Six months of Modi Government

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leading a majority government after a gap of 25 years, took charge of the country on May 26 this year at an impressive swearing-in ceremony.

Analysis

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leading a majority government after a gap of 25 years, took charge of the country on May 26 this year at an impressive swearing-in ceremony. Though technically the BJP-led National Democratic government is a coalition government, its six months’ performance has shown it has not experienced any constraints as during the previous 10 governments, including that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.

After coming to power on huge popular expectations and promises of Modi, the new government has now completed six months in office. Now it is time for an honest and critical appraisal of the performance of the government.

The government has ushered in many changes in both style as well as the form. It has also retained, rather has continued with, some of the policies of its predecessor UPA government.

By inviting head of states or chief executives of the member countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for the swearing-in, the government began with a well meaning initiative — essentially a symbolic step to convey that New Delhi is keen to improve relations with its neighbours and countries in the region.

First, the style of the new government is far different compared to 10 years of the UPA government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) of the six-month-old government reminds one of former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, when this office carried lots of clout. Now it has again acquired the old status and an overwhelming power.

Thanks to the decisive and clear mandate, it has been possible for the Prime Minister to turn the PMO as his tool to guide and monitor his cabinet colleagues and the work of their ministries and departments. The PMO now consists of bureaucrats who have been personally selected and picked up none other than the Prime Minister himself. The PMO is the nerve centre of the Modi government.

With Modi taking personal interest in maintaining a close vigil on the functioning of his government, the decision making process has become swifter because discussions and debates in cabinet meetings are far less and rare now, compared to the history of last 25 years of policy making and decision making of different coalition governments at the Centre.

On the domestic front, the launch of Jan Dhan Yojna, which aims to bring the excluded into the country’s banking system over the next five years, is a major initiative of the new government. The scheme, which means opening of bank accounts of all those who are not part of the country’s banking network, will open doors for targeted subsidies, eliminating corruption.

If the financial coverage reaches the rural poor, then the Jan Dhan scheme in conjunction with Aadhar platform could facilitate a shift towards cash transfer of subsidies and plug outlets of corruption effectively.

In one of its first major decision, the government dismantled the Planning Commission which had acted both as a monitoring as well as policy making agency of the central government and had coordinated development and growth processes in states, union territories and the Centre for six decades. The Planning Commission had formulated twelve Five-Year-Plans for the country.

By doing away the Planning Commission, the BJP government displayed the biggest symbolic break from the Nehruvian framework which had remained the guiding principle of different governments that came to power in the last six decades.

The Modi government has claimed that a new institution would replace the Planning Commission which would be in tune with the changing times and would be federative in character, taking on board the requirements and specific needs of states.

Though the exercise for creating a new institution has begun, one can make an assessment on this score, mainly whether the decision to dismantle the Commission was right or wrong, only when it starts functioning.

Another notable decision of the new government has been to launch a ’Make in India’ programme which aims to raise the share of manufacturing in the GDP. It seeks to transform India into the manufacturing hub of the world because if this can be achieved, then it would generate employment for the bulk of unskilled and semi-skilled workers currently engaged in the agriculture sector.

The success or failure of this ambitious campaign would eventually depend upon the enabling environment — by facilitating and improving the ease of doing business in highly centralised bureaucratic setup.

In his first Independence Day address, the Prime Minister captivated the country’s youth by talking of his dream of a Digital India by 2019 which will open doors for e-governance, IT-enabled education and telemedicine etc. It is an ambitious scheme under which last mile Wi-Fi connectivity and broadband would be ensured but promising something in different than providing it.

On the economic front, the government has taken some bold steps like raising the foreign direct investment (FDI) limit to 49 per cent from 26 per cent in defence sector through approval route.

Notwithstanding several administrative steps to facilitate investments and cutting the red tape, the government’s performance has not been exemplary and has belied expectations despite extremely favourable global environment. The prices of crude oil and other commodities have significantly come down and rising inflation has been arrested.

Despite the positive international economic environment, growth has disappointed as neither the credit taken off nor exports have picked up. Even investments have not gained the desired momentum.

But at the same time, the Modi government has not discarded what was good in the UPA government as it has repackaged many of its predecessor’s programmes and policies like its decision of retaining the UPA’s unique identity programme and linking it with administration of subsidy regime.

On the external front, the Prime Minister has been far too visible. In a short period, Modi has been to seven foreign destinations including Japan, the US, Australia, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar and Fiji. He has addressed the UN and has attended BRICS and SAARC summits in Brazil and Nepal. He has hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

While the new government has taken many steps to improve its relations with country’s neighbours, Pakistan continues to remain a major challenge for the government. Ties with Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Maldives are acquiring a positive outlook.

In this context, it is worth noting the statement of the Prime Minister in Guwahati on December 1 that New Delhi would go ahead with a land swapping deal with Bangladesh to stop infiltration and find a solution to the long pending dispute between the two countries.

The change of stand on the land border agreement by the Modi government, which was opposed by the BJP during its years in opposition, will go a long way in developing positive ties with Bangladesh and will also be a signal to other neighbours that India was adopting a forward looking approach.

While the government and the BJP claim that Modi’s foreign visits and his engagements with global leaders would promote country’s image and would also bring in investments helping the economic growth in a significant way, but results would only be known in coming months.

The performance can be seen at present in a set of initiatives whose results are likely to be visible in months and years to come. But there are some disturbing and agonising trends which may pose serious challenge to the new government. Some developments and incidents of communal character in different parts of the country have the potential of threatening the already fragile social equations.

There is disquiet among the minorities as societal disharmony, communal temperatures and social tensions are on the rise. The government’s failure to rein in forces and elements which in many cases have close affinity to the ideological base of the ruling party may prove detrimental to the image of the BJP and its leader.

On the whole, the first six months of the new government has resulted in many initiatives but their implementation on ground resulting in concrete deliverables alone would be sole guarantee of the credibility of the promises made during the election campaign.

(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi)

Maldives: Hasty change of Chief Justice raises more questions than answers

N Sathiya Moorthy

In an unprecedented and unexpected move, the Government of President Abdulla Yameen has had two of the seven Supreme Court Judges removed after inadequately amending what possibly is an in-applicable law, in the process replacing Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz with Justice Abdulla Saeed, post haste. The pace and cause for the entire process is shrouded in mystery, and it remains to be seen if some clarity would emerge during the hearing of the cases that have challenged the law-amendment the Government seems to have concluded is an ’enabler’.

It can be called poetic justice for Justice Saeed after the then administration of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) President Mohammed Nasheed had its way in replacing him as the Chief Justice of the ’Interim Supreme Court’, when ’regularisation’ process, mandated by the new, 2008 Constitution, became due in 18 months. But it is not about ’poetic justice’.

The haste with which the Yameen government had the Parliament amend the Judicature Act, for the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to recommend the removal of the targeted two, and later name Justice Saeed for the by-now-vacant CJ’s post – and Parliament too voting upon them without much debate raises more questions than answers – both political, but more so constitutional. In the process, the Executive and the Legislature were content with following the letter of the law, if at all, and not the spirit of the law thereof.

It had begun with the Parliament voting 46-19 with one abstention, an amendment to the Judicature Act, for reducing the strength of the Supreme Court Bench from seven to five, and empowering the JSC to recommend, so to say, the name of two ’incompetent’ Judges and/or those found guilty of ’misconduct’, for removal through a simple majority. The new law gave the JSC just three days to recommend those names and Parliament seven days for voting on the same.

It was thus inherently clear that the JSC at least was not given adequate time, either to evaluate the alleged ’incompetence’ or ’misconduct’ as the case may be, and certainly giving adequate time for those charged thus to defend their fair name and reputation. It is as yet unclear on what material and/or parameters that the JSC had arrived at its recommendations, or how law and Constitution intend addressing the inexplicable damage caused to the person and reputation of the sacked Judges.

With a ’legally-bounden’ JSC, which on occasions had shown a streak of ’independence’ viz the Executive and the Legislature – and at times even the higher Judiciary — in the past, losing no time in recommending the chosen names, Parliament voted out the two out, 53-21 with a ruling PPM member abstaining. The legislative clearance for the new CJ, only hours later, again without any debate or discussion, witnessed 55 MPs voting in favour, and the Opposition MDP staging a walk-out.

Among the MPs voting for Justice Saeed was six of the 13-member Jumhooree Party (JP), which decided to give its members the ’freedom of choice’, clearly indicating dissent that might have threatened to break the party. The MDP had issued a three-line whip for members to vote against the Judicature Act amendment, but at least one party MP, Deputy Speaker, ’Reeko’ Moosa Manik voted with the Government. The MDP staged a walk-out while the House voted on the sacking of the two Justices.

The MDP has since announced its decision to question six of its members – including ’Reeko’ Moosa, who has already declared his intention to contest the party primaries for the 2018 presidential polls, and those who were overseas – about their absence from the House. A group of party men, led by President Nasheed, staged a protest outside when the People’s Majlis, or Parliament, was voting on the removal. The party has since moved the Civil Court, challenging the amendment to the Judicature Act. Some individuals/lawyers have moved the High Court on similar grounds and more.

State spendings

None would have thought that the Government would read possible new meanings into Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad’s Budget-time suggestion for a relook at Chapter VII ’Independent Institutions’ under the Constitution, if only to economise on State spending. Nor did anyone foresee the possibilities when the parliamentary committee on Independent Institutions, chaired by an MDP member, submitted its recommendations to the full House on Judicature Act amendments less than a fortnight back.

It has however not gone unnoticed that the Government was pushing through the enabling legislation to reduce the SC Bench strength when the nation was still coping with the unprecedented ’drinking water crisis’ in the capital city of Male, caused in turn by a fire in the desalination plant. Thus, when the rest of the world was busy worrying about the Male crisis, at least a decisive section of the nation’s politics had other and more engaging agenda on hand. Or, so it seems.

Whether there was any link between the Government’s ’judicial reforms’ (?) for President Yameen to hand over power to JP leader Gasim Ibrahim, is also unclear as yet. The MDP-recommended course would have either involved both President Yameen and his Vice-President Mohamed Jameel stepping down voluntarily, and facilitating Gasim Ibrahim’s election as Parliament Speaker, for him to act as President for a maximum of 60 days, pending fresh elections to the nation’s two high offices.

It is anybody’s guess why the MDP should time its call for the presidential change-over to the ’water crisis’, or the rationale behind it choosing a non-party nominee to be ’President for 60 days’, if at all. The alternative could be mass defections from the Government side, to facilitate ’impeachment’ of the President and the Vice-President, and then Gasim’s election as Sepaker. All of these could get contested before the higher judiciary, as the 2013 presidential polls and many other political decisions of the three governments since the advent of multi-party democracy have done already.

Passing a ’resolution’ on the MDP’s petition, the Civil Court has condemned the amendment to the Judicature Act. The High Court is yet to take up the private petitions, challenging the change-of-guard in the Supreme Court and the processes followed. The parliamentary votes, for removal of two Judges and the appointment of a new CJ, followed by oath-taking by Chief Justice Saeed, may have rendered the cause of action in some of these cases infructuous, so to say. But the larger questions of law and Constitution remain to be agitated and addressed, if in the normal course.

’Unconstitutional’

"It’s a black day," outgoing Chief Justice Faiz said after Parliament voted his removal and that of brother-Justice Muthasim Adnan. It is ’unconstitutional’, he added. "The Constitution is very clear on how a judge can be dismissed from office. While those principles and procedures are there, doing it in a different way cannot be but unconstitutional," he said.

Justice Faiz may have a point. Article 154 of the Constitution has clearly laid down the procedure for removal of Judges of the Supreme Court. It’s ’impeachment’, without terming it as such, unlike in other democracies, with two-thirds majority in Parliament — but based on a recommendation of the JSC on a judge’s ’incompetence’ and/or ’misconduct’.

The Constitution does not provide for any ’impeachment’, by whatever name called, by a simple majority. The question would arise if Parliament could similarly seek to ’impeach’ either a President or Vice-President, by amending some obscure law, pushing it all in un-seeming hurry, and claiming legitimacy to such acts and decisions.