India’s response to Sri Lanka and Myanmar crises is a study in contrast

There is a stark contrast contrast between the Indian response to the crisis in Sri Lanka and the dawning civil war in Myanmar.

Crisis in Myanmar

According to UN human rights monitors, over 2,000 people have been killed, around 14,000 are in prison, including 90 lawmakers, over 7,00,000 are refugees and half a million internally displaced.

Humanitarian aid to coup opponents is blocked.

The economy is in free fall.

Though the international community has not accepted the junta or its nominees as official representatives of Myanmar, it has not recognised the unity government as the legitimate successor of the pre-coup elected administration either.

Its armed wing, the recently-formed People’s Defence Force (PDF), exists in a shadowy limbo.

If it is too weak to impose significant costs on the junta, one root cause is the lack of support from neighbours.

As against Europe’s military support for Ukraine’s defence, no Asian country has stepped up to support the unity government and PDF.

Role of ASEAN:  It is ASEAN which shouldered the responsibility to mediate in Myanmar, whereas India took the initiative with Sri Lanka.

But ASEAN has been largely unsuccessful.

The five-point consensus that the junta agreed on with the regional grouping included an immediate end to violence and resumption of negotiations between the ousted administration and the Tatmadaw.

ASEAN’s reaction has been weak at best.

The US, EU, Australia and Canada announced targeted sanctions on the junta, and the EU imposed an embargo on arms sales to the country. ASEAN did not.

India’s response and issues with it

The contrast between the Indian response to the crisis in Sri Lanka and the dawning civil war in Myanmar could not be starker.

There is no support from the India administration for Mizoram’s aid effort, and apparently there is no Indian policy vis a vis the coup either.

Cooperation against cross-border insurgency: Given our land and sea borders with Myanmar, and the troubled history of cross-border insurgencies between our two countries, the India’s inertia is alarming, though not entirely surprising.

Successive Indian administrations maintained relations with the junta in the hope that they would cooperate against cross-border Indian armed groups.

But these insurgencies have reduced.

In fact, over the 10 years of Myanmar’s partial democracy, from 2011 to 2021, cross-border support for Indian insurgents dipped sharply.

Direct security interest: In other words, we have a direct security interest in the restoration of our neighbour’s democracy.

Way forward

Stringent sanctions: Sanctions that will starve the junta are a first step that Myanmar’s neighbours are yet to try.

While ASEAN has the initiative, all Myanmar’s neighbours need to unite on sanctions, especially nations such as Japan, Australia and India that are members of the Quad along with the US.

Myanmar ought to have topped the recent Quad summit’s agenda and it is shameful that it did not.

It is still not too late to call a virtual emergency meeting of Quad heads of state, along with ASEAN heads of state, to agree to stringent sanctions.

Kuznets Hypothesis and India’s unique Jobs Crisis

In India, there are fewer people employed in agriculture today, but the transformation has been weak. Those moving out of farms are working more in construction sites and the informal economy than in factories.

What is the news?

India has too many people in agriculture and the inability to move surplus labour from farms constitutes a major policy failure of successive governments.

In 1993-94, agriculture accounted for close to 62% of the country’s employed labour force.

Overall, between 1993-94 and 2018-19, agriculture’s share in India’s workforce came down from 61.9% to 41.4%.

In other words, roughly a third in 25 years. That isn’t insignificant.

The declining trend continued, albeit at a slower pace, in the subsequent seven as well.

What is our point of analysis?

Even the movement of workforce from agriculture that India has witnessed over the past three decades or more does not qualify as what economists call “structural transformation”.

Such transformation would involve the transfer of labour from farming to others sectors – particularly manufacturing and modern services – where productivity, value-addition and average incomes are higher.

The surplus labour pulled out from the farms is being largely absorbed in construction and services.

The bulk of the jobs are in petty sectors such as retailing, small eateries, domestic help, sanitation, security staffing, transport and similar other informal economic activities.

This is also evident from the low, if not declining, share of employment in organised enterprises, defined as those engaging 10 or more workers.

What is the crux of the story?

Simply put, the structural transformation process in India has been weak and deficient.

Yes, there is movement of labour taking place away from farms – even if stalled, possibly temporarily.

But that surplus labour isn’t moving to higher value-added non-farm activities, specifically manufacturing and modern services.

This is familiar to the ‘Kuznets Process’ named after the American economist and 1971 Nobel Memorial Prize winner, Simon Kuznets.

What does the inverted Kuznets Curve mean?

The inverted U-shape of the Kuznets curve illustrates the basic elements of the Kuznets’ hypothesis with income per capita graphed on the horizontal x-axis and economic inequality on the vertical y-axis.

The graph shows income inequality following the curve, first increasing before decreasing after hitting a peak as per-capita income increases over the course of economic development.

Criticism of the theory

Critics say that the Kuznets curve does not reflect an average progression of economic development for an individual country.

Rather it is a representation of historical differences in economic development and inequality between countries in the dataset.

It suits to the countries that have had histories of high levels of economic inequality as compared to their counterparts in terms of similar economic development.

The critics hold that when controlling for this variable, the inverted U-shape of the Kuznets curve begins to diminish.

What rules govern Disposal of Seized Narcotics?

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has destroyed 30,000 kg of seized drugs at four locations – Kolkata, Chennai, Delhi and Guwahati — in the virtual presence of Union Home Minister.

Destruction of Seized Narcotic Drugs

Section 52-A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 allows probe agencies to destroy seized substances after collecting required samples.

Officials concerned must make a detailed inventory of the substance to be destroyed.

A five-member committee comprising the area SSP, director/superintendent or the representative of the area NCB, a local magistrate and two others linked to law enforcement and legal fraternity is constituted.

The substance is then destroyed in an incinerator or burnt completely leaving behind not any trace of the substance.

Exact procedure that is followed

The agency first obtains permission from a local court to dispose of the seized narcotic substances.

These substances are then taken to the designated place of destruction under a strict vigil.

The presiding officer tallies the inventory made at the storeroom with that material brought to the spot.

The entire process is videographed and photographed.

Then one by one, all the packets/gunny bags of the substance/s are put in the incinerator.

As per rules, committee members cannot leave the place until the seized drugs have been completely destroyed.

Which agency is authorized to carry out such an exercise?

Every law enforcement agency competent to seize drugs is authorized to destroy them after taking prior permission of the area magistrate.

These include state police forces, the CBI and the NCB among others.

Why destroy seized drugs?

The hazardous nature of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, and constraints of proper storage space are among the reasons that make agencies destroy them.

There have been instances when seized narcotics were pilfered from the storeroom.

To prevent such instances, authorities try to destroy seized drugs immediately after collecting the required samples out of the seized substances.

Har Ghar Tiranga Campaign

The Centre is set to launch a large-scale campaign to encourage Indians to fly the National Fag at their homes to mark the 75th Independence Day under the Har Ghar Tiranga Campaign.

Also, August 2 marks 146th birth anniversary of Pingali Venkayya, the designer of Pingali Venkayya.

Har Ghar Tiranga

‘Har Ghar Tiranga’ is a campaign under the aegis of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav to encourage people to bring the Tiranga home and to hoist it to mark the 75th year of India’s independence.

The campaign aims to have citizens hoisting our National Flag in their homes between August 13 and 15.

Why such move?

Our relationship with the flag has always been more formal and institutional than personal.

Bringing the flag home collectively as a nation in the 75th year of independence thus becomes a symbolic act of personal connection to the Tiranga.

The idea behind the initiative is to invoke the feeling of patriotism in the hearts of the people and to promote awareness about the National Flag.

Story of our National Flag

On July 22, 1947, the Constituent Assembly adopted our National Flag.

The flag that was finally chosen underwent several changes since it was originally designed by Pingali Venkayya in 1923.

Venkayya was not just the architect of the flag but also a freedom fighter.

He was known as Jhanda Venkayya as he published a book in 1916 on 30 designs for the Indian flag.

August 2 marks his 146th birth anniversary and citizens across this country will now know more of his contributions in designing the flag that we have today.

How this was made possible?

First, the Flag Code was changed to make the flag more accessible and thus give every Indian the unique opportunity to hoist the flag at their homes.

Subsequently, the government has taken various steps to ensure the supply of flags across the country.

Flags are now available in all post offices in the country.

State governments have tied up with various stakeholders for the supply of flags.

The flag will be available on the government’s e-market marketplace (GEM) portal, on e-commerce portals, and with various self-help groups (SHGs).

What is the Flag Code of India?

The Flag Code of India is a set of laws, practices and conventions that apply to the display of the national flag of India.

The Code took effect from 26 January 2002 and superseded the “Flag Code-India” as it existed earlier.

It permits the unrestricted display of the tricolour, consistent with the honour and dignity of the flag.

The Flag Code of India has been divided into three parts:-

First Part: General Description of the National Flag.

Second Part: Display of the National Flag by members of public, private Organisations & educational institutions etc.

Third Part: Display of National Flag by Union or State Governments and their organisations and agencies.

Disposing of the national flag

A/c to the Flag Code, such paper flags are not to be discarded or thrown on the ground after the event.

Such flags are to be disposed of, in private, consistent with the dignity of the flag.

Do you know?: Hoisting the national flag is a fundamental right

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India V. N. Khare said that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, citizens had the fundamental right to fly the national flag on their premises throughout the year.

However, it provided that the premises do not undermine the dignity of the national flag.

About Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act

The law, enacted on December 23, 1971, penalizes the desecration of or insult to Indian national symbols, such as the National Flag, the Constitution, the National Anthem, and the Indian map, as well as contempt of the Constitution of India.

Section 2 of the Act deals with insults to the Indian National Flag and the Constitution of India.