Editorial 1: Tension in Indo-Pacific and Russia-Ukraine conflict are symptoms of an emerging global disorder
Context:
- At the height of tensions between the US and China over the South China Sea, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in 2018 to unveil his strategy for the Indo-Pacific.
- India supports freedom of navigation and open sealines and emphasis was on inclusivity and ASEAN centrality.
- Recently visit of Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to India, unveiled the Japan’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
- As the conflicts in Eurasia like the Russia-Ukraine war precipitated the divide between the West and the Russia-China alliance, Kishida’s choice of location had a clear message
Japan’s free and open Indo-pacific policy to curb China’s influence
- Days before Kishida’s India’s visit, media outlets in Japan indicated that the objective of Tokyo’s Indo-Pacific strategy was to curb China’s influence.
- While the ostensible focus of the strategy would be to promote a “free and open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP), a phrase Kishida invoked at least 35 times in his Delhi speech, the initiative is aimed at “curbing China’s growing regional assertiveness,
- Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe fathered the phrase Indo-Pacific, first in his 2006 address to the Indian Parliament, saying that the two oceans are “bringing about a dynamic coupling as seas of freedom and prosperity”.
- Later, in 2012, he emphasised “peace, stability, and freedom of navigation”. Thus, the concept of FOIP came into vogue.
- While Abe initially looked at the Indo-Pacific from the prism of regional peace and prosperity, developments in the South China Sea led to the concept acquiring a greater security dimension in the last few years.
- Kishida insisted that FOIP’s contemporary relevance goes beyond regional security concerns, and it will be the defining feature of the new global order.
- He emphasised that the world is at a major inflection point today, and argued that the Indo-Pacific conflict cannot be viewed apart from the ongoing conflict in the Eurasian region.
- Both are symptoms of an emerging global order in which traditional superpowers are diminishing in influence and newly emerged powers are throwing their weight around in an ominous manner. It appears as though a new Cold War has begun
Growing influence of China after second world War:
- The world order, built by the Western powers in the aftermath of the Second World War, is facing its severest challenge from China today.
- Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” graduated into a “clash of world orders”. The Western powers insist, rightly, that China intends to undermine the existing liberal global order and replace it with a more hegemonic and less liberal order dominated by itself.
- The post-War world order was primarily about “sovereign inter-state relations and a relatively open global economy, characterised by practices of inclusive, rule-bound multilateralism”. That formed the core of multilateral institutions like the UN. As the decades progressed, the Western powers added concepts like democracy, liberalism and human rights to this discourse.
- China was one of the beneficiaries of this world order in the last three decades. Its entry into the WTO in 2001 was premised on the commitment that it would adhere to the core principles of this world order.
- But in reality, under Xi, China consistently violated with impunity all the core principles of that order. It disregarded sovereign national boundaries in the name of historical claims and disputed the mandates of international agencies.
- In the name of rejecting what it calls the US-led world order, China is implicitly trying to impose its own version inspired by its past moorings and Leninist principles.
India’s role in new world of cold war:
- India is committed to rejecting the authoritarian and coercive world order that China promotes.
- As the world’s largest democracy, its commitment to freedom, human rights and peace also are above board. It contributed significantly to upholding multilateralism through the UN and allied institutions.
- Yet, in the debate over the clash of world orders, upholding India’s principle of strategic autonomy is important to ensure that the Global South has a significant role in shaping the 21st-century world order.
Conclusion:
- The West has helped build a just and open world order in the last several decades. While defending that order, it must also remember Huntington’s words of caution in his book Clash of Civilisations that “the widespread Western belief in the universality of the West’s values and political systems is naïve, and that continued insistence on such ‘universal’ norms will only further antagonise other civilisations
- Along with it India has greater role in Indo-pacific region to promote the freedom of navigation, trade and connectivity as per internal laws without compromising the sovereignty of nations
Editorial 2: What are the laws under which Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified?
Recent Context:
- Recently, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified from the Lok Sabha, a day after he was convicted in a defamation case by a Surat court and sentenced for 2 years.
- A notice issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat said he stood disqualified from the House from March 23, the day of his conviction in terms of the provisions of Article 102 (1)(e) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of People Act,1951
What is Article 102 of the Indian Constitution?
- Article 102 deals with the disqualification of MPs from either house of the Parliament.
- Part (1) of the article lists the reasons why an MP can be disqualified. These include,
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.”
- In Rahul Gandhi’s case, the last point (if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament) applies. The law under which he has been disqualified is the Representation of People Act, 1951.
What is the Representation of People Act, 1951?
- The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is an act of Parliament of India to provide for the
- conduct of election of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State,
- the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.
- There are several provisions that deal with disqualification under the RPA.
- First, disqualification is triggered for conviction under certain offences listed in Section 8(1) of The Representation of The People Act.
- This includes specific offences such as promoting enmity between two groups, bribery, and undue influence or personation at an election. Senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan lost his Uttar Pradesh Assembly membership in October 2022 after he was convicted in a hate speech case. Defamation does not fall in this list.
- Section 8(2) also lists offences that deal with hoarding or profiteering, adulteration of food or drugs and for conviction and sentence of at least six months for an offence under any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Section 8(3) states: “A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.” This is the provision under which Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified.
How does the disqualification work?
- The disqualification can be reversed if a higher court grants a stay on the conviction or decides the appeal in favour of the convicted lawmaker.
- Significantly, the stay cannot merely be a suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but a stay of conviction.
- Under the RPA, Section 8(4) stated that the disqualification takes effect only “after three months have elapsed” from the date of conviction. Within that period, lawmakers could file an appeal against the sentence before the High Court.
- However, in the landmark 2013 ruling in ‘Lily Thomas v Union of India’, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional. This is what has allowed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to immediately disqualify Rahul Gandhi.