27 Dec 2023 : The Hindu Editorial

Topic 1 : Law of numbers

Context: The government should not use its majority to rush through legislation.

Introduction

• The 18-day winter session of Parliament that was adjourned sine die on December 21 marked a new low in India’s parliamentary democracy as the ruling party refused to engage with the Opposition, evaded executive accountability and passed a battery of Bills with far-reaching consequences for the country while a majority of the Opposition members remained suspended.

Mass suspension of MPs

• In the final count, a total of 146 Members of Parliament (MP) from the Opposition bloc were suspended — 46 of the Rajya Sabha, and 100 of the Lok Sabha, as they clamoured for a statement by Union Home Minister Amit Shah on a breach of security that involved protesters gaining entry into the chamber of the Lok Sabha on December 13.
• The rift lingers, as Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge has written to Vice-President of India and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, terming the suspension of Opposition MP as “predetermined and premeditated” by the government.
• The absence of any application of mind was evident, Mr. Kharge has written, recalling that an MP who was not even present in the Lok Sabha, was among those suspended.

Passing of the important bills

• It was in the absence of a majority of the Opposition members that the government passed new laws that rewrite the criminal code of the country, regulation of telecommunication and the appointment of the Election Commission of India.
• The common feature of these laws is an unprecedented increase in the power of the executive, and it is not a coincidence that they were passed without a meaningful parliamentary debate that took on board conflicting views.

Blame games.

• The government refused even the Opposition demand for a statement on the security breach, in a show of obstinacy that equates numerical majority with logical and moral infallibility.
• The government has blamed the Opposition for bringing the suspensions upon itself, and this position has been echoed by the Speaker and the Chairman.
• The case of the alleged mimicry of Mr. Dhankhar by an Opposition MP was a distraction that was convenient for the ruling party.
• Mr. Dhankhar himself told the Rajya Sabha that the alleged mimicry was an insult to his community, a dismaying correlation to be made by anyone, let alone a legal luminary such as himself.

Conclusion

It is another matter whether the Opposition should have invested so much time and effort in asking for a debate on the security breach by a few misguided youths. The effect, if not the objective, of it all was to derail parliamentary functioning and obtain a free pass for the executive.

Topic 2 : Development led by corporates, not women.

Context: The G20 Declaration says it encourages ‘women-led development’ but data show that women are not being paid enough for their work.

Introduction

• The G20 Summit in Delhi adopted a Declaration which resolved to set up a “working group on the empowerment of women.”
• Given the continuing discrimination against women and girls, this is welcome. But by and large, “working groups” formed in the past have not been implemented.
• For example, the Sustainable Development Goals have specific targets to address gender gaps. However, as the Declaration itself admits, “At the midway point to 2030, the global progress on SDGs is off-track with only 12% of the targets on track.”

A vague phrase

• The Gender Equality section says, “We encourage women-led development and remain committed to enhancing women’s full, equal, effective, and meaningful participation as decision makers for addressing global challenges inclusively and in contributing as active participants in all spheres of society, across all sectors and at all levels of the economy...” The phrase ‘women-led development’ is striking and is the contribution of the Government of India.
• This is not an issue of semantics. When phrases like ‘women-led development’ are used, leaders need to describe the parameters of such a development process, which are different from ‘non women-led’ development models.
  • The truth is that the development models adopted by countries describing themselves as democracies (mainly developed countries in the West) have led to obscene inequalities between countries, between the rich and the poor within countries, and between men and women.
  • The core of this model remains the discredited ‘trickle down theory’ in which big business continues to enjoy state subsidies through tax concessions, bank loan write-offs, subsidies in land availability, and cross-country concessions for the free movement of finance capital on the premise that all this will lead to more investment, creation of employment, and so on.
  • The ‘no governance is good governance’ model has removed government regulation, dismantled and sold off public assets, and privatised strategic industries. All this has been done in the name of reforms.
• The G20 Declaration reiterates this commitment. It says, “We recognise the critical role of private enterprise in accelerating growth and driving sustainable economic transformations.” If the macro model of development remains the same, where does women-led development fit in?

‘From Women Development to Women-led Development.’

• On March 7, the bulletin of the Press Information Bureau listed government schemes meant to benefit women under the headline ‘From Women Development to Women-led Development.’ Just as reform is the cover for aggressive profit maximising models of capitalism, women-led development schemes conceal the reality of decreasing government investment in projects and schemes meant for women’s development.
• The Gender Budget was started in 2005-2006. What was meant to be a tool to plug the gaps through prioritised investment has been reduced to an accounting exercise.
• It has two parts. Part A includes schemes which are 100% for women and Part B includes all government schemes where at least one-third of the expenditure is supposedly for women.
• Women-led development should mean a substantial increase in the total amount of the Gender Budget. It should also reflect in a much bigger component in the expenditure in Part A rather than Part B. However, on both counts, the opposite trend dominates. The total Gender Budget for 2023-2024 was reduced from 5.2% of the total expenditure the previous year to 5%.

Gender budget

• The Gender Budget was started in 2005-2006. What was meant to be a tool to plug the gaps through prioritised investment has been reduced to an accounting exercise.
• It has two parts. Part A includes schemes which are 100% for women and Part B includes all government schemes where at least one-third of the expenditure is supposedly for women.
• Women-led development should mean a substantial increase in the total amount of the Gender Budget. It should also reflect in a much bigger component in the expenditure in Part A rather than Part B. However, on both counts, the opposite trend dominates. The total Gender Budget for 2023-2024 was reduced from 5.2% of the total expenditure the previous year to 5%.

Conclusion

• On average, there has been no substantial increase in the Gender Budget since its inception, which has remained between 4% and 6%. What is of greater concern is that, in 2023-24, the year that the phrase ‘women-led development’ was used, the expenditure in Part A was at its lowest at around 39% of the total, while Part B made up 61% of expenditure of the Gender Budget. In other words, wholly women-specific schemes are just about 40% of an already inadequate budgetary allocation.