SC/ST Act

 The new guidelines of the apex court on SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has led to protest by Dalit groups across the country. The issue relates to alleged misuse of act to frame the innocent. The act in consideration creates a mechanism for immediate arrest of accused, after an FIR is lodged for any atrocity committed by a non-SC/ST on members from these communities. It also bars anticipatory bail for anyone accused of such offenses. Going by the evidence of low-conviction rates(around 20%) according to National Crime Records Bureau data, SC concluded that the misuse is rampant. Hence, it ruled that no arrest can be made without the permission of appointing authority in case of public servant and for private citizens, the senior superintendent of police in the district should approve the arrest. It also ruled that bar from anticipatory bail is not absolute and it can be given to those against whom prima facie there is no evidence. Hence, SC has tried to strike a balance between individual liberty and protection of oppressed.

It is not the first time that misuse of law is cited as an argument for amending its provisions. Last year, same question was raised regarding the abuse of Section 498 of IPC relating to the dowry laws. Hence, the current judgement raises several questions. Is the low convictions rate sufficient to conclude the misuse of law? Is the provision of immediate arrest against the basic doctrine of innocent until proven guilty? How can better safeguards be developed such that the misuse of law is prevented without diluting its spirit? And lastly, how far has the act & its stringent provisions fared in terms of ameliorating the situation of SCs/STs?

Several people have raised objection to the conclusion of rampant misuse. They have raised the issue of systemic biases. Poor investigation, weak chargesheets, witness turning hostile and inadequate quality of prosecutions according to them is the main reason for low conviction rates. There are cases where police even deny to register an FIR, due to external pressures or internal biases. Not all states have yet established special courts envisaged under the act. Hence, more data is needed to sufficiently establish the case of misuse.

Others argue that even if an alleged atrocity has indeed been committed, the provision of immediate arrest is against the tenet of rule of law. An arrest should be made if only there is enough reason to believe that avoiding the arrest will be detrimental to the investigation. The counter argument is that most of such atrocities are committed in rural areas in a highly stratified society. There is a risk of ostracization of the victim, further atrocities being committed if a person holding a dominant position is set free after an FIR. Moreover, the fear of immediate arrest is the most important provision in act which provides a strong deterrent. It gives a sense of security among the marginalized to go ahead and file an FIR. Hence, a law must also take social reality into account for it be impactful.

While such arguments do create a sense of need for such strong provisions that the act contains, the fear of misuse remain unaddressed. If not this, then how else can such a concern be addressed? One way can be to classifying the atrocities according to the severity. For example: A manager sabotaging the promotion of his junior based on caste considerations may not be a suitable case for immediate arrest, but garlanding a person with shoes for keeping a moustache or wearing a turban may well be. Hence, the punishment must be proportional. A penalty on frivolous complaints may also be considered provided that the malicious intent is proved beyond doubt. There can be other better ideas as well.

Moreover, the debate which the judgement has created should not be limited to its misuse. A holistic review of how the act has fared so far is also necessary. If not misuse, the lower conviction rate may be reflecting the poor enforcement of law. The pendency of cases is also very high. However, the protests that followed show that the act has created a sense of security in the community. Yet, the poor awareness of masses especially in the rural areas about the existence of the act creates hurdles in justice reaching their door steps. The act also contains provisions regarding the rehabilitation of the victims as most of the times the employer for the dominant caste is the harasser and the marginalized have to choose between livelihood or self-respect. In such cases immediate financial support from the state is necessary, so that an individual is able to live with dignity.

Finally, it is important that issues which have the potential affect the lives of one-fourth of country's population are debated in the parliament. It allows for voices of different sections to be heard via their representatives before a decision is taken and insulates the judiciary from charge of overreach.

Leading Power

     The current govt. has already finished 3.5 years at centre. Perhaps its right time to evaluate its achievement in an area in which the PM himself has played a pro-active role i.e. foreign policy. One of the stated goals of "Modi doctrine" has been to re-calibrate India as a leading rather than a balancing power especially in the Indian ocean region. It will help India to have a major say in the geo-politics of its extended neighborhood. The recent National Security Strategy of U.S. has also shared this vision of establishing India as a leading global power. Yet it seems as a mere euphemism for containing China as a sole hegemon in Asia.

     Nothing terrifies the western democracy more than the idea of anti-democratic China leading Asia. U.S. has tired itself by fighting a war it will never win in Afghanistan. It has lost much of its leverage over Pakistan with China filling the space receded by U.S. All this combined with Russia under Putin has created a China-Pak-Russia axis in the west Asia. In the east, there is little U.S. has done to protect its all time ally Japan from North Korean threats other than offering to sell its weapons. Asean have little confidence in U.S. leadership to hold fort in South China sea and press against Chinese aggression. Hence, from east to west a vacuum has been created with U.S. receding from its role of net security provider in the region in post world war global order. Viewed from this perspective a resurgent China has been both a challenge and an opportunity for India. 

     Challenge because its own territorial and marine security is threatened with Chinese expansionist designs. Opportunity because India has emerged as a major contender to fill the vacuum and lead the Asian democracy against the anti-democratic axis mentioned earlier. The fact that leaders of all 10 Asean nation accepted India invitation for its republic day must be seen in this perspective. Also, India commands respect and goodwill of most third world countries since the NAM days. A recent example is the support it was able to garner in ICJ elections.

      But being a leading power requires more than just diplomacy and summits. It requires hard power. It requires economic might and more than that it requires putting forth your views on major issues with conviction. For ex: A leading democratic power cannot be seen as being neutral to a genocide of Rohingyas in its neighbour. While there was no mention of the ongoing crisis during PM's visit to Myanmar, China played pro active role in mediating between Myanmar and Bangladesh. In quest of strengthening its ties in extended region with countries like Israel & Japan, India has also lost sight of it closest neighbours and all time friends like Nepal, Bangladesh & Mauritius which have drifted towards China.  

      India has almost no presence in other major issues of global geo-politics like Syrian crisis, South China sea issue etc. due to its non-membership of UN security council. Even in smaller groups like NSG, China has succeeded in thwarting Indian attempts of membership and has practically hyphenated India's entry with that of Pakistan. In major global forums, India is most of the time seen as a petitioner raising issues of its self interest like terrorism emanating from Pakistan rather than taking active part in issues of global concerns.

      When it comes to trade and economy, India is no match to China. All countries that are perceived as Indian allies have high stakes in China. Japan has investment plans in China's Belt and Road Initiative to which India has objections. Asean's trade with China is above $500 billion while that with India is $70 billion only. 

      Hence, for the time being, in a leveraged world where all countries have vested interest with others, India must not fall into the western designs of being projected as an adversary to China. India's relationship with China itself have become worse than before. China has kept its head down and worked towards improving its economy for 30 years before playing pro active role in global space. India must give China the respect and due space in global geo politics it commands unless its not adversarial to any Indian interest while balancing its relationship with U.S. Conflicts like Doklam must be handled silently rather than making them an issue of national prestige and going to a point of no return.

      There is no reason why India and China can not be partners in a 21st century that belongs to Asia. U.S. and Canada have existed side by side for years in cooperation. While projecting China as an enemy may be good for domestic politics, its definitely not in national interest. Hence, India must not put all its eggs in U.S. basket and continue playing the role of consensus builder in the region. Modiji has very little time to change current scenario w.r.t. China lest the election bell rings and the hyper-nationalist inside him rises again.

PS: Vijay Gokhale, an old "China hand" and a Mandarin speaker, took over as Foreign Secretary on, succeeding S. Jaishankar who has also served as India's envoy in China.