Something About The Law

In a recent speech made to the “National Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary towards Reducing Pendency and Delays”, Chief Justice Balakrishnan talked about the root causes why courts in India are overstuffed and breaking in. His speech identified two such reasons, very broadly: (1) shortage of judicial officials, and (2) inadequacy of budgetary allocations.

Balakrishnan observed that on the one hand, poverty, illiteracy and status-based discrimination played a major factor in access to substantive justice at all levels in the system, and on the other, disparities existed on an inter-state level as well, with more educated and more developed states being significantly more involved in the judicial process.

Coming down to the specifics of what areas could be specifically targetted by policymakers, he identified three areas:

1. Manpower Planning
2. Physical Infrastructure &
3. Procedural Innovations.

for actions of concerted reforms.

The problem of manpower planning concerns the enormous vacancies in the system, and the dispairing lack of quality professionals to fill those posts, (the):

reason being the numerous lucrative career options that are open to law graduates. It is also perceived in many quarters that it is only those who are unable to build a practice of their own, who appear for the judicial services
examinations.

Balakrishnan mentioned improving pay-scales and service-conditions, as also a commensurate improvement of prospects for career-advancement as practicable reform sectors. Notable in his speech was the suggestion, often mooted before, of the creation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS) that would function much like the existing system of the UPSC, except that state preferences would be given more weight because of the language barrier to chosen practitioners.

With regard to physical infrastructure, KGB mentioned primarily the ‘implementation of technological solutions’, and the introduction of computers at all levels of the judiciary.  Finally, procedural innovations involve the growth of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, out-of-court settlements, plea-bargaining systems etc, which would ensure that the judiciary is, essentially, left only as a matter of last resort.

The full text of the speech can be accessed here.

Today’s Hindu carries an interview with Mohammed Nasheed, president of the Maldives. I like the man; he has several innovative international law ideas:

There is a logjam mainly because the Kyoto Protocol is a list of things we shouldn’t do. It is asking India not to consume energy or not to produce energy. That is going to be very difficult for a dynamic fast developing country. We could change the thing to a more positive list to say India should be producing so much renewable energy to the extent that mathematics comes down to the same — 350 part per million and 1.5 degrees.

and he’s a sensible, law-abiding man:

We need to find mechanisms and procedures through which the executive — which is me — can relinquish power to independent institutions. That is the only manner to build a sustainable democracy. I am trying to find avenues through which I can relinquish the extraordinary powers I have. There can then be a balance of power between Parliament and the President.

(Interviewer: ) Could you give examples of that?

Well I can arrest even you (laughs)….

and he loves us:

We love Indian stories, we watch Indian films, we come here for treatment, so India and Maldives are very close.

The rest of the interview makes for good reading and contains Nasheed on topics from the Taliban to the recession, and of course, that sinkin’ feeling.

In Manufacturing Consent, Naom Chomsky writes of the link between power and information: the closer you are to the Bosses, basically, the more you talk about them. If you’re not up there you aren’t in the news. Reality continuously drives home to us the truth of Chomsky’s assertion. It is ironic, it is sad, it is unjust, but if you don’t belong to a set of people you don’t deserve a voice.

Today’s Times of India reports that Orissa shall henceforth be called Odisha:

The state crafted on April 1, 1936, and spelled “Orissa” in the Indian Constitution adopted in 1950, wasn’t the correct spelling of the state’s name which, in its language, ought to be spelled as it is pronounced – “Odisha”.

The BJD government, taking exception to the manner in which state’s name is spelled in Schedule I of the Constitution, advised the Centre to make the correction and the Union government has in principle agreed to do so, officials said.

and later,

a section within the state government had even suggested that Orissa’s name be changed to Kalinga or Utkala by which it was known historically. But the government rejected the proposal, saying it could trigger a controversy.

Rest in peace, Orissa.

What I want you to notice is how little publicity the change of name has gathered as compared to, say, the shift from Bangalore to Bengaluru or (need I mention) Bombay to Mumbai. In both of the latter situations an anglicisation was sought to be remedied, and a section of (anglophile?) people protested against the move, calling it unnecessary, politically guided and costly. Changing ‘Orissa’ to ‘Odisha’ has run along basically the same lines.

The Hindu, a paper I knew for its commitment to the fair representation of marginalised voices, gave it less space than it did to an article about how Jagmohan Reddy conducts five daily havans. Of course the change doesn’t really affect the poor or steal away any rights – but what is troubling is the assumption that nobody will have a problem with it, that the news of the change doesn’t warrant sufficient importance to place it, to say the very least, on the front page. Aren’t we allowing our newspapers too much leeway to guide our attention? Aren’t we letting them assume too much about Orissa’s importance – or, even more troubling, letting it reinforce our assumptions about ‘those’ people?

Of late, several articles have appeared (and continue to) in various segments of the Indian and Chinese media, creating much hype and hoopla about an impending war between both nations. Rising tension have forced both Governments to make public declarations in an attempt to dispel such fear-mongering. While the border dispute and the Dalai Lama factor continue to simmer in the background, issues such as granting a separate paper visa to Kashmiri residents, and Chinese collaboration  in construction projects in PoK have only aggravated concerns. The Hindu examines the opinion of experts on the issue and their take on the current position in Indo-China relations:

Myth and Reality in India-China Relations:  Subramanian Swamy

Some myths are frightening and need to be exploded. Some realities are potentially so dangerous that we can ignore them only at our peril.

Trend of China-India Friendship Irreversible: Zhang Yan

Although there are certain forces in the world that do not want to see China and India join hands, bilateral relations are standing at a new starting point, facing exciting new opportunities for development.

Coping with Rising China: K. Subrahmanyam

There is no reason to assume that India’s rapidly rising neighbour, set to become the world’s largest economy in the next two decades, will not play the normal game of nations. But the current hawkishness and jingoism in sections of the media and strategic circles in India is without basis and uncalled for, argues a veteran strategic affairs specialist.

Who stands to gain from war hysteria?: M.K. Bhadrakumar

What is abundantly clear is that neither India nor China stands to gain from the war hysteria that has been whipped up through the recent months over the relations between the two countries.

Does Beijing really want to ‘break-up’ India?: Ananth Krishnan

What the overreaction in India to an anonymous post on an obscure Chinese website calling for “splitting India” reveals about the challenges of understanding China’s changing information landscape.

The series of energy and trade deals inked between China and Russia during PM Putin’s visit to Beijing is of special significance for a number of reasons.

Trade spats between China and the industrialized nations is not uncommon; indeed, Russia and China needed an almighty oil deal of $25bn and trade contracts worth $3.5bn to heal a summer-time dispute.  Even now, several important details need to be worked out, especially with regard to the construction of pipelines that connect north-east China and Russia’s Sakhalin Island. Nonetheless, the timing of the deal is highly significant when one looks at the bigger picture.

Last month witnessed a highly publicized and vitriolic  dispute between the US and China over seemingly frivolous issues: while the US imposed a 35% tariff on Chinese tyres, the third largest economy in the world, after spewing considerable anti-American rhetoric, responded by imposing tariffs on US automative products, and, wait for it, chickens. Of course, it is evident that this is no pa(oul)try dispute, and that there are serious complications in the relationship between two of the largest trading partners in the world. While China looks to increase its exports to the US to generate massive revenue, the US is heavily reliant on Chinese investment to reduce its enormous deficits. The holding share of China in US treasury bonds is staggering, and has raised several concerned eyebrows in Washington.

It is precisely this imbalance (for every dollar worth of American goods bought in China, the US buys $4.5 worth of Chinese stuff) that is annoying policy-makers; while other issues on the Obama agenda such as labour regulations and WTO compliance hold water, nothing worries more than the mounting American debt to China. The Chinese Government does not help matters, keeping the Remninbi value artificially low, and granting huge subsidies to internal players.

Add to that, the deal with Russia.  Sino-Soviet relations haven’t exactly been the picture of bonhomie, and ever since the big Fall-Out, relations between both countries have remained just about civil. So if you are the US President, and wake up one fine morning to see a multi-billion dollars signed between Russia and China, you are legitimate in getting really worried. True, the Chinese are hungrily eyeing vast, untapped energy reserves in Siberia, and Gazprom would do well to seal a few deals with Chinese companies, but the deals, for all the reasons mentioned above, come at a highly critical juncture.

China can and could have waited, for its energy needs will definitely be met by its deal in Central Asia (with Turkmenistan) and other parts of the world (one-sixth of proven reserves in Nigeria is now supplied to CNOOC). However, the deal had to come in tandem with souring of trade relations with the US, and President Obama’s imminent visit to Beijing in November. Will the US rise to the occasion and amend its partnership with China? We’ll just have to wait and watch.