Read The Hindu Notes of 9th January 2019 for UPSC Civil Service Examination, State Civil Service Examination and other competitive Examination

The Hindu Notes for 9th January 2019
  • Topic Discussed: The Hindu Notes of 9th January 2019

    • A renewed attack on privacy

    The Aadhaar Bill, allowing private bodies to use Aadhaar as a means to authenticate identity, poses huge dangers

  • On Friday, the Lok Sabha, without any attendant discussion, passed the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2018. On any reasonable reading it ought to be plainly apparent that the Bill flagrantly flouts both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgment which gave the Aadhaar programme a conditional imprimatur. It is therefore entirely likely that the government is banking on a sense of political fatigue having set in over the project, and perhaps it believes it has made the programme so ubiquitous that a few additional legislative tweaks are unlikely to shock and jolt the dissenters. But the present move is so brazen that we will be failing in our collective duties were we to allow the amendments to be carried out without any debate. For, if enacted, the law will once again allow private corporations, including banks and telecom operators, to use Aadhaar as a means to authenticate identity.
  • Astonishingly, this change has been proposed despite the government’s abject failure to enact comprehensive legislation protecting our data and our privacy. Therefore, unless the Rajya Sabha places a constraint on the government’s impudence, the consequences will prove devastating.

    • Between September and now

  • There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered last September, enjoined Parliament to make certain specific legislative changes. To that end, some of the court’s concerns are addressed by the Bill, such as the inclusion of a clause intended at ensuring that children are not denied benefits on account of a failure to possess Aadhaar. But the essential object of the law is to countermine those portions of the judgment that the regime deems inconvenient. So inconvenient that the Bill was introduced, as the lawyer Vrinda Bhandari has argued in The Wire, by altogether overlooking the state’s own “pre-legislative consultative policy”.
  • This policy places an onus on the ministry introducing a law to publish the draft of any proposed legislation, together with, among other things, the objectives behind the law and an estimated assessment of the impact that such legislation may have on fundamental rights, and to thereafter invite comments from the public. Yet, here, the Bill, which makes amendments not only to the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, but also to the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), was introduced without any prior consultation, leading to a credible belief that the proposed changes are an act of subterfuge.
  • Originally, Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act allowed both the state and private entities to use the programme to establish an individual’s identity pursuant to a law or a contract. It was on this basis that various notifications were issued allowing corporations of different kinds, including telecom operators, e-commerce firms and banks, to use Aadhaar. But when the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of the legislation, although it upheld vast portions of the law through a 4:1 majority, it unanimously struck down Section 57 insofar as it applied to private entities.

    • Commercial exploitation

  • Justice A.K. Sikri, in his judgment for the majority, wrote: “Even if we presume that legislature did not intend so, the impact of the aforesaid features would be to enable commercial exploitation of an individual biometric and demographic information by the private entities. Thus, this part of the provision which enables body corporate and individuals also to seek authentication, that too on the basis of a contract between the individual and such body corporate or person, would impinge upon the right to privacy of such individuals. This part of the section, thus, is declared unconstitutional.”
  • Although this leaves little room for doubt, the government, for its part, may well defend the Bill by arguing that the majority’s judgment nonetheless permits the enactment of a new law allowing the use of Aadhaar by private entities so long as a person voluntarily consents to such authentication. In its aid, the government will likely point to paragraph 367 of Justice Sikri’s opinion. “The respondents may be right in their explanation that it is only an enabling provision which entitles Aadhaar number holder to take the help of Aadhaar for the purpose of establishing his/her identity,” he wrote. “If such a person [voluntarily] wants to offer Aadhaar card as a proof of his/her identity, there may not be a problem.”
  • But this passage scarcely expresses an opinion on private entities. To the contrary, it merely reaffirms the position that even for the state to utilise Aadhaar, in cases not involving the drawing of subsidies, benefits or services from the Consolidated Fund of India, the authentication must be voluntary and backed by separate legislation. While there are indeed portions of the majority’s ruling that are vague and indeterminate, on Section 57 the opinion is unequivocal. Inasmuch as the provision allows private companies the authority to authenticate identity through Aadhaar, even by securing an individual’s informed consent, the clause, Justice Sikri held, disproportionately contravened the right to privacy.
  • Since the Supreme Court has found that the operation of Aadhaar by private entities violates fundamental rights, there is today no avenue available for fresh legislative intervention, unless the government chooses to amend the Constitution. In any event, the proposed legislative amendments virtually seek to impose Aadhaar as a prerequisite for the availing of certain basic services. For example, the amendments proposed to the Telegraph Act and the PMLA state that service providers — telecom companies and banks, respectively, — ought to identify their customers by one of four means: authentication under the Aadhaar Act; offline verification under the Aadhaar Act; use of passport; or the use of any other officially valid document that the government may notify.

    • Issue of fraud

  • Therefore, if the government fails to notify any new form of identification, a person’s identity will necessarily have to be authenticated through Aadhaar or through her passport. Given that only a peripheral portion of India’s population possess passports, Aadhaar is effectively made compulsory. Allowing private corporations to access and commercially exploit the Aadhaar architecture, as we have already seen, comes with disastrous consequences — the evidence of reports of fraud emanating out of seeding Aadhaar with different services is ever-growing. Hence, the amendments not only fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s verdict but are also wholly remiss in attending to the dangers both of slapdash data protection and of corruption and scamming.
  • This move, to restore the use of Aadhaar by telecom companies and banks, however, is not the Bill’s only problem. There is a hatful of other concerns, including the re-introduction of a marginally refurbished Section 33(2). In its original form, the clause had allowed an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India to direct disclosure of Aadhaar information in the “interest of national security”. The Supreme Court declared the clause unconstitutional and ruled that while disclosure in the interest of national security may be important, such disclosure should spring out of a request of a “higher ranking officer”. What is more, in order to avoid any misuse of the provision, requests of this kind, the court held, ought to require separate scrutiny, and, therefore, “a Judicial Officer (preferably a sitting High Court judge) should also be associated with” the process. However, the Bill, merely seeks to substitute the words “Joint Secretary” with “Secretary” in Section 33(2), completely disregarding the Supreme Court’s order demanding inquiry by a judge.
  • Ultimately, the Bill seeks to pave the path for Aadhaar to permeate through every conceivable sphere of human activity, transferring all authority over our bodies, in the process, from the citizen to the state, and, in many cases, from the citizen to private corporations. The Rajya Sabha, therefore, should resist any developing sense of ennui around the programme, and reject this Bill, for the utter contempt of democracy that it represents.

    • Staggering backwards

    The Modi government’s reservation gambit is neither sound policy nor smart politics

  • India presents a classic case of proto-politics. Nothing that is institutional has an appeal and the insatiable clamour for quick surprises is a constant. While on Sunday at a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) event as part of its Dalit outreach, a world record was attempted by cooking 5,000 kg of ‘khichdi’, on Monday the Central government announced 10% reservation for ‘economic backwards’ to reach out to upper castes. The announcement is clearly aimed at the 2019 general election. However, it needs to be seen whether playing the reservation card in its inverted form would be a ‘zero sum game’ or a ‘win-win’ situation for the BJP?
  • In the last decade, India has been witnessing the interplay of the agrarian crisis and demands for reservation by dominant peasant castes, Jats in the north, Marathas and Patidars in the west, and Kappus in the south. The resultant political crisis leads to absurd complexities whereby reservation is sought and promised as the remedy for agrarian distress. Similarly, the BJP’s recent electoral reverses in three Hindi heartland States signalled that a section of the upper castes, the core support base of the party, had drifted away. This seems to have necessitated the proposed policy-cum-political measure of reserving 10% seats for them to woo them back. However, here too the party may be drawing the wrong inference. A significant section of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Dalits accompanied upper caste voters in moving away from the BJP in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. While, anti-reservation forums like SAPAKS, or Samanya Picchdaa Evam Alpsankhyak Samaj, had campaigned against the BJP on account of controversies related to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in reality they merely deflected the root cause of the anger due to agrarian and rural distress. The fact that the BJP performed better than the Congress in the Baghelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh, the core region of SAPAKS activity, indicates this.

    • Subaltern, Hindutva, Bahujan

  • The key to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2014 electoral success lay in meticulously fusing the social support bases of two antagonistic discourses of 1990s emanating from Mandal and Mandir politics. By the early 1990s, Mandal evolved into a Bahujan experiment wherein the ‘Other’ were the upper castes, while the Hindutva discourse attempted to forge a solid social support base by giving thick political representation to subaltern Hindus to constitute Muslims as the common ‘Other’. It succeeded vis-à-vis Bahujan discourse on account of the two-fold internal social contradictions: between Dalits and OBCs on the one hand, and between dominant OBCs and lower OBCs on the other.
  • In fact, by the late 1990s, the BJP managed to shed its anti-reservation image and emerged as a platform for the lower OBCs, who felt left out from the benefits of Mandal politics. By 2014, Mr. Modi (along with allies) took the logic of subaltern Hindutva to its zenith by winning 73 out of 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh without fielding a single Muslim. Subaltern Hindutva seemed deeply entrenched as lower OBCs got thick political representation out of the seats denied to Muslims besides occupying crucial organisational posts in the BJP and other Hindutva groups. It must be noted that a majority of Dalits and dominant OBCs were less fluid as compared to the lower OBCs, whose political alignment has of late emerged as the determinant of electoral outcomes, especially in the Hindi heartland. It is this section that appeared too to have become the core support base of the BJP with the ascendency of subaltern Hindutva.
  • However, since the Gorakhpur and Phulpur bypolls in Uttar Pradesh, the original claimants of the Bahujan experiment, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party, have tactically revised their approach by giving more representation to lower OBCs, thereby hitting the comfort zone of the BJP.
  • It is against this backdrop that when the BJP faces the Mahagathbandhan in U.P. and Bihar, its policy priority should be the lower OBCs whose electoral fluidity may stem trouble for the party. Appealing to upper castes through a judicially unviable proposition at this juncture is neither good policy nor smart politics. All it would end up doing is denting the already weakened image of Mr. Modi as a leader of backward sections and giving electoral ammunition in the hands of the Mahagathbandhan, which may not oppose the reservation openly but will position itself to emerge as the beneficiary of the possible reaction by Bahujans.

    • Judicially unviable

  • The proposed Bill flies in the face of constitutional provisions and court verdicts. Even if a constitutional amendment inserts ‘economic backwardness’ as the basis for reservation besides existing social and educational backwardness in Article 15(4), it cannot make a persuasive case to breach the 50% cap for reservations, as the constitutional provision is clear that the scale of reservation under Article 16(4) has to be minority in nature.
  • This would mean that either the proposed Bill would be nullified, or the 10% reservation would have to be accommodated in the existing 50% cap. Either way it would be a dead-end for the BJP.
  • Reservation is neither an instrument of poverty-eradication, nor does it have the scale to cope with the agrarian and other economic crises afflicting India today. At a time when a deep institutional response is warranted, going for the easy and lazy measure of earmarking reservation amounts to policy escapism. The trend of making public policies and institutional response subservient to electoral exigencies as a norm is tantamount to treating India as a proto-state. And on a pragmatic note, elections are fought and won by appealing to fence-sitters rather than hypnotising the ‘core’ again and again, as the BJP now seems to be doing.

    • Quota questions

    Moves for reservations on economic grounds are more about politics than social justice

  • Rattled by the erosion in upper caste votes in the recent Assembly elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the BJP government has attempted to recover this traditional vote base through an unapologetic political manoeuvre. It has sought to provide a 10% quota for economically weaker sections in public employment and educational institutions. That this is more an election-time signal to upper castes than a genuine attempt to revisit social justice policy is clear for at least two reasons. The 124th Constitution Amendment Bill will have to be passed by two-thirds of the MPs present and voting, and the challenge will be to drum up the numbers in both Houses. And, it is doubtful if it will stand judicial scrutiny. If enacted, the 50% limit on total reservation laid down by the Supreme Court will be breached. (The court did allow for a higher percentage in extraordinary situations, but it does not apply in this case.) Even if it is arguable that such a move will create deserving opportunities to those outside the purview of caste-based reservations, in Indira Sawhney a nine-judge bench had struck down a provision that earmarked 10% for the economically backward on the ground that economic criteria cannot be the sole basis to determine backwardness. Any attempt to amend the Constitution to extend what is limited to the “socially and educationally backward” to those economically weak is problematic.
  • If the amendment is challenged, a question that will arise is whether financial incapacity warrants special treatment. With the income ceiling for eligibility likely to be fixed at ₹8 lakh a year — the same as the ‘creamy layer’ limit above which OBC candidates now enjoying reservations become ineligible — an uneasy parity has been created between socially and educationally backward classes with limited means and those who are socially and educationally advanced with the same limitation. The other issue that has come up frequently when quotas are increased by State governments is that exceeding the 50% limit offends the equality norm. In Nagaraj (2006), a Constitution Bench ruled that equality is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It said the 50% ceiling, among other things, was a constitutional requirement without which the structure of equality of opportunity would collapse. There has been a string of judgments against reservations that breach the 50% limit. Another issue is whether reservations can go to a section that is already adequately represented in public employment. It is not clear if the government has quantifiable data to show that people from lower income groups are under-represented in its service. Reservations have been traditionally provided to undo historical injustice and social exclusion suffered over a period of time, and the question is whether they should be extended to those with social and educational capital solely on the basis of what they earn.

    • Reinstated, conditionally

    Supreme Court rejects the Centre’s contention in the CBI Director’s case, but softens the blow

  • In setting aside the orders divesting Alok Verma of his functions and duties as Director of the CBI, the Supreme Court has strengthened the principle that the head of the agency should be insulated against any form of interference. The court took up the matter in the midst of an unseemly tussle for supremacy between Mr. Verma and Special Director Rakesh Asthana, with corruption charges being traded. However, the court’s interim order asking for a time-bound inquiry into the charges against Mr. Verma is now of no avail, as the Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, has chosen to deal only with the major question of law involved. The decision has gone against the government, with the court holding that the action taken against Mr. Verma amounted to a ‘transfer’, something that cannot be done by any authority except the high-powered selection committee headed by the Prime Minister in terms of the 2003 amendments to the law. It has rejected the government’s contention that stripping the CBI Director of his duties did not amount to a transfer, but only a measure to deal with an extraordinary situation. It has gone into the legislative intent behind the amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission Act in 2003, which included changes to the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act before coming up with its finding.
  • The Bench has noted that the amendments flow from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997 in Vineet Narain to protect the agency, especially its Director, from external interference. As the law is clear that any transfer of the Director can only be made by the selection committee, and there being no provision for any other interim measure, the only way the government can divest the head of the agency of his powers is to let the same committee make the decision. The court has been mindful of the fact that an officer could be stripped of his power without being formally transferred to another position, thereby achieving the objective of interfering with the agency’s functioning by oblique means. Its decision will further strengthen the CBI’s independence. However, it is intriguing that the court passed a consequential order to the selection committee to meet within a week and consider Mr. Verma’s powers and authority. Until then, he has been restrained from making any policy decisions. Having set aside the orders of the government divesting Mr. Verma of his powers, as well as the CVC’s order recommending the action, the court could have reinstated him unconditionally. What it has done, instead, is to soften the blow it had dealt the government by giving it an opportunity to achieve through the committee route what it could not do successfully through its midnight ‘coup’.

    • ‘The decisions of the last six months will be reviewed’

    The Rajasthan Chief Minister on his appointment and equation with Sachin Pilot, his government’s agenda, and the Congress party’s strategy for 2019

  • Ashok Gehlot became Chief Minister of Rajasthan for the third time after the Congress narrowly won the Rajasthan Assembly election in December. In a freewheeling interview, he speaks of Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s leadership, says he “really likes” Deputy Chief Minister Sachin Pilot, and promises to take strong action against efforts to foment communal tension. Excerpts:
  • How do you interpret the mandate received by the Congress in Rajasthan?
  • The message given by Congress president Rahul Gandhi in Gujarat [during the Assembly elections] has appealed to the people in the country. He spoke about the false promise made by the NDA government at the Centre of giving employment to two crore people and its failure to do anything for farmers’ welfare despite its promise to double their income by 2022. Their mandate was till 2019, but they are talking about 2022! Rahulji kept the focus on issues related to small and medium enterprises and the unorganised sector. He raised the Rafale issue during the election campaign, but the NDA government has not been able to reply to it till today. The themes of price rise and high petrol and diesel prices in the campaign convinced the people that Mr. Gandhi wants to do something for the country. Mr. Gandhi has also been talking about waiving farmers’ loans. Farmers are the biggest sufferers under the present dispensation, and I believe that the government of any party will have to focus on farmers.
  • Will the same atmosphere hold till the Lok Sabha election?
  • Yes, of course. Nobody can stop this. The BJP will continue to be on the defensive, because they have no agenda to offer to the people and no achievements to show.
  • After appointing you as Chief Minister, what mandate did Mr. Gandhi give you?
  • Good governance is our main mandate. The agenda set by Mr. Gandhi will be taken forward. It includes farmers, youths, maintaining law and order, and eliminating hatred and violence. Politics should be based on non-violence and brotherhood. People are being lynched by mobs. Can you imagine the pain and suffering that the family members of those killed undergo? This is often done on the pretext of cow protection. Innocent people transporting cows for rearing or trade are killed just on the suspicion of smuggling bovine animals. With this atmosphere, it is no wonder if the popular sentiment turns against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A section of people argue that the atmosphere against the BJP has built up only in the States, and that the Union government is still popular. But I believe that Mr. Modi and his cohorts will soon be exposed.
  • The deliberations ahead of your appointment as Chief Minister went on for long. What was going on?
  • Nothing! I was appointed and I took over as Chief Minister.
  • But how? Why were you selected?
  • See, I think there are three factors that are taken into account for the Chief Minister’s appointment. First, who does the public want? The entire country knew whom the public wanted, but the media, especially the English media, created confusion and presented a picture of tussle, which had no basis. Second, what the party workers think. No media platform paid attention to that. Third, what do the legislators think after getting elected? The high command takes a decision on the basis of these three factors. In such decisions, time does not matter. The BJP took seven days in appointing its Chief Minister in U.P. and nine days in Maharashtra.
  • Are you and Mr. Pilot on good terms or is there tension?
  • No, nothing. Mr. Gandhi wants all of us to work unitedly; we obviously follow his wish. Mr. Pilot is a young man. He has miles to go. I really like him. I became a Union Minister at the young age of 29 in the Indira Gandhi government and PCC [Pradesh Congress Committee] president at the age of 34. I was PCC president for three terms and then became the Chief Minister, after 14 years. The young generation should appreciate that its time will come. The high command will take a decision on its own. They should not offer their own candidature. The Congress doesn’t have this culture. I said this to Mr. Pilot when he became the PCC president and conveyed to him my observation that offering one’s candidature will not bring the post to him.
  • Until recently you were Mr. Gandhi’s right-hand man. What role would you like to play in the Lok Sabha election?
  • This is not based on my choice. I have been lucky in the Congress. Whatever the high command says will be acceptable to me.
  • The Bahujan Samaj Party demanded the withdrawal of criminal cases against its workers during the agitation against the dilution of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and you acted promptly on it. Are you maintaining good relations with the BSP with an eye on the Lok Sabha polls?
  • The six BSP MLAs elected in Rajasthan met me the other day. I took no exception to the comments made by Mayawatiji [BSP chief Mayawati]. She has to convey her message to her cadre. Our duty is to ensure that there is rule of law and there is no injustice to anyone. We will ensure that no innocent person is implicated in false cases.
  • Will those who left the Congress, contested the polls and won come back to the party fold?
  • All of them have come back. Technically, they cannot become Congress members in the Assembly, but they are supporting the party. There are 11 such members; two are rebels who quit the BJP. Besides, there are six BSP MLAs, who are supporting the ruling party. There is no threat to the stability of the government.
  • What are the decisions of the previous BJP regime that you are reviewing?
  • There is a tradition in Rajasthan, whether the Congress or the BJP is elected to power, that the decisions of the last six months are reviewed. We have appointed a committee for the purpose after a Cabinet decision. There is no vendetta or prejudice involved in it. After a change of government, individuals who took decisions against public interest or worked with vested interests are punished. This is necessary for good governance.
  • You’re in charge of some major portfolios, including Finance and Home.
  • These portfolios are always with the Chief Minister. Other departments which are with me are minor ones, such as General Administration and Personnel. There may be a reshuffle in the State Cabinet after the Lok Sabha elections, in which some departments may be redistributed to others.
  • What will be your strategy for selecting candidates for the Lok Sabha election?
  • The work for this has begun. The PCC and we will select the candidates together. Mr. Gandhi will be visiting Jaipur for a farmers’ rally on January 9, when this will be taken forward. Farmers who are beneficiaries of the loan waiver decision will be coming in large numbers to show their solidarity with the government.
  • Will you try to form alliances with parties such as the BSP in Rajasthan for the Lok Sabha polls?
  • This will be decided by the Alliance Committee in the AICC. This work is in progress.
  • Do you think Mr. Gandhi will become the Prime Minister after the Lok Sabha polls?
  • Why not? Nobody from the Gandhi family has occupied the post in the last three decades, but Soniaji [UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi] and Rahulji continued their work for the welfare of the people. Mr. Gandhi has emerged as a personality who is challenging a man like Mr. Modi.
  • The BJP’s rule is not like what it was during the prime ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Only Mr. Modi and Amit Shah are ruling the country. The country, democracy and the Constitution are under threat. The people should realise how the government has been run over the last five years: falsehood promoted, marketing done with ₹5,000 crore, an atmosphere of fear created, no achievement made, and industrialists, media persons, politicians and bureaucrats frightened. The country will not forgive Mr. Modi for laying down new traditions, such as criticising the country on foreign soil and flaying an important party of the country in public meetings organised through Indian embassies. Mr. Modi has used Indian embassies as tools for his own politics. People owing allegiance to the RSS have been posted not only in the Union government’s departments, but also in Indian embassies. They take crucial decisions. Secretaries and Ministers called to the PMO are insulted. There is great frustration within the BJP. Nitin Gadkari has sounded the bugle and others may join him in the near future. In fact, they should. How long will they prevent their voice of conscience from coming out?
  • You are close to both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. In the run-up to the Lok Sabha election, what should the Congress workers expect Ms. Gandhi to do?
  • Let me clarify a fact. Instead of saying that I am very close to Ms. Gandhi or Mr. Gandhi, I would say that like me, all honest, reliable, committed and dedicated soldiers of the Congress are close to both of them. This perception about my proximity to the Gandhi family is not correct. It is up to us how true we prove ourselves to the trust they repose in us. I am lucky that they have so much faith in me.
  • But the question was about Ms. Gandhi’s role in the Lok Sabha polls.
  • That you should ask Ms. Gandhi. Mr. Gandhi has exposed the politics of the BJP. About 40 years ago, cow protection was raised in the manner that the Ram temple issue is being raised these days. There was a march to Parliament, and several persons were killed in police firing. They forgot the cow, caught hold of the temple issue, and captured power through it. If they had been elected to power by offering a vision better than that of the Congress, I would have respected them. It is easy to set something on fire, but difficult to extinguish a raging fire.
  • Can we expect your government to take strong action against any attempts to foment communal or social tension in the State?
  • Obviously, yes. We will deal with such attempts without compromise. We will take strict administrative action.

    • Regaining respect

    Doing away with the inauguration may see reduced political interest in the Indian Science Congress

  • Reacting to controversial remarks made by Andhra University Vice Chancellor G. Nageswara Rao and Dr. Kannan Krishnan at the recently concluded 106th Indian Science Congress at Jalandhar, Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan said in an email, “The talks need to be vetted by serious committees with the appropriate expertise. If despite the careful vetting, someone begins to spout nonsense, they should be ejected by the chair of the session.”
  • The Indian Science Congress Association (ISCA) has finally decided to do what Professor Ramakrishnan has suggested and bring some respectability to the Congress. In a resolution, it decided to obtain in advance the abstracts of the lectures of all speakers, including those speaking at the Children’s Science Congress. “We will not vet but screen the abstracts, and not allow pseudoscience to be presented. We will also have a person from the Association at every session and remove the speakers from the dais if they go beyond the purview of the submitted abstract,” said Premendu P. Mathur, General Secretary (Scientific Activities), ISCA.
  • While the standard of the Congress has been in steady decline for several years, since 2015 it has seen questionable comments by speakers glorifying India’s ancient scientific achievements. The stage was set in October 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, when he cited the examples of Karna and Ganesha to wrongly claim that reproductive genetics and cosmetic surgery existed in India thousands of years ago. At the 2018 Science Congress, Union Minister of Science and Technology Harsh Vardhan claimed that Stephen Hawking once said the Vedas had a theory superior to Albert Einstein’s e=mc2. The credibility of science was also eroded when Union Minister of State for Human Resource Development Satyapal Singh claimed last year at an event that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution of man was “scientifically wrong”. It might be more than coincidence that Professor Rao felt emboldened to claim that the Kauravas were test tube babies and that India possessed knowledge about guided missiles centuries ago. On his part, Dr. Krishnan rejected Einstein’s theory of relativity, Newton’s theory of gravity as well as Hawking’s theories on black holes.
  • The Association must take bold decisions to transform the Congress into a platform for serious scientific discussions. Professor Ramakrishnan, who called the Congress a “circus”, suggested that the meeting be “made smaller and depoliticised”. The most needed reform would be to do away with the inauguration altogether. P. Balaram, a former director of the Indian Institute of Science, said that if the inauguration were to be excluded from the agenda, the event would see reduced political interest and more genuine science. In such a scenario, serious scientists will hopefully flock to the Congress in greater numbers.
  • The writer is the Science Editor of The Hindu