In this section, we are presenting our raders/aspirants compilation of selected editorials of national daily viz. The Hindu, The live mint,The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, PIB etc. This section caters the requirement of Civil Services Mains (GS + Essay) , PCS, HAS Mains (GS + Essay) & others essay writing competition
1.Mixed messaging: On Amit Shah’s three-day visit to J&K
The Centre seems unclear about the political process needed for normalcy in J&K
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s first visit to Jammu & Kashmir after August 5, 2019 when Parliament diluted Article 370 of the Constitution that granted it a “special status” and downgraded and bifurcated the State into two Union Territories, took place against the grim background of the killings of 11 civilians by terrorists in one month. J&K has been under central rule since June 2018 and the political and parliamentary subterfuge in reorganising the erstwhile State still rankles as a discordant chapter of India’s experiments in federalism. Mr. Shah used the three-day visit to underscore the progress J&K has made since its reorganisation — the uptick in tourist inflow and the string of development and welfare projects. As for the stringent curbs that the people have had to endure meanwhile, Mr. Shah said those were bitter pills that helped save lives. Through a series of public engagements and official functions in Jammu and the Valley, the Home Minister’s single-minded focus was on reiterating the Bharatiya Janata Party’s political narrative on Kashmir. He said “three families” had held J&K to ransom until the party came to its rescue. Whether or not politics in J&K has been any more or less corrupt than other parts of the country is anyone’s guess, but it is a matter of fact that the former State had a poverty rate of 10.35% against the national average of of 21.92%.
The Centre has been successful in removing the question of independence or even autonomy from the conversation on Kashmir. But to pretend that there is no political question in Kashmir to be discussed or resolved is reckless. Besides trying to systematically delegitimise the mainstream parties, the BJP policy also sought to build an entirely new political apparatus in the Union Territory. Mr. Shah ruled out any talks with Pakistan, but said he was willing to talk to the youth of Kashmir. That promise can be meaningful only with immediate action. Now that the Centre has made the restoration of statehood as the endgame of an unclear political process, it must establish a mechanism for dialogue with the people. In June, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had met political leaders from J&K in Delhi but there has been no follow up to that since then. On the contrary, Mr. Shah’s messaging over three days emphasised the divisions between the people of the Valley and Jammu, and berated political leaders. True, he made the right gestures in terms of visiting victims of recent violence and interactions with locals but that is far from enough. More than 700 people had to be detained ahead of his visit, which is instructive of the continuing volatility in the Valley. Mr. Shah’s trip is the latest in a series of visits by Union Ministers in recent weeks. While the Centre’s outreach is indeed a welcome step, it needs to be more honest and open to be effective.
2.End the impasse: On prolonged impasse over three farm laws
A solution is needed for core issues concerning farmers, and not merely for road blocks
The time may have come for a more concerted effort by the Government and the protesting farmers to find a solution to the prolonged impasse over the three agriculture-related laws enacted last year. The Supreme Court has emphasised that public roads cannot be blocked indefinitely by protesters. In an observation in the context of more petitions from members of the public, complaining that their right of free movement has been curtailed by the ongoing protests by farmers, the Court has said a solution has to be found, that roads cannot be blocked for long and there is no reason for it to lay down the law again and again. The reference was to last year’s judgment on the Shaheen Bagh protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, wherein it was held that public ways and public spaces cannot be blocked indefinitely even during a peaceful protest. The observation can be seen either as a disapproval of the tactic of holding interminable protests or as an implicit criticism of the Government for being unable to find a solution to the farmers’ grievances. Even while denying that they are responsible for the hardship faced by the public, and blaming the police for the blockade, the farmers say they should be allowed to continue their agitation at the Ramlila Maidan. However, the Government will have none of it, recalling the unsavoury incidents that took place on Republic Day when the protest rolled into the Capital.
The conflict between the two competing rights — freedom to protest and the right to free movement of the public — is not the only aspect that requires immediate attention. There seems to be no attempt to break the deadlock on the core issue, with the farmers demanding an outright repeal of the laws and statutory validation for the claim that the MSP regime will not come to an end. Late last year, the protesting farmers and Union Ministers did come to a partial agreement on decriminalising stubble-burning and safeguarding power subsidies, but the two core demands have not seen any breakthrough. It is not out of place to recall that an expert committee constituted by the Court has submitted its report, but nothing has been heard about it after that. To an extent, the fact that the Court has not taken it up again or made the report public may be a factor in the continuing impasse. An expedited hearing that involves further review of the panel’s recommendations, or any such similar initiative from the Government, is needed to arrive at a solution. The objective must not be merely to resolve the incidental issue of blocked roads, but to reconcile or eliminate the deep differences over what the Government sees as necessary reforms in the farm sector. Any reform that seeks to eliminate distortions in the sector must also win the confidence of farmers, the principal stakeholders.
3.IPL’s 14 seasons encapsulate three new trends in cricket
A rough measure of the financial success is that both bids were more than two times the base price of Rs 2,000 crore set by the BCCI.
The 14 seasons of IPL have not only transformed cricket but they have also thrown up trends that bucked the conventional wisdom of 2008, the year IPL was launched.
IPL: RPSG bags Lucknow franchise for Rs 7k crore, CVC gets Ahmedabad franchise for Rs 5.6k crore
Valuation Game: CSK, a standout performer in terms of results on the field of play, was birthed by a cement company, India Cement. When the chief of the company, N. Srinivasan, was asked by an analyst in 2008 about why the company spent $91 million on an unrelated business, the reply was that the franchise’s valuation would eventually outstrip that of the cement business.
Times of India reported that CSK is now valued at more than $900 million, a growth of about tenfold at a time when an economic slowdown had an adverse impact on cement makers.
Valuing intangibles is now at the heart of IPL economics.
Fan Loyalty: There was a school of thought that city-based franchises with a changing cast of players would not engender fan loyalty and thereby adequate interest. The benchmark for it was India’s peculiar Ranji Trophy structure which evolved in tune with the social and economic changes. Therefore, a princely state such as Baroda fielded a standalone team and Gujarat played separately.
The popularity of IPL, as measured by bids for telecast rights, indicate that fans may not be so rigid in identifying the object of their passion. History may not really interest the contemporary cricket fan.
Club versus Country: International cricket calendar has now been cleared for IPL. Football has faced this problem as it’s clubs that provide players the real earnings. T20 franchises across the world have made free agents of many players and reduced the hold of national administrations over players. We have not heard the last of this faultline.
4.Beijing’s message: New border control plans signal China’s inflexibility. More icy hostility at LAC may follow
China’s new land border law may have serious ramifications for its border dispute with India. The new law, which comes into effect on January 1, 2022, aims to strengthen Beijing’s control over its border areas and stipulates that China’s territorial integrity is “inviolable”. Operationally, it enjoins the Chinese military to carry out border drills and provides state support for construction of border towns, strengthening of border defences and better integration of populations inhabiting border areas.
In other words, China is looking to legally formalise its claims over its disputed land borders by building permanent infrastructure and control systems in these areas. Which means that the current India-China border standoff resulting from Chinese encroachment of Indian territory in eastern Ladakh has slim chance of satisfactory resolution. True, there could be temporary on-ground adjustments like the establishment of the no-patrolling zone at Pangong Tso. But fundamentally the new law means that China will not budge from its border claims. This in turn means that the India-China boundary negotiation mechanism is as good as dead. It also forces India to deploy its army along the LAC in sizeable strength and for extended durations to prevent further Chinese ingress.
There’s no denying that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long had to contend with the reality that its ethnic minorities occupy land that constitutes over two-thirds of China’s national territory and encompasses nearly all of China’s continental borders. While in the earlier CCP scheme Beijing sought to integrate ethnic minority populations with promises of respecting and preserving their cultural heritage, over the decades it went back on those assurances. As exemplified by the current Chinese regime’s policies in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, there is a concerted attempt to Sinicise ethnic minority populations and change the demography of these provinces by encouraging Han Chinese migration to these areas.
The new border law is of a piece with this policy and settlement of Han Chinese in newly constructed Chinese border towns cannot be ruled out. Such a development is bound to significantly change the border dynamics with India. Meanwhile, the new border law can also be read as China’s rejection of India’s position linking resolution of the border dispute with the overall bilateral relationship. Beijing is clearly signalling that it won’t sacrifice its border claims to improve two-way ties. This should force New Delhi to rethink the possibility of a modus vivendi with Beijing. An aggressive, inflexible and belligerent China is here to stay.
5.Smarter drug laws: Social justice ministry is right. But enlightened narcotics control needs even more reforms
The Union social justice ministry has proposed an important amendment to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – treat those apprehended with small quantities of drugs as victims rather than culprits. Terming them as drug users instead of NDPS Act’s definition of drug consumers as “addicts”, the ministry recommended a mandatory minimum period of 30 days at a rehabilitation/de-addiction facility followed by one year of community service. These are humane and smart recommendations. But reforms need to go further.
Cannabis, outlawed by NDPS Act in 1985, despite its long presence in Indian culture, must be decriminalised. A remodelled NDPS Act focussed instead on tackling the real problem of trafficking hard drugs, is needed. Much institutional energy is expended in prosecuting drug users caught with small quantities for personal consumption. Backlogged criminal courts aggravate the situation. The Narcotics Control Bureau is getting embroiled in small drug consumption cases and reflexively opposing bails. This shows how even elite agencies can lose way. And the current imbroglio over Aryan Khan’s case and its many twists demonstrate what NCB should not be expending its energies on.
Policing agencies tend to use stringent laws like a blunt instrument. Though possessing small quantities of cannabis is punishable with upto one-year imprisonment and hence should be bailable, police and prosecution get tremendous leeway to routinely accuse drug consumers of being in cahoots with drug syndicates. This transforms even minor offences into ones of severe magnitude. Making laws more stringent demands they be defined precisely, with safeguards. Otherwise the law fails its purpose. Inclusion of cannabis in NDPS is an example of creating avenues for crime where none existed. Heavyweight ministries like home, which controls NCB, and finance, with administrative authority over NDPS Act, must seriously consider the social justice ministry’s suggestions – and go even further.