Author: admin@thefirm

Before she became a Union Minister, Maneka Gandhi said that “being vegetarian is the only way to save the world” (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Being-vegetarian-is-the-only-way-to-save-the-planet-Maneka-Gandhi/articleshow/19650129.cms). One may dispute whether there is only one way or more to save the world but we can take Maneka Gandhi’s statement with a dollop of salt. In the same interview, she admires the “way of life which involves least harm to a living being”.

So, it is entirely self-contradictory when Maneka Gandhi informed Parliament on Thursday (10 March 2016) that ‘marital rape’ cannot be criminalized in India (http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/10/india-marital-rape_n_9435470.html). Perhaps, she doesn’t think that sexual violence within marriage involves harm or that wives come under the definition of “living being”.  

On a show aired on NDTV on 3 May 2015, a rape survivor had this to say: “My husband raped me daily. He forced himself on me, every single day, even on the days I bled. He forced a torch inside my private parts.” Does this not seem like involving “least harm to a living being”, Madam Minister?

But, let us look further in to the statement made by the Minister in response to a question on marital rape to read what is in the Government’s thinking on this issue:

Firstly, she says that “the concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context”

So, the Minister believes that ‘marital rape’ is an international concept. Perhaps, she is referring to The UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination of Women which had recommended that India should remove the exception of marital rape from the definition of rape. But, let me remind her that the very Indian Justice JS Verma Committee had recommended that a marital relationship between the perpetrator and the victim should not be considered as a valid defence against the crime of rape and sexual assault. 

Secondly, the Minister lists a number of factors why marital rape cannot be applied, such as illiteracy, poverty, social customs and values, religious beliefs, treatment of marriage as a sacrament, etc. 

This list of factors is the most novel part of her fictitious argument. In essence, what she is saying is that marital rape cannot be applied to a country which is poor, illiterate and holds religious beliefs. On the one hand, white collar corporate crimes and large scale bank frauds can be counted as financial crimes in this third-world nation; but, marital rape fails the test of criminality that the Minister seems to have conjured up. 

Finally, the Minister identifies the real culprit: “the mindset of society to treat the marriage as a sacrament”. 

By placing the blame on the ‘mindset of society’, the Minister has smartly deflected any responsibility on her behalf. This is a complete misunderstanding of society. Marriage may be an important ceremony for many people but does that mean one must silently tolerate violence within that relationship framework? Wasn’t the mindset of society to treat the marriage as a sacrament also the justification for another practice called ‘Sati’? 

It is beyond belief that the Minister has failed to appreciate universal humanitarian principles in dealing with this issue. Even within the Parliament, two Private Membrs Bills – introduced by Avinash Pande of Indian National Congress and Kanimozhi of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam – have been admitted. The bill by Avinash Pande was also discussed and found support from large sections of the House. Yet, the Minister is taking refuge behind the mindset of society. So, tell me Madam Minister, if the mindset of society is to eat non-vegetarian food, then how will we save the planet?

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram, Contributor

Spokesperson of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Link to the Article: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/meat-marital-rape-and-the-mindset-of-society_b_9438162

The contours of the Constitutional wall which separates the State from the Church have undergone a continuous process of drawing and re-drawing. Recently, in the landmark cases of Shayara Bano  2017 and Indian Young Lawyers 2018, which dealt with Triple Talaq and Women Entry into Sabarimala respectively, the Supreme Court has looked at the balance between religious freedoms and fundamental rights. Through these cases, any many other preceding them, the Supreme Court has established itself as an arbiter of prickly religious issues. 

Nevertheless, in recent times, social conservatives have not stopped demanding that the State stay away completely from any interference with the “Temple”. Subramanian Swamy filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of India to quash all “State HR & CE [Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments] temple laws as unconstitutional” and BJP’s National Secretary, H. Raja has endorsed the liberation of temples from “the clutches of government”. 

The issue portends serious social repercussions in Tamil Nadu. The State control and administration of Hindu temples is seen as an integral reform of the century-old Dravidian Movement. It was under the Justice Party’s rule that the first set of temple reforms took shape. The Act 1 of 1925, the Government constituted the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments  Board for the very first time. The Board was vested with the power to control and supervise the administration of temples including the power to appoint officials for proper administration. Around the same time, Periyar’s Vaikom Movement sparked a revolution with regard to temple entry and worship by the backward castes. 

In 1970, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government led by Kalaignar Karunanidhi amended the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act to allow appointments of priests. This, for the first time, challenged hereditary priesthood. Though this law ran into legal hurdles, it provided belief to men from all castes that they too could enter the sanctum sanctorum. Ultimately, the 2006 law passed by a subsequent DMK Government completed the reform process and subsequently, the first backward caste priest was appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in July 2018.

The support among Hindu conservatives toward “liberating temples” goes against social justice ethos of the Dravidian Movement as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of N Adityan 2002, the Supreme Court held that “the vision of the founding fathers of Constitution to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence to mere traditional superstitious beliefs sans reason or rational basis has found expression in the form of Article 17”. Therefore, the institution of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board only serves to reiterate the Constitutional guarantee of equality before law of all citizen.

Therefore, it is now upto the Supreme Court to reiterate the core Constitutional principles and ensure that any right to “disseminate and propagate religious beliefs” can only be subject to “public order, health and morality and other provisions of Part-III”, as held by Justice Doraisamy Raju in N Adityan 2002. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Advocate and Spokesperson – DMK

Link to the Article: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/temple-and-state/article62110040.ece

**

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced courts to revisit the problem of overcrowding in prisons. The Supreme Court, in its Order dated 07.05.2021, was the first to emphasise the need to decongest prisons. Following suit, the Delhi High Court in Deepak Joon vs. State, 284 (2021) DLT 560, while granting Anticipatory Bail imposed a condition requiring the Petitioner to specify his location through Google Maps. Courts exercising powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure have started applying innovative conditions to the phrase ‘judicial custody’ to extend this to House Arrest. With our prisons 69% are under-trial inmates, it is time that courts seriously consider the option of House Arrest.  

NEED FOR HOUSE ARREST

House Arrest has been used for preventive detention under Section 5 of the National Security Act, 1980. Any person who is subject to detention under National Security Act, 1980 can be detained in such place as the appropriate government deems fit. The rules regarding such detention as laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy & Ors vs. UOI & Ors., AIR (1982) SC 710, is that the detention should be carried out at the ordinary place of residence of the detenu and detention in any place is to be avoided.

However, House Arrest as a detentive measure has not been used for under-trial inmates nor as a penal sentence. The need to implement such less-punitive methods for under-trial inmates was emphasized in the 1973 Report by the Expert Committee on Legal Aid titled ‘Processual Justice to the People’. The Processual Justice Report considered entrusting the accused with his relatives or release under supervision as forms of conditional release in order to ensure distancing of the accused under-trial from the possible exposure to convicts and concomitant environment. 

STATUTORY BASIS

Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused, arrested and brought before him by the police. The Madras High Court in Re: M.R. Venkataraman and Ors., (1947) 2 MLJ 202 had elucidated that the Magistrate, in the exercise of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, has complete freedom to remand an accused person to whatsoever custody he thinks fit, without expressly limiting it to just police or judicial custody. 

More recently, in Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency, Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2021, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the period of House Arrest as ordered by the Delhi High Court would be included in the computation of 90 days of remand to avail default bail. The Court considered the scope of power of the Magistrate to authorise detention under Section 167 wherein it was held, inter alia, that the terms ‘such custody as it thinks fit’, as found in the section, grants power to the Magistrate to order House Arrest of the accused by considering factors such as his age, health condition, antecedents, nature of offence and the feasibility of carrying out such detention. As such, the power to detain an accused person under House Arrest was read into the purview of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.

DOORSTEP CONDITION

In the USA, a person pending trial may be released on conditions such as restricted place of abode, maintaining employment or commencing an education program and following specified curfews vide 18 U.S. Code § 3142. Similarly conditional release is also available in the UK, known as ‘Doorstep Condition’, wherein authorities detain the accused in a particular address with periodic checking by the police. The Doorstep Condition was upheld by the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench in the case of  Crown Prosecution Service vs. Chorley Justices, [2002] EWHC 2162 (Admin) and declared to be intra vires the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, an accused may also be released with Electronic tagging with GPS location monitoring under Section 3-AB of the UK Bail Act, 1976. 

As culled out in the case of United States of America vs. Maureen Murphy, 108 F.R.D. 437 (1985), House Detention in lieu of arrest is cost-effective for the State and also serves as means for the breadwinner of a family to continue employment. This ensures that the accused or their family do not fall under poverty, thereby preserving the respect the accused has within their family and helps such person to re-integrate back into society as well. 

CASE FOR HOUSE ARREST

The decision of the Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha case is a welcome step but there is more to be done. The Union Government, taking in to consideration the prevailing pandemic as well as the overcrowding of prisons and international best practices, should codify comprehensive guidelines to give effect to alternatives to jail period. Modern means of detention such as Electronic Tagging, as recommended by the Law Commission in its Report No.268 can easily be incorporated to ensure compliance with bail conditions. Taking this into account, the Union Government should seriously consider enacting statutory guidelines to enable Magistrates to award House Arrest in cases of first-time offenders and persons at risk, including elderly and those with co-morbidities,  to ensure a more humane form of custody. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram and Thiyagarajan B

(Advocates at Ganesan and Manuraj Legal LLP www.gmadvocates.in ) 

Link to the Article: https://www.barandbench.com/columns/a-case-for-house-arrest-in-india

In the midst of the Triple Talaq furore inside and outside Parliament, an intervention made by Shashi Tharoor – Member of Parliament representing Thiruvananthapuram constituency – seems to have gone relatively unnoticed. The issue came up during Question Hour in the Lok Sabha on 3 January 2018 during a Starred Question about the steps taken by the Union Government to make Hindi an official language at the United Nations. In the reply given by Union Minister for External Affairs (EAM) Sushma Swaraj, delivered entirely in Hindi, she says that the Government “continues to take measures for the acceptance of Hindi as one of the Official languages of the UN and to popularize Hindi worldwide”. She further assured the House that the Government is ready to spend even Rs 400 crore every year to achieve this. If the Government were to do so, Hindi would become the seventh official language of the United Nations after Arabic, English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese.

For Hindi to be accepted as an official language of the UN, it will involve the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly with a two-thirds majority. The rest of the statement made by the EAM is little more than linguistic chest-thumping and empty rhetoric. It seems that, through such statements, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is playing to the Hindi heartland gallery and has not put a lot of serious thought in to the issues surrounding language in the country.   

At first sight, it appears that the Government is on weak legal basis to embark on this complex pursuit to move a resolution to change the official languages of the UN and to persuade at least 129 countries to vote in favour of such a resolution. The Government has failed to even initiate a discussion on such an important agenda either in Parliament or among the people. It is equally worrying that the EAM says that the Government is ready to foot a bill of Rs 400 crore every year when there is no indication that the Ministry of Finance has accorded provisional sanction of funds or made any budgetary allocation in this regard over the past two years.   

The core issue is, however, whether and why Hindi should be promoted over other languages spoken in India. Article 343 of the Constitution of India deems English and Hindi to be official languages of the Union. There are more than 600 million (close to 60%) non-Hindi speakers in the country, according to the 2001 Census results. There are twenty two languages recognized as official languages by the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution of India. There have been repeated requests by non-Hindi speakers to give these languages an equal constitutional status to that of English and Hindi. It is ironic that the Government is expending significant diplomatic capital trying to place Hindi along with the six official languages of the United Nations (UN) when they have consistently denied equal official language status to the languages in the Eighth Schedule. 

The Prime Minister speaks to the nation on Independence Day and during his weekly radio addresses only in Hindi. On 31 March 2017, the BJP Government accepted the Recommendation made by the Committee of Parliament on Official Language that “all dignitaries including Hon’ble President and all the Ministers especially who can read and speak Hindi may be requested to give their speech/statement in Hindi only.” Public sector banks, Railways and other Central Government-run services are all tacitly being Hindi-zed.

The situation is compounded by the fact that the Parliament of India can itself hardly lay claim to be a multilingual institution. Article 120(1) of the Constitution states the Speaker “may permit any member who can not adequately express himself in Hindi or in English to address the House in his mother tongue”. Moreover, the Rajya Sabha Handbook (Chapter 2.9) indicates that the Parliament provides simultaneous interpretation services for Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Malayalam, Marathi, Punjabi, Oriya, Tamil and Urdu only. Therefore, when a Member speaks in any of these nine languages, the speeches are translated in to Hindi and English only. Therefore, a Malayalam-speaker will not have his speech translated to Bengali but only to Hindi and English. Or a MP representing Central Chennai will not be able to hear a Gujarati speech translated into Tamil but only in either Hindi or English. Compare this with the European Union Parliament in Strasbourg where 23 languages are simultaneously translated into one another. 

Without making the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha multilingual and inclusive, any efforts to make Hindi an official language of the UN will renew the fears of non-Hindi speakers. These cumulative events of the recent past remind us of a question posed by DMK President Karunanidhi, where he wonders if we are living in India or “Hindia”?

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Spokesperson, DMK
Advocate, Madras High Court

http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=60755&lsno=16

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=161288

Link to the Article: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/united-nations-hindi-%20in-un-shashi-tharoor-sushma-swaraj-official-language-india-or-hindia-%205016773/

Let it be said once again, for we live in the times of fake news and clichéd thinking, that Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) does not oppose Hindi. Nor does it oppose Bengali, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam or Sindhi. However, the imposition of any one language, through school education policy or otherwise, is not acceptable to the DMK. In other words, any such move to insidiously bring Hindi in through the backdoor will be thwarted. 

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), for its resounding political success across the West, North and East of the country, continues to be clueless about the South. Here, it is often said that Hindi is not a language issue, as it is often portrayed to be. It is a political issue. The imposition of Hindi, directly or indirectly, on non-Hindi speaking states is viewed an extension of the cultural majoritarianism policy of a Delhi-based government. Furthermore, it reflects the unrequited desire of mainland (read: Hindi-belt) political parties to make Hindi acceptable to Tamil speakers.  

India is a multicultural, multi religious and multi linguistic country. The fact that there is a great deal of diversity is and must be celebrated in India. The stirring up of age old debates on the three-language policy is of concern to us because it comes at a time when the BJP has raked up a huge electoral victory in the Hindi heartland. It is of graver concern to us because the Dr. K. Kasturirangan Committee has submitted the draft National Education Policy 2019 with the problematic recommendation to the new Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Dr Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank – who had famously tweeted on 1 August 2017 that “Making Hindi the national language is absolutely essential”  (Ref: https://twitter.com/DrRPNishank/status/892343104732188673?s=20 ).  

As the issue caused ripples in social media, it became obvious that the words of the Union Minister for Human Resource Development would not provide sufficient reassurance. So, it appears the Quick Response Team, within the BJP’s Public Relations Department went looking for a Tamil-Minister. Unfortunately, with the BJP losing all its seats in Tamil Nadu and no representative from its ally, Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in the Union Cabinet, it was left to Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman and Mr. Jaishankar – Union Ministers for Finance and External Affairs, respectively – to assuage the fears of Tamil speakers and opposers of Hindi imposition. 

Commendable acts of ministerial overreach notwithstanding, the BJP has failed again to understand the sentiments of Tamils and the recent political history of Tamil Nadu. It is a settled fact that the anti-Hindi imposition protests leading up to 1965 provided the base for rise of Dravidian politics and heralded the end of dominance of national parties in the state. Since 1968, Tamil Nadu has adopted a two-language policy – Tamil and English – and this has worked very well. Today, Tamil Nadu is an urbanized state with an expansive manufacturing base. The state has been role model in welfarism and social justice. The policies of the state have created sufficient opportunities for upward social and economic mobility. All of these advances have taken place without a three-language policy. Quite simply, Tamil Nadu does not see the value of being compelled to learn Hindi. 

Nevertheless, various governments and their coterie of nationalists have tried in the past to revive the three-language policy using various arguments. The most vocal arguments in favour of Hindi being lingua franca have always come from Hindi speakers. Surprise surprise! It would almost seem like the Hindi-speakers would like the non-Hindi speakers to learn Hindi to suit their own narratives of nationalism, which have now found refuge under the Modi Government’s Ek Bharat, Shresht Bharat sloganeering. 

However, each time such campaigns and efforts to casually bring about Hindi as a “national language” take shape, they always run into strong resistance from the DMK. For, the DMK believes, more than anything else, that Tamil is not just a language but an identity. 

In his book, ‘Hindi Against India – Meaning of DMK’, Mohan Ram wrote in 1968 that the “greatest threat to Indian unity is Hindi and what it represents. Hindi is not a language issue; it is a political issue. Hindi is the spearhead of the movement for the Hindi-speaking midland’s domination of the rest of the country”. 

Even in 2019, it would seem that the greatest threat to national unity is not from fringe groups but from an autocratic state that imposes its will on people without their consent.

..

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Advocate and Spokesperson – DMK.

Link to the Article: https://www.firstpost.com/politics/bjp-is-clueless-about-the-south-tamil-nadu-doesnt-see-value-of-being-compelled-to-learn-hindi-dmk-6753081.html

The recent appointment of five Governors by the President of India must be viewed with grave skepticism. By nominating persons who are deeply embedded within the ecosystem of Bharatiya Janata Party, the Union Government has sent a clear and ominous signal: that the Constitutional principles and judicial diktats are secondary to the propagation of their ideology. As such, this places the entire edifice of our Constitution in an extremely precarious position and calls for a review of the entire process of Gubernatorial appointments. 

Cadres as Governors

A press release issued by the office of the President on 1 September 2019 informs us that he has appointed Bhagat Singh Koshiyari, Bandaru Dattaraya, Arif Mohammad Khan and Tamilisai Soundararajan as Governors and transferred Kalraj Mishra from Himachal Pradesh to Rajasthan. Kalraj Mishra had assumed office at the Raj Bhavan in Shimla as recently as 22 July 2019. Seen as a whole, all the present appointees have recent, strong and uncompromising links with the Bharatiya Janata Party. 

While Koshiyari was a former Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and a Member of 15^th Lok Sabha, his colleagues, Mishra and Dattaraya, served in the Council of Ministers under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Khan and Tamilisai  unsuccessfully last contested 2004 and 2019 elections, respectively, on BJP tickets. 

Constitutional Position 

The process of guberantorial appointments are anything but transparent. We know little more than that the President has appointed a person as Governor “by warrant under his hand and seal”. The Constituent Assembly debates on this issue reveal divergent views and considerable deliberation on this issue. On 30 May 1949, Sardar Hukam Singh had argued in favour of providing a panel of names, elected by the State Legislature, for the President to choose from. Fellow member, Alladi Krishnsaswami Ayyar backed the appointment of a Governor by the President with the hope that the “Cabinet at the Centre would also be guided by the advice” of the State Cabinet. 

Adding to the debate, G. Durgai Bai, spoke in favour of an appointment mechanism in order to “place the Governor above party politics, above factions and not subject him to the party affairs”. Supporting this proposition, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru indicated his preference for a Governor who would be “acceptable to the Government of the province and yet he must not be known to be a part of the party machine of that province”. A cursory look at the Governors who have been appointed since 1950, under the Constitution, tells us that the fear that was expressed by the various members of the Constituent Assembly was not imaginary.  

Law on Appointments

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court looked at the scope of the Union’s power to remove Governors in the landmark case of B.P.Singhal vs Union of India 2010. In this case, the Supreme Court spoke about the dual role of the Governor – as the Constitutional head of the State Government and as a vital link between the State Government and the Union Government. Elucidating the specific functions of the Governor, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice R.V.Raveendran said that the Governor is “not an employee of the Union Government, nor the agent of the party in power nor required to act under the dictates of political parties”. The Court further anticipated that there “may be occasions when he may have to be an impartial or neutral Umpire where the views of the Union Government and State Governments are in conflict”. 

Over the years, the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution have reiterated that the Governor appointee “should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally, and particularly in the recent past”. Unfortunately, the President has overlooked this important recommendation which is critical to the existence of a federal and constitutional democracy. As such, this reignites the debate around the office of the Governor, its appointments and processes involved. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram
Advocate & Spokesperson – DMK 

Link to the Article: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/all-the-presidents-men/article29385636.ece

The discretionary powers of the Governor are once again in the centre of a fresh controversy to decide on the remission of seven convicts from the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, while disposing a writ petition, recorded that the petitioner – Perarivalan – had filed an application before the Governor and that the “authority will be at liberty to decide the said application as deemed fit”. Following this, the Cabinet of the Tamil Nadu Government adopted a resolution recommending that the Governor release of seven prisoners under Article 161 of the Constitution.

Subsequently, the Raj Bhavan issued a Press Release explaining that the case involves “examination of legal, administrative and Constitutional issues” and “necessary consultation may be carried out, when required, in due course”. This communique seems to be drafted to give the reader an impression that the Governor is meticulously assessing the merits of the issue at hand; but it does not mention whether the office of the Governor is vested with any such powers to apply his mind and exercise his discretion under the Constitution. 

Article 161 of the Constitution, in short, provides the Governor with the power to “remit or commute the sentence of any prisoner”. The decision taken by the Governor will be subject to judicial review by the constitutional courts. Nevertheless, the question that falls for our immediate attention is whether there is an independent, discretionary power vested with the Governor with regard to Article 161 when read along with Article 163 of the Constitution? In the view of the Supreme Court, speaking through a five-judge bench in Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix vs. Deputy Speaker, the discretionary power of the Governor is extremely limited and entirely amenable to judicial review. Time and again, the courts have spoken out against the Governor acting in the capacity of an “all-pervading super-constitutional authority”. Even when the exercise of discretion is concerned, a seven-judge bench of the apex court in Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab has held that the Governor may do so only “in harmony with his Council of Ministers”. In order to do so, the Governor is precluded from taking a stand against the wishes of the Council of Ministers. 

The area being traversed in the present case is alien to our Constitution, not having envisaged a situation where the Governor exercises his power under Article 161 against the express recommendation of the Council of Ministers. Such a decision will result in a tragic evisceration of our Constitution and its founding principles such as the federal structure, Cabinet responsibility and accountable governance. This may also be interpreted, in a more practical manner, as the Governor having lost faith in the State Government with regard to the performance of its executive functions. Either way, to stay true to the spirit of the Constitution and settled principles of law, the Governor should desist from conferring discretionary powers to his office where there are none. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Advocate and Spokesperson, DMK 

Link to the Article: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/governors-discretion/article25021561.ece

References:

Speaking at the conclusion of the 2015 event, then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa said that total investments arising from Global Investor Meet 2015 (GIM-1) stood at Rs 2.42 lakh crore. The ADMK Government, on 12 February 2018, have stated that investment to the tune of Rs 62,738 crore from at least 61 companies are at various stages of implementation. The Government has further announced that there will be a second edition of Global Investor Meet (GIM-2) to be held on 23 and 24 January 2019. The Government has expressed hope to attract twice the proposed investment of GIM-1 but has failed to explain why, according to their own estimation, only 25% of the promised investment has been realized so far. As the Government prepares to start work towards GIM-2, it is the right time to assess the impact of GIM-1.  

GIM-1 was held on 9 and 10 September 2015 and its real impact should be seen on the investment inflow in the year 2016-17. According to the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the amount of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) received by Tamil Nadu fell by over 50% to Rs 14,276 crore in the period spanning April to March 2016-17, as against Rs 29,200 crore during the corresponding period in 2015-16. During the same periods, the FDI to Maharashtra doubled from Rs 61,370 crore to Rs 1,26,616 lakh crore. Gujarat, too, registered a significant increase in FDI from 2015-16 to 2016-17. If the Government of Tamil Nadu wants to project the Global Investor Meet as an attractive pathway for investment, then they must analyse why the FDI flow into the State actually shrunk after GIM-1 and whether there has been any policy course correction in this regard. 

Secondly, one of the best case studies to understand the efficacy of the investment proposals that came out of GIM-1 is that of Thoothukudi. GIM-1 promised a windfall industrial investment of Rs 67,000 crore to Thoothukudi. In fact, 5,550 acres of land was identified by State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) in the port city but, so far, not a single project has been realized. As a result, there has been no infrastructure upgradation and the Southern region has consequently suffered. In such a situation, without carefully taking stock of the reasons for failure, it seems unwise to forge ahead with GIM-2. The Government may also consider holding an investor summit only for the southern region, which would ensure that such regions gain prominence as investment destinations. 

Thirdly, it is useful for us to take a look at the Government strategy in terms of competing with other states in terms of attracting investment. Though, Tamil Nadu has fallen behind states like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, it is strange to see the Government through its Department of Information and Public Relations send out an email on 6 January 2018 to media outlets in the state informing them of the ‘Advantage Assam’ roadshow in Chennai and the Global Investors’ Summit to be held in Guwahati. While Assam has every right to woo investment from across the country, it belies belief to see that the Government of Tamil Nadu would actively promote the outflow of investment from the State. Furthermore, GIM-2 was initially planned for 2018 and the State Budget 2017-18 had allotted Rs 75 crore towards this. Now, it has been rescheduled to January 2019 through a press released dated 12 February 2018 and there are no reasons stated for this postponement. Such a lackadaisical approach towards a premier investment meeting reflects poorly on the government and shakes the confidence of potential investors.  

All of this adds up to a lack of a clear strategy and coherent vision to navigate the State. While Tamil Nadu may boast of a skilled labour force, quality infrastructure and good connectivity, there is an unshakeable feeling that the unstable political leadership has turned investors away. It would be prudent for the Government to firstly put out a white paper on all the investments from GIM-1, learn from the lessons of GIM-1 and also create a forward-looking policy environment that will boost investment in future. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Advocate & Spokesperson, DMK

Link to the Article: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/why-gim-2-0-is-an-ambitious-leap-for-defaulting-tn/articleshow/63020642.cms

References: 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/global-investors-meet-planned-in-2018-cm/article18715226.ece

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/fdi-inflow-into-state-falls-by-50/article22392804.ece

 http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/no-headway-in-rs-67000-crore-industrial-investment-project/article20631323.ece

When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked why his newly constituted Cabinet has 50% women, he replied rather casually “because it is 2016”. In 2018, India still awaits its Trudeau moment when it comes to gender parity, but the number of voices speaking out continues to grow.

The Economic Survey 2018 has pegged the gender gap in labour force participation in India to be around 50 percentage points. The gender gap is worse for women working in the low-skilled informal sector but it is also bad for women working full-time jobs. The greatest participation of women can be seen in the sectors of health and education, where there is an almost equal gender ratio. The situation is slightly less balanced in the Information Technology/ Business Process Outsourcing sector where there are 3 women for every 7 men. But, in the areas of manufacturing, construction, transport and restaurant, women make up less than 20% of the working population. While India is poised to add more than 100 million people to its total labour force in the next 10 years, continuing gender inequality will need to be addressed. It is said that India can increase its women’s labour force participation by 10 percentage points by 2025, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product would increase by a whopping 16%. 

The World Employment and Social Outlook 2017 report estimates that a reduction in the gap in participation rates between men and women by 25 per cent by 2025 could add $1 trillion to the Indian economy. International Labour Organisation (ILO), in 2013, ranked India’s Female Labour Force Participation Rate at 121 out of 131 countries. The Government has tried to improve the situation by enhancing maternity benefits. Nevertheless, it is upto every one of us to work towards a society that provides equal opportunities and also fair treatment for women at the workplace.

Over the last two decades or so, there is evidence, contrary to popular belief, of decline in the women labour force participation. Research into this phenomenon has revealed that this is due to the simultaneous shrinking of agricultural sector which has traditionally employed women and an expanding service and construction sectors, which has not. With Indian economy poised to grow on the back of its manufacturing and services sectors, the corporate sector has a major role to play in ensuring gender parity. 

Three simple yet effective steps that every company must take:

1. End Pay Disparity – ensure equal pay for equal work, salaries to be decided on experience level and not on any other considerations;
2. Provide Extensive Childcare and Maternal Benefits – understand the gendered social expectations to extend necessary facilities; and 
3. Shut Out Harassment – take all steps to end culture of harassment which creates a toxic environment at the workplace. 

While companies can implement these steps without much wrangling, a larger mindset change is required within homes across the country. Women continue to face a massive disadvantage because of the disproportionate domestic and childcare workload they have to bear. In 2018, Indian men have to start sharing equal responsibility whether it is bringing up children or doing chores around the house. Only such a societal and mindset change would provide women with an equal playing field when it comes to the labour force market. Only then, can India have its Trudeau moment! 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Lawyer, DMK Spokesperson & Steering Committee Member – School of Policy and Governance

Link to the Article: https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/growth-strategies/why-gender-parity-is-so-important-in-workplaces/311180

References:

http://www.financialexpress.com/budget/economic-survey-2018-lower-female-labour-force-participation-to-affect-growth-potential/1035062/

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-labour-force-india

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/vgO1ynMV6UMDnF6kW5Z3VJ/Low-stagnating-female-labourforce-participation-in-India.html

While we have seen efforts to bolster the role of women in policy making across the government and private sector, the real solutions may ultimately come from philanthropy and the nonprofit sector.

Every passing year, on International Women’s Day, there is a renewed call to legislate the Women’s Reservation Bill to enable election of women in Legislative Assemblies and Parliament. Such calls are aptly justified by data – both anecdotal and empirical – to suggest that India has failed to address the role of gender in policy making. In spite of efforts increase the number of women representatives in local governance, successive governments have done little to build capacity or provide support systems to ensure the fulfilment of core objectives of increased gender participation.  

Across the world, making up nearly 50% of the total population, women, only hold around 22.5% of public offices. If one looks at the data compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of the percentage of women in Parliament, India – with 11.8% – is placed at 147 out of 193 countries. Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kenya and South Sudan boast of a greater percentage of women representatives in their Parliaments. Only three countries have more than 50% representation of women – Bolivia, Cuba and Rwanda. 

Rwanda Model

Rwanda presents an interesting case study because the nation came out of one of the worst civil wars in 1994 when the number of female Parliamentarians was 17%. The real  success of the Rwanda Model, however, can be seen from the gradual increase in women representatives to 48 % in 2003, 56% in 2008 and to a present strength of 64%. The Constitution was amended in 2003 to provide for a minimum 30% quota for women in all decision-making bodies, including Parliament and other government agencies. There is even a Gender Monitoring Office which is tasked with monitoring, advising and advocating for gender equality in all institutions in the country. 

However, the role played by Rwanda Women Parliamentary Forum (RWPF) is extremely crucial in achieving this phenomenal outcome. RWPF was set up in 1996 as a consultative mechanism for facilitating gender integration within Parliament. One of the key strategic axes of RWPF is in relation to the training of Parliamentarians on gender analysis in the budget examination, budgetary control and Government action. The RWPF is also involved in the regular monitoring and control of application of gender sensitive laws. In stark contrast, the majority of decisions pertaining to safety and security of women taken  by the Union Council of Ministers or the Standing Committee for Home Affairs or the Parliament of India lack adequate women representation. 

India’s Takeaways 

Though Parliament of India has a Committee for Empowerment of Women (Committee), it is not much more than tokenism. The Committee has a limited mandate and hardly goes beyond filing standard reports suggesting minor improvements to existing “women welfare” programs. The first takeaway is that the Committee be revamped along the lines of RWPF and be provided a constitutional mandate to look into gender policy of every major governmental action.  After which, the Parliament must legislate Women Reservation Bill to effectively increase the gender representation across highest legislative bodies in the country. 

Secondly, Section 149 of the Companies Act requires women to be included in the Board of Directors of companies. However, a recent study by Deloitte has shown that only 12% of Boards are filled with women representatives. The private sector is rife with gender bias including allegations of culture of sexual harassment and silence around it. Only strong women leaders can empower women working in the private labour market and therefore, the private sector, including not-profit organizations, must introspect about the lack of gender parity at the leadership level. 

Finally, the National Commission for Women, a statutory body that plays an advisory role to the Government of India, must be expanded to include women from the development sector, private sector and various regions of the country. It must function as a truly representative apex body for all issues related to gender parity. The National Commission for Women must also work to recommend adoption of gender sensitive laws and take the lead on studying international best practices. 

Role of Not-Profit Sector

The three takeaways suggested herein above are for the legislative, private and executive respectively. However, the not-profit sector may perhaps have the most impact if we were to go by the example of EMILY’s List. EMILY’s List is described as an American Political Action Committee. EMILY’s List supports and funds women candidates who are Democratic and pro-choice. Over a 33-year period, EMILY’s List has raised over $500 million and helped elect more than 900 women, which includes 23 Senators and 12 Governors. 

EMILY’s List claims to have endorsed every single Latina, African American, and Asian American Democratic congresswoman currently serving in the United States Congress. But their work does not stop with endorsing and funding top-tier candidates alone. The ‘Run to Win’ training courses are run online which help women who want to run for any elected political office. Since 1985, they have trained nearly 10,000 women. Ellen Malcolm, founder of EMILY’s List says, in her book When Women Win: EMILY’s List and the Rise of Women in American Politics, that “creating progressive policies and promoting them can be incredibly valuable. But those policies will never be implemented unless enough politicians are elected who support them”. 

Though it is imperative that the government and private sectors introspect in whether existing institutions are allowing women to make public policies, the real solutions may ultimately come from the not-profit sector through community participation, organization and mobilization as seen in the case of EMILY’s List. 

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram

Steering Committee – School of Policy and Governance 

Advocate, Madras High Court

Spokesperson, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Link to the Article: https://idronline.org/where-are-women-policy-making-india/