Hindu Code Bill. In his 125th birth anniversary year, the tragedy is that the actions of successors to his post mock at his legacy.

Read More

Nepal seals agreement on transit rights through China

Underlining the growing role of China in South Asia, Nepal on Monday secured transit rights through China following an agreement in Beijing between Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and his Chinese counterpart Li Keqiang.

Earlier, China extended a ceremonial welcome to Mr. Oli who held official talks with the Chinese leadership. News reports said Mr. Oli would also conclude agreements on building of multiple train routes connecting Nepal with China’s key production centres.

However, playing down the impact of the agreements between Nepal and China, official sources told The Hindu that the future of the agreements depended on the issue of “economic viability” of the transit facilities and train connectivity projects.

The Ministry of External Affairs, however, refused to issue an official statement immediately, considering that the agreements were between two sovereign countries.

However, officials pointed out that India-Nepal ties could not be compared or curtailed by Nepal’s agreements with China.

“After all, 98 per cent of Nepal’s third country trade goes through India and to the port of Kolkata,” an official pointed out. India at present has two rail lines under construction and three more are being planned to increase Nepal’s trade ties.

During the February visit of Prime Minister Oli to New Delhi, India agreed on giving dedicated access to Nepal to the port of Vizag.

Officials pointed out that in comparison to the Nepal-China agreement, India and Nepal had 25 crossing points, two integrated checkpoints and 2 more checkpoints were under construction.

A challenge for South Asia, says expert

Even as official sources played down the impact of the transit rights through China, Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli clinched in an agreement with his Chinese counterpart Li Keqiang in Beijing on Monday and other proposed agreements for rail connectivity, diplomat and academic Dr. S.D. Muni pointed out that the development represented “a challenge not just for India but for entire South Asia.” However, he cautioned, it should not trigger a panic reaction from India.

Dr. Muni pointed out that China would have to ponder about how it could implement a rail and transit agreement for Nepal without opening up the Tibet region to the world.

“Rail connectivity from Nepal to China will be used by the non-Chinese to travel to China through Tibet. Will China open up Tibet to facilitate connectivity for Nepal?” asked Dr. Muni.

The agreements, however, will take some time before being implemented on the ground and political developments may impact the deals concluded. However, Dr. Muni pointed out that the implementation of the deals would depend on how far China was willing to invest in Nepal considering the economic and political risks associated with the deals. However, as of Monday, Nepal could not seal a vital fuel supply agreement with China which Nepali sources said would also come up for detailed discussion during the seven-day visit of Mr. Oli to China.

Nepali commentator Kanak Mani Dixit, pointed out that the five month-blockade on the Nepal-India border which ended in February, “pushed Nepal to open its northern borders with China for transit trade.”

“Historically, the Himalayas were seen as barrier but now the Himalayas can be a connector between Nepal and China,” said Mr. Dixit, underlining that transit and train agreements will create new dynamics in South Asia.

Read More

Russian court finds Ukrainian pilot guilty of complicity to murder

A Russian court on Monday found Ukrainian pilot Nadezhda Savchenko guilty of complicity to murder two Russian journalists in war-torn eastern Ukraine.

The judge who began reading the verdict Monday morning said in his opening that Ms. Savchenko, who served in a volunteer Ukrainian battalion at the time, called in the coordinates for shelling that killed the two journalists and several civilians in July 2014, and that she was driven by “political hatred” toward residents of Ukraine’s Luhansk region.

The judge in the trial recounted the circumstances of the case, saying that Ms. Savchenko was part of a “criminal group” and aimed to kill an “unlimited number of people.”

23-year prison term sought

Neither Ms. Savchenko, nor her lawyers react in any way to the judge’s monotonous reading of the verdict.

Prosecutors had asked for a 23-year prison sentence for Ms. Savchenko. Sentencing is expected on Tuesday.

Speculation persists that Moscow could agree to exchange her for two Russians captured in eastern Ukraine and alleged to be active-duty soldiers despite Russia’s persistent denial that it has sent troops or equipment to bolster the rebels.

Over 9,100 killed so far

Fighting between Russia-backed separatists and government troops in eastern Ukraine has killed more than 9,100 people and left the rebel-held areas isolated from the rest of Ukraine.

Midway into the trial the judge turned down her lawyers’ plea to ask the cell-phone company to trace her calls on the day of the mortar attack that should prove that she was a few kilometres (miles) away from there.

West criticism of case

The Savchenko case has attracted strong criticism from the West and is an open wound for Ukraine, which says she was captured by Russia-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine and turned over to Russia, and therefore should be treated as a prisoner of war.

Although a military pilot, Ms. Savchenko was fighting in the Aydar volunteer battalion against the rebels when she was captured by the separatists in July 2014 before she surfaced in Russia. Moscow insists she escaped from the rebels and was captured after crossing the border by herself. The judge on Monday also found Ms. Savchenko guilty of “crossing the border illegally.”

Ukraine, U.S., EU protest arrest

The Ukrainian government has protested against Ms. Savchenko’s arrest, saying she should be treated as a prisoner of war and released under the current truce for eastern Ukraine. Prosecutors asked the court to sentence her to 23 years in prison.

A group of Ukrainian officials was travelling to the border town of Donetsk where Ms. Savchenko is on trial was stopped by Russian border guards and detained for three hours. One of the officials, presidential envoy for peace settlement in eastern Ukraine Iryna Gerashchenko, was refused entry and barred from visiting Russia for five years, the spokesman said.

The European Union and U.S. President Barack Obama have called for Ms. Savchenko’s immediate release, but Russian officials had dismissed such calls as attempts to interfere with the country’s internal affairs.

To her, judges are idiots

Ms. Savchenko, who often wears Ukrainian costume in the courtroom, has been openly contemptuous of the judge and prosecutors, denouncing them as “idiots” and raising her middle finger in defiance. She went on an 83-day hunger strike while in detention, then began another this month when the court delayed the reading of the verdict.

Read More

Americans support thaw in U.S.-Cuba ties

The spectre of Communism may have long ceased to exist in American psyche, but U.S. conservatives have been trying to resurrect that fear this election season citing Democrat Bernie Sanders’s campaign for ‘democratic socialism’.

President Barack Obama’s Cuba visit fits well into this narrative, promoted mainly by Senator Ted Cruz, who is considered the alternative to Donald Trump, front runner in the Republican presidential race. The only outcome of this visit, according to Mr. Cruz, is to “legitimise the corrupt and oppressive Castro regime”.

“..President Barack Obama, a retinue of celebrities in tow, is expected …to hang out with [Cuban President] Raul Castro and his henchmen…, ” Mr. Cruz said in an op-ed article on Sunday.

This could be an extreme view, as Mr. Cruz is often given to. Opinion polls have consistently shown majority of people supporting ties with Cuba since December 2014 when Mr. Obama announced a new opening with the U.S.’s Caribbean neighbour. A wide range of expert opinion also supports the Obama initiative. A poll by CBS and New York Times on Monday found six out of 10 Americans to be in support of Mr. Obama’s initiative. Mr. Trump also supports rebooting the U.S.’s relations with Cuba, though he thinks Mr. Obama has not made a “good deal”.

Mr. Trump took offence at the fact that Mr. Castro himself did not receive the President at the airport. “Wow, President Obama just landed in Cuba, a big deal, and Raul Castro wasn’t even there to greet him. He greeted Pope and others. No respect,” Mr. Trump tweeted. The White House said it took no offence and Mr. Castro was not expected to receive the President.

Though Republican Congressional leaders are not in a mood to allow Mr. Obama any elbowroom on any policy issue, several lawmakers of the party are in support of the Cuba initiative and at least five of them are part of the delegation accompanying Mr. Obama. Senators Jeff Flake and Mark Helle and Representatives Mark Sanford, Tom Emmer and Reid Ribble are travelling with Mr. Obama. “It’s about Americans’ freedom and embracing engagement rather than isolation as a way of changing other governments,” Mr. Sanford said.

Richard Feinberg and Ted Piccone, experts on Cuba at Brookings in Washington DC, wrote in a comment article: “…the odds of wringing short-term concessions from Cuba’s proud and nationalist leaders are stacked against Obama”, but “this trip should be judged by its ability to expand constituencies in both countries who want a more open and prosperous Cuba”.

Conservative pushback

There is a growing constituency in the U.S. for better relations with Cuba, but the conservative pushback is also unrelenting. Conservative magazine National Review wrote in an editorial immediately after Mr. Obama announced his trip last month: “An opening to the Castro dictatorship was neither urgent nor necessary nor in the American interest. Obama simply wanted to do it. It was on his list. The dictatorship had been dreaming about this kind of rapprochement for well over half a century. So had the American Left.”

Equally curious is an allegation that Mr. Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio – who dropped out of the presidential race – have been repeating in this context. They have said several times in recent months that Mr. Obama was planning to “gift Guantanamo Bay to Castro”, referring to the U.S naval base in Cuba, which is held by the U.S., based on a decades old bilateral pact.

Mr. Obama had promised to shut down a prison in that base that holds terror suspects. The Republican candidates have sought to conflate two unrelated issues by raising this in the context of relations with Cuba.

Read More

Indian army battles a new enemy: freak weather

Unpredictable and difficult weather is quickly becoming one of the key reasons behind Indian Army’s worrying casualty count, as yet another avalanche claimed a soldier’s life along the treacherous border with Pakistan.

The latest tragedy comes just weeks after 10 soldiers were buried under snow after their camp in northern Siachen glacier was hit by a major avalanche in February. While one of them, Lance Naik Hanamanthappa Koppad, was miraculously pulled out alive six days after the tragedy, he died a few days later. On February 27, a civilian porter with the Army fell into a deep crevasse in the Siachen glacier and died.

“We should be ready for more such tragedies,” a senior Army officer posted in the region said, pointing out the increasing unpredictability of weather in the higher reaches because of global warming and climate change is something that is “more the norm than the exception.”

After almost two days of a gruelling rescue operation, the Army was able to locate the body of Sepoy Vijay Kumar K in the Kargil heights, buried under 12 feet of snow. Another soldier was rescued a day earlier. The avalanche that buried Vijay Kumar was caused by a mild earthquake.

The death of the soldier is the latest in a series of tragedies to strike Army units deployed along forward areas of the India-Pakistan border, especially on the higher reaches.

Nowhere is the challenge of freak weather starker than in Siachen. According to a government statement before Parliament, 869 Indian troops have died at the glacier between 1984 and December 2015. After this, in 2016, the 10 soldiers were buried under an avalanche, just days after three others were also killed in Siachen.

However, freak weather in the higher reaches, not militancy, is the single largest killer of Indian soldiers.

According to Army statistics, around 300 soldiers are killed a year in road accidents. About 100 soldiers also commit suicide a year. Since 2010, over 500 soldiers have committed suicide.

Last year, a total of 155 security personnel were killed in terrorist operations; of them a significant number were from the paramilitary and police forces.

Read More