JUDGEMENT ON NOVARTIS - A BOON OR CURSE ( JUSTINPRINT) MAY 1-15,2013

The landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India on 1 April,2013 was a major blow for the Swiss pharma giant Novartis. The court rejected its plea for a patent on a blood cancer drug Glivec, and the judgment will pave the way for Indian firms to provide affordable drugs to lakhs of cancer patients in the country.

The Supreme Court's decision has came up as great shock to pharma MNC companies. This decision taken by the Supreme Court will give a boost to the Indian pharma lobby. It's a great decision taken by the SC and will definitely result in a positive effect on the country's health care sector. The fight is not between Novartis and the SC but between people of the country and the people of the third world nation and the monopoly of the entire pharma MNCs. lobby.

The All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN) also welcomed the judgment of the Supreme Court. Dr. Gopal Dabade, co-convener of AIDAN, told, “I am very thrilled with the judgment. In fact, I was waiting for such a decision for a long time. Not only India but all the developing countries in the world will be benefited with this decision. He further said that, “The MNCs have started disinvestment from 2000 onwards as they are demanding equal drug price globally, so this decision will not effect everyone.”

R&D in India will also not get affected as the research starts at public institutions, and the pharma companies just formulate it into a medicine and market it. Imatinib mesalyte (Glivec), the drug in question, is a very important medicine to treat a type of blood cancer. A patient suffering with this type of blood cancer needs to take this medicine life-long. As this medicine is very essential, it is critical to make it affordable for patients. But Novartis wanted to have an absolute monopoly of the drug so that it can dictate its price. But the patent application was rejected by the SC on the grounds that it was not an innovation.

Apart from this, Novartis also challenged the provisions like Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. This act was designed to safeguard the laws and also to prevent companies from abusing the patent system. Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act, prevents companies from gaining patents on modifications to existing drugs, in order to gain indefinite, interminable monopolies, reported Doctors without Borders.

India is still a developing country, and there is large population in the country who are in need of such intervention and medication. A major battle has been won in this context following the Novartis verdict. But now the danger is from the multinational drug companies, as they will try to push in fresh agendas through other strategies. Like the one they are currently trying - by means of bilateral trade agreement. Eternal vigilance seems to be the only solution in this battle to save millions of lives.

Before India was compelled to comply with the Trade-Related (Aspects of) Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) by January 1, 2005, the so-called pro-market economists, while trying to calm our frayed minds, wrote little about the situation in the US, the epitome of capitalism. They didn’t let us know that the Americans were gasping under skyrocketing healthcare costs, attributed to the rising prices of prescription drugs. There was debate all over the US on the legality of drug re-importation from Canada. The news on the high costs of HIV/AIDS drugs in countries of sub-Saharan Africa, with HIV infected people constituting more than 25 per cent of the adult populations, where people were — and are — dying despite the medicines available for the disease’s treatment, was being played down. Pro-market Indian economists were; instead, trying hard so that the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, guilty of monopolizing life-saving drugs, don’t appear like villains.

Non-governmental organization Oxfam, in late 2002, had staged a protest outside of the WTO headquarters in Geneva in which an African woman with pneumonia, who was taking a generic medicine intravenously, had her ’generic lifeline’ cut by trade delegates representing industrialized countries and drug companies. Why were incidents like this, howsoever melodramatic, reported only through snippets in India?

Because pro-market economists were then — after the Madras High Court rejected Novartis AG’s plea to declare Section 3 (d) of the Indian Patents Act as incompatible with TRIPs, they have tempered down their rhetoric — as starry-eyed about anything American just like Marxist economists are still romantic about anything Soviet. Full explanations of the implications of the US law on patents would have at least made Indians desist from the delusions of a balanced regime post-2004. The law grants the patent owner "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States" for a period of 20 years beginning from the filing date of the patent application.

This means time-bound monopoly on the patented invention. The inventor can collect monopoly rents on sales of his product until the patent expires. And this inefficiency is justified with the law’s logical converse: The inventor says, "If you don’t protect my invention, I will simply not invent."

Agreed, bringing certain medicines to the market may need a massive capital investment, especially for R&D. A lot of money that is spent can’t be ’seen’: To know that a new drug works and is safe on patients — human beings can’t be treated like guinea pigs — they must be subjected to extensive laboratory tests and costly clinical trials. Further, whenever an experiment fails, all the money that went into it is, in a way, wasted. Given this scenario, a businessman can’t be expected to invest in a project like this without being assured of a Government-granted cushion of, at least, a limited monopoly. But then, such scientists-turned-entrepreneurs must stop the pretension of serving science and humankind.

Of course, the 1970 Indian Patent Act cannot be supported absolutely either. It simply prohibited the granting of patents on pharmaceutical products. In a country where academic education is still about cramming and passing exams, this law further guaranteed intellectual lethargy. Between 1970 and 2004, some 16,000 copycats sprouted all over the country to develop generic versions of medicines that were painstakingly invented abroad. They reverse-engineered — that is, determined how the drug compounds were made by foreigners — and rehashed the ingredients for mass production. Since that entailed minimal R&D, the Indian versions became, obviously, dirt-cheap.

But eventually the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) giving way to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and India’s membership thereof, played spoilsport. India and other developing countries were served the deadline of January 1, 2005, to adopt an intellectual property regime that mimicked the corresponding system of much of the developed world, including, most important of all, the 20-year patent rights on pharmaceutical products.

The other half-truth capitalists forwarded was that the prices of some drugs would fall as much as those of others would rise. We know now that only the second happened. Let alone ’rich man’s diseases’, the laidback Indian industry did not even try to cure malaria and tuberculosis, which affect mostly the poor in large numbers, with any new medicine.

The allaying of fears of drug prices shooting up was faulty to start with. First, product patents mean that generic companies are no longer able to market a drug simply by developing a new manufacturing method. Naturally then, there is no competitive pressure on a drug until its patent expires. Without competing brands, therefore, the drug prices can only increase.

And what was the fault in the argument that the drugs whose prices would drop would shockproof those that shot up? Well, India could not be forced to amend the Patent Act with retrospective effect. Therefore, drugs those were already patented elsewhere and were being produced generically before the Amendment of the 1970 Act, remains unprotected by patent in India. Medicine for pneumonia was one such case. But the population of pneumonic patients is minuscule as compared to that of malaria and tuberculosis patients. This statistic underscores the blunt truth that the capitalist economists were manipulating laymen’s minds.

Further, the West already had decades of experience of playing in the patents market. They have the clout to remain the masters of the market, and thus dictate drug prices at will.

That does not mean that January 1, 2005 was a quantum jump into an unknown regime for India. Though Articles 27-34 of the WTO Agreement made compliance to TRIPs mandatory for us as a signatory country, before allowing product patents, we had an Act permitting exclusive marketing rights for new products between 2000 and 2005. That statute, despite making India comply with Articles 70.8 and 70.9 of TRIPs, did not prevent the marketing of generic copies under different names. The Government also put in place a ’mailbox provision’ for the filing of product patent applications during the transitional period of 1995-2005; such applications could be filed during this time, but patents was not being granted on these inventions until 2005. This means that the Indian firms in slumber, too lazy to innovate, were not jolted out of their sleep into a new world suddenly on January 1, 2005 morning. They knew they had this coming for 10 long years.

Finally, it is the plight of patients that must count. It may have become unfashionable to dispute the ’legitimate right’ of the market to dictate our lives after the ’Chicago school of economics’, as it has come to be known, gained popularity about two decades ago. But for once we must put our foot down. The desire of a human being to live is not consumerism. It’s a stronger argument than the market’s ’legitimacy’, of which the drug monopolists themselves refuse to be a part.

This is one field where Government intervention is a must — not to pamper lazy Indian pharmacists, but to save poor Indians from dying without treatment. When India had passed the Patent Act in 1970, it also instituted a Drug Price Control Order (DPCO). Then having observed the unfairness of controlling the prices of all drugs, it started deregulation. Yet, the prices of about 75 essential allopathic compounds remained under Government control. This regulation must be extended to new drugs that are patented and approved for sale after 2005.

Not only will this prevent unscrupulous companies from cashing in on a dying person’s desire to live, it will also serve a notice to the lazy Indian biotechnology industry. To allay the fears of innovative foreign companies, the Government must, at the same time, assure them that the drugs whose prices are regulated for the developing countries will not be allowed to sneak into Europe and the US to be sold with huge profit margins.

And yes, this policy must apply only to emergency situations, covering fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS.

Many organizations in India strongly support the Supreme Court decision to uphold access to essential medicines and deny patent protection to dummy innovations as claimed by Novartis. Novartis had sought a patent for Imatinib (brand name Gleevac or Glivac) which noted lawyer and UN Human Rights Commissioner Anand Grover said was the same molecule with little 'tweaking'.

The cost of this drug is INR 120,000 per month for blood cancer (leukemia) patients. After Supreme Court ruling, the price of the drug may fall steeply from INR 120,000 to perhaps INR 8000 – this is a huge step forward in terms of advancing access to essential medicines and also in protecting public health from interference from profit-driven corporations and markets.

According to MD Ranjit Shahani of Novartis, “The decision taken by the Supreme Court of India will discourage innovative drug discovery. We give 95% of Glivec free to patients prescribed for CML (chronic myeloid leukemia) in India and the balance 5% are on a generous co-pay programme. The greatest loss here is to patients who suffer from life-threatening illnesses and are in need of new treatment options. India can have a much more powerful future if only we foster an environment that encourages innovation. Patents are the lifeblood of innovation and medical science will not progress if we destroy that. Patents, in fact, are the lifeline of generics. Without innovation there will be no new medicines, and without new medicines there will be no new generics.”

Further he added, “This ruling is a setback for patients and will hinder medical progress for diseases without effective treatment options. We should be more worried about what impact this will have on patient well-being and the ability to address the challenge of unmet medical needs. Meanwhile, all R&D investments in any case have moved to China with seven global companies having invested billions of dollars after the patent law was promulgated in India. These are Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, GSK, Astra Zeneca and Eli Lilly. Not a single investment came to India - that speaks loudly about the innovation ecosystem we have here.”

According to a news network the Pharma giant hails the supreme court judgement in the US.The pharma lobby railed against the decision but the overwhelming sentiment, from physicians to politicians, from academia to media, particularly in a country groaning from the high cost of health care, was that the Indian judiciary did good by workaday people -- not just by the poor in the developing world but also those struggling in the developed world.

Sometimes the behavior of large multinationals seems to be similar to organized crime gangs. They are willing to go to any extent to extract maximum benefits. I was watching TV news and one group from abroad was telling the news channel that Indian Supreme Court didn't understand meaning of innovation and patents. Such fools should be told that we understand innovation and patents but we fail to understand the profiteering that companies like Novartis are engaging in. Spending a few million dollars on drugs (that too, many drugs are simply minor modifications of old medicines) and then extracting billions of dollars in profits from poor patients is the trademark of these companies. Supreme Court of India must be praised for taking a clear stand on this case.

Many more players may enter the Indian market. There may be additional executive pressure to segment among the big drug manufacturing companies. Therefore, production may not be able to keep up proportionately with internal demands. Neither the prices may remain stable.

The fact is that India is first of all not China where the MNC patents are more or less protected. India’s SC cannot so overtly deny a patent to a MNC no matter how urgent internal situation be. The fact is that it is possible if and only if all get benefited. Otherwise, the White House and 10 Downing Street may put executive pressure on 7 Race Course. But they don’t do because theirs and other Western population also get benefited. The price is lower for all consumers. The particular company Novartis may suffer some losses but not all drug manufacturing MNCs.

The fact is that if the law be applied consistently the SC verdict is not a wrong decision as it lets the big becoming bigger. Surely in rarest of examples the SC verdict does not make small any smaller. The middle classes and poor may get some reprieve but if Indian laws are understood then the enhanced quality of treatment would require more money. On the flip side the verdict may result in more production of fake drugs all around the world but particularly in India. The rich would get world class treatment, poor not much and the middle class may come somewhere in between. This is the story of all of the Rest—class divisions would grow with time. The value of moolah would increase.

It is a lesson for every company which wants to indulge in ever-greening of patents. No doubt the credit has to be given to the company which has strived hard in research and development and produced answers to some of the dreadful diseases. However, the companies should also understand that it is wrong to continue to have the patent rights forever. And should not claim rights for small changes .

Ever-greening of patents is a complex issue where one can talk for or against the motion hours together. Finally, it is up to the law to decide. It is wrong to say that companies would not come forward to do research in India just because a case or two. I think the companies are smart enough to identify the rightful way to conduct research and churn money out of it.

Apart from all, things like Education and Health Care etc. should not go purely in commercial terms. It should have the charity spirit. Governments and organizations like W.H.O. should have lead in all aspects of welfare subjects like Education and Health Care etc ; unlike the Commercial organizations. Novartis like companies cannot be allowed to justify the huge gap between price for its Imatinib mesalyte (Glivec) and the generic drugs produce by Indian pharma in the name of funding research and extending charity in its style. The said judgment of Supreme Court of India may be viewed as statesman like act, as the governments and its heads supposed do for its poor citizens. In the contrary the governments being roped in by the provisions of World Trade Organization and imposed Intellectual Property Rights laws etc. are acting as facilitator for such greedy commercial corporations, who are marching ahead towards their goal to put the whole world under Economic Imperialism in the name of DEVELOPEMENT.

Siddhartha Shankar mishra,

Sambalpur , Odisha

Jokers in charge

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/jokers-in-charge/1108565/0

BY - TAVLEEN SINGH
SOURCE - THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Chinese soldiers are currently on a camping trip in Ladakh. The insouciance with which they crossed the border and set up their tents on Indian soil revives horrible memories of a war in which we suffered a humiliating defeat. It should have worried our government but it did not. Ministers of the Government of India handled this insidious new form of troop movement with the sanguinity they exhibited when an Indian soldier was beheaded on another troubled border. Is this arrogance, cowardice or stupidity? I leave it for those who understand our namby-pamby foreign policy better than I do to answer that question, but would like to discuss this week the domestic consequences of this behaviour.

The most important of these is that the Sonia-Manmohan government is increasingly being perceived as too weak to protect India's interests. Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rarely deign to explain their policies to the Indian public and always vanish in times of crisis. They leave it to their ministers to speak for them and when these gentlemen speak, they confirm the growing impression that the destiny of India is in the hands of jokers.

Salman Khurshid is an old friend so it saddens me to write that the 'acne' analogy for the Chinese camping expedition was inappropriate and facetious. The Defence Minister has a stock answer whenever he is asked about a border incident, and he is so inarticulate when he gives it that it takes a while to work out that he is only saying that the matter is being investigated. Not once has he said anything that sounds even vaguely reassuring.

The Home Minister says the wrong thing so often that it is surprising that he is still allowed to speak. The latest example came in Parliament recently when he tried to dismiss the brutal rape of a five-year-old girl in Delhi by saying "rapes happen everywhere". Last year, when he was in charge of the Power Ministry and the entire northern grid had collapsed, he had said proudly that we should be grateful for how quickly it was repaired.

If the Sonia-Manmohan government's legacy was just bad ministers, we might still be able to sleep peacefully at night, but there is more. In long years of covering politics and governance in Delhi, I can think of no other time, except during the Emergency, when vital institutions have been more seriously damaged. Last week, the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) admitted to the Supreme Court that they had consultations with the Law Minister while making their report on the coal scandal. This may seem like a major transgression, but it is actually just a symptom of a much deeper malaise.

On account of the peculiar situation of India having for the first time ever (and hopefully the last) two prime ministers and two cabinets, there is total confusion about who is making policy and who is accountable for what. Of course, we all know that Sonia Gandhi is more powerful than the Prime Minister and that her NAC (National Advisory Council) has overridden the Cabinet on many policy matters, but we do not know who is accountable when things go wrong. In the absence of clarity, governance has become a serious casualty. So let us hope and pray that those Chinese soldiers in Ladakh are just having a little summer holiday.

Last week, I chanced upon an interview that Baba Ramdev gave to a couple of Hindi news channels. I heard him say that he would like Narendra Modi to become prime minister because wherever he travelled, he met people who told him that they longed to see a strong leader in charge of India. I am no fan of Baba Ramdev but can confirm from my own travels in our fair and wondrous land that wherever I go, I meet people who express a similar sentiment.

In urban India, there are signs of a Modi wave and the irony is that for this he has Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh to thank and not his colleagues in the Bharatiya Janata Party. Ever since Modi started making speeches in Delhi, there is nearly as much panic in the higher echelons of the BJP as there is in the Congress party headquarters. This is because the incestuous, murky nature of politics in Delhi has made senior BJP leaders as complicit in what has gone wrong.

If this were not true, would they be stalling Parliament when Chinese soldiers have set up a camp in Ladakh? Surely at a time when there is a serious threat to national security, there can be nothing more important than allowing Parliament to function? Questions about the coal scam can be asked inside the House, can they not? Is it any wonder that ordinary Indians long these days for a real leader?

Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter @tavleen_singh

The irrelevance of politics

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-irrelevance-of-politics/1108562/0

BY -Meghnad Desai

Source - The Indian Express

The news about rape does not get any better. Relentlessly, week after week, we have news of young and old women as well as girls being brutally raped, physically abused and often burnt or killed. The system fails to do much more than wring its hands, limply pointing to the Act it passed. The police continue to have feudal mentality. Politicians, when they are not rapists themselves, are not much help. The idea of politics in India is tied up with patronage, handouts and subsidies to voting blocs—caste Hindu or Dalits or Muslims. There is no idea of human rights and most 'leaders' of these voting blocs are men who are as likely to burn their daughters-in-law for dowry if not do something worse.

The forthcoming elections will fail to address the demands of women for safety or for their rights. Indian politics only recognises groups, not individuals. Someone like Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasrin has no rights since the group to which they 'belong' is hostile to them. M F Husain was driven into exile because a secular government let Hindutva bullyboys hound him. The whole notion of secularism is about religious collectivities and not about individuals. An atheist Muslim will be abandoned by the authorities. When he spoke about the ubiquity of corruption in Indian politics, Ashis Nandy was left to fend for himself because some Dalit groups took umbrage at what he had said, having failed to appreciate irony. No political power stood up for his freedom of speech.

Whether the Congress or BJP wins the next election will make no difference to this political culture. The young women and men who are marching every day in our cities and demanding some response from the powers that be will find that the elections will be fought on clientelist concerns—jati, minorities, reservations, subsidies etc. That is called inclusive development. The reform of Indian society to improve the downtrodden position of women who suffer indignities from the time they are foetuses till they die a lonely old death will not be addressed.

This is because when Independence came, the Congress decided not to challenge the social hierarchies or reform the social structure. It was, after all, for all practical purposes an upper caste Hindu party with a small seasoning of docile Muslims and grateful Harijans. In North India, across Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Haryana, it perpetuated the rule of Brahmins and oppressed the OBCs. The social backwardness of North India can be seen as a glaring contrast to South India where there was a strong anti-Brahmin movement dating back a hundred years and more.

So the Congress will not challenge dowry deaths, female foeticide, domestic violence, rape within marriage. It will extol the great Hindu society and culture because if it doesn't, the BJP will steal their clothes. As far as the BJP is concerned, one cannot expect any social reform at all from it. They are subservient to the RSS, which worships traditional culture and believes there is no rape in Bharat. Statistics cited by the Delhi Police last week show that 97 per cent of women victims of violence and rape know their attackers. She is often related to them—father, stepfather, brother, cousin, brother-in-law etc. Indeed, traditional India knew about the incidence of rape within the family so much so that in the old days, upper caste girls were married off before they attained puberty to insure against within-family assaults. That was and is Bharat. NRIs take their prejudices with them. Discrimination against Dalits by fellow Hindus has just been banned by the UK Parliament despite lobbying by Hindu groups.

As far as they are concerned, the young under 35 can take it that the politicians do not care about them. If they come begging for handouts, they may get some. But if they ask for rights and redress for their complaints, they will shunned aside.

It would be difficult for Indian politicians to admit that the rot which causes rapes is deep within the Indian society. It has to do with the low status of women. Modi or Rahul or anyone else will not dare touch this deep rot within India that is Bharat.

Only reforms can make police more humane

http://newindianexpress.com/editorials/Only-reforms-can-make-police-more-humane/2013/04/27/article1563116.ece

Editorial
Source- The New Indian Express

It is a pity that the Supreme Court had to take suo motu action against police in two incidents in which a girl protesting against the rape of a five-year-old girl in Delhi was slapped so hard by a police officer that she started bleeding and a 65-year-old woman was severely beaten up at Aligarh. The court had to warn the police that it will be constrained to take action against the top officials of the police concerned, if such incidents happened in the future. Earlier, in a case from Madhya Pradesh, the court said the police should have provided proper medical help, including psychiatric treatment, to a rape victim. The court wanted the police to behave better in dealing with women and other weaker sections of society.

If anything, these incidents highlight the stark truth that the police are yet to come to terms with their responsibility which is that of  providing protection to the weak from the strong. This happens because the police continue to be guided by the colonial mindset. Even six decades after Independence, the police are yet to change their outlook, so much so that anyone protesting against any kind of injustice is considered a nuisance to the powers that be and has to be strongly dealt with.

Alas, the rulers, irrespective of their party affiliation, encourage this kind of high-handedness in dealing with people’s struggles.There are operating procedures the police are expected to follow in sex-related cases but they are often flouted with impunity. That is precisely why the apex court had to issue guidelines to the police in this regard. What all this underlines is the urgent need for police reforms. There have been several police commissions, including the one headed by Dharam Vira, which had gone into the whole question and suggested remedial measures. Alas, their reports have been gathering dust in the Home Ministry. These need to be implemented urgently to make the police what they claim to be “with you, at all times”.

Undertrials in jails: The idea of injustice

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/Undertrials-in-jails-The-idea-of-injustice/2013/04/28/article1564581.ece

By Yogesh Vajpeyi

Source - The New Indian Express

Commenting on pending cases under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Supreme Court last month came out with a pithy comment on the plight of the undertrial prisoners languishing in Indian jails: “The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of appreciation for the tribulation of incarceration; the callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity.”

According to the latest National Crime Records Bureau figures, the percentage of undertrials in Indian jails was 64.7 in 2011. In states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and Meghalaya, the percentage  exceeds 80. Most of them suffer prolonged incarceration even in petty criminal matters merely for the reason that they are not in a position, even in bailable offences, to furnish bail bonds and get released.

Apart from the Prisoners Act, 1984, there is a Model Prison Manual in place and the various judicial pronouncements have made it clear that prisoners are entitled to human rights, the most important of which is presumption of innocence till proven guilty. According to the Supreme Court, “When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated.” Yet, a vast majority are denied these rights because of lack of implementation.

The rub is that most of them are poor, indigent, illiterate or semi-literate. They do not know that they are entitled to free legal aid; that they can be released on personal bond. This has been confirmed by a recent advisory issued by the home ministry to the states. It noted that “only the poor and indigent” are unable to put up bail and thus continue to be in jail for long periods. It also acknowledged that “the lack of adequate legal aid and a general lack of awareness about rights of arrestees are principal reasons for the continued detention of individuals accused of bailable offences, where bail is a matter of right and where an order of detention is supposed to be an aberration”.

It would be a miracle to expect that the judicial system can be reformed adequately to shorten the long list of pending cases. Yet some concrete steps can be taken immediately to mitigate their sufferings.

For a starter, it should be made mandatory for the jail authorities to educate them about their rights and provide them legal aid. The plight of the wrongfully confined prisoners is compounded when jail authorities refuse to release information about them in public domain. Recently, the Maharashtra Information Commission had to intervene to ensure that the 43 prisons in the state put information in the public domain about the number of undertrials in their prisons who have already served half the maximum sentence for the crime for which they have been charged. As a result, a handful of detainees were released.

Following Maharashtra’s example, information about such prisoners should be available on prison websites of all states and Union territories. This should be followed by a thorough scrutiny of the

undertrial prisoners languishing in jails, the offences for which they have been arrested, the punishment for these offences and the period spent by them in jail. It is imperative that state governments and Union territories begin the process of identifying the undertrials entitled for release and start working towards their release.

yogesh@newindianexpress.com

The secular milkman

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/The-secular-milkman/2013/04/28/article1564524.ece

By Ravi Shankar

Source - The New Indian Express

Bihar’s Nitish Kumar has just shown off his latest lodestone: record milk production. The state is now producing 18 lakh litres of milk, against the 4.5 lakh litres in 2008. No wonder. He is India’s new milkman of secularism, and was even able to milk the UPA of `12,000 crore as a special package for Bihar earlier this month. Not exactly small change, but it might go a long way in spoiling the big change in 2014.

Nitish, the holy cow of secularism, has an old beef with Narendra Modi. Many political pundits and opinion polls predict that neither national party will get a majority, and a Third Front will emerge after the General Elections. Nitish’s inner voice perhaps tells him that the udder of power is frothing with possibilities—if the Congress comes back to power with the support of allies old and new, he could demand to be placed on the prime ministerial saddle as the minority cowboy. His ‘secular’ credentials could appeal to both Mamata and Mulayam: apart from encouraging her lumpen cadres, Didi has started wooing Muslims, starting with the 2012 Panchayat polls. The Samajwadi Party rides on the minority vote. It is not the milk of human kindness that makes the Bihari Bull the champion of the downtrodden: between Modi and Nitish, it is a conflict of personal ambition—one is trying to craft a pan-India role while the other pretends to be already a national politician after having served as an NDA Union minister. Unless the BJP takes the bull by the horns now, the NDA will be Nitish’s china shop.

It was sheer opportunism that made Nitish throw in his lot with the NDA in 1998. For someone who attacks the Gujarat chief minister of being an accomplice to the 2002 riots, Nitish, as railway minister, did not resign when the Sabarmati Express was set on fire by a Muslim mob on February 27, 2002, burning alive 58 Hindus. The incident, for which he is morally responsible, sparked off the Gujarat riots. Ironically, he had earlier resigned after the Gaisal train accident. Here is a man who will exploit any situation to gild his image—even quitting to stay in power. Hence, the Congress would find India’s most opportunistic politician a convenient bulwark against the BJP.

The electrician from Patna and the Congress party are experts at social wiring with a short fuse. The son of an Ayurvedic physician, Nitish has a singular prescription—from minority butter comes the ghee of power. Nitish is India’s most communal politician. For example, at a time when the Supreme Court is cracking down on red beacons on cars, Bihar’s maulanas are saying cheese; the chief minister has been generous in giving away red lights—a symbol of power in India—to the maulanas. Clerics head Bihar’s Minority Commission, Wakf Board, Haj Committee and Madrasa Board. Since 2005, he  has authored an animal farm that exceeds Orwellian premonition by balancing the interests of the Shias and the Sunnis, the Deobandis, the Barelvis and the Tablighis—a feat neither Lalu Prasad Yadav nor the Congress could achieve. By accusing Modi of playing the bull in the minority manger, Nitish has successfully claimed the rabble-rousing space of the secularist and camouflaged his divisive politics as the country’s great polariser.

Politics is the dairy farm of political ambition. Hoping for even a watered down version of power, non-NDA parties may soon acquire a herd mentality with Nitish as the cowherd. His strategy is to cowpat a majority for himself in Indraprastha next year by using minority pasteurisation. When the cows come home in the darkening godhul of dangerous politics, he could end up burning the farm as well as his fingers, but it will be India that will ultimately be set on fire, much like the Sabarmati Express many winters ago.

ravi@newindianexpress.com

China’s do and dare gamble versus India’s sit and stare shuffle

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/China%E2%80%99s-do-and-dare-gamble-versus-India%E2%80%99s-sit-and-stare-shuffle/2013/04/28/article1564584.ece


By Shankkar Aiyar
Source - The New Indian Express

Even as Indians are wrestling with localised politics of economics, India is confronted with the geopolitics of economics. From Maldives to Sri Lanka to Nepal to Pakistan, India finds itself losing its voice. It is inadequately equipped to enforce its rights in a world where surplus is the defined and accepted measure of power. Of course morality matters, but the might of right must necessarily contend with the right of might. You cannot campaign in the constituency of morality without scoring consistently in the dollar-denominated contest. The axiom—that geography is the determinant of history—has returned to haunt India. The incursion into Indian territory by the Chinese Army is a dare, to the sit and stare version of governance patented by the present regime. 

Size does matter—in economics and in geopolitics. It mattered in 1962 and matters much more in 2013. In 1962, per capita income of China was $69 compared to India’s $58. Today, at over $6,000, Chinese per capita income is four times that of India. The primary reason: attention to agriculture where poverty was located. In 1962, average yield per hectare for cereals in China was 1,500 kg compared to 965 kg/ha in India. Today China boasts of per hectare yield of 5,705 kg/ha compared to 2,800 kg/ha for India. Thereafter China didn’t dither and lather in debate, it invested in infrastructure to shift workers from farms to factories, riding the demand curve of global growth.

The perception is that China had a head-start on India. Fact is, it was only in 1992—around the time India liberalised—that China took off when Deng Xiao Ping made his famous “southern visit”. Deng had declared: “Reform must not be like a woman with bound feet but must stride boldly forward for 30-40 years.” He defined the path for the Chinese economy by stating “market economics need not be surnamed capitalism. Socialism has markets too”. 

As China wooed foreign investment and technology bringing scale and competitiveness, Deng warned the cadre “Watch out for the Right but mainly defend against the Left”. China invested in pride and prosperity. Its geopolitical postures are backed by the scale of its GDP. India, in contrast, has been paralysed by pelf and paranoia. In 1992, Chinese GDP was $423 billion compared to $293 billion for India. In 2013, India is struggling to post a GDP of $2 trillion while China’s GDP is at the $8-trillion mark.

This growth has been facilitated by autocracy. But it is also true that on every human development indicator, China is ahead of India. In 1950, India and China had literacy levels of around 20 per cent. India in 2012 boasts of 75 per cent literacy. China achieved 78 per cent literacy in 1990. Thanks to the focus on education, in 2011, over 4 lakh patent applications were filed in China compared to less than 10,000 in India. Take life expectancy at birth—in 1960, it was 42 in India and 43 in China. India now boasts of a life expectancy of 65, a milestone China achieved in 1974. Every hour nearly 200 children under-5 die of malnutrition in India compared to 35 in China. Even in provision of basic services, China is far ahead. Nearly a third of Indians—33 per cent or over 400 million—lack access to electricity compared to barely 1 per cent in China. What does one make of the fact that the Chinese autocracy has been more concerned about human development than governments elected by a democracy!

Nothing that happens in China is an accident. In the Sixties, China used Pakistan to befriend the US to counter the Soviet Union. Through the past decade and more, China has assembled an alliance of quasi-client states. Its forays in Africa and the moves in Asia—in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan—are deliberate. In 2011, it became the world’s second largest economy. It has stitched a new pact with Russia —the new leader Xi Jinping chose to visit Moscow first and then flew with Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit at Durban. It is not an accident that it is now teasing the US, taunting Japan and testing India simultaneously. The US needs China for subsidising its consumption and funding its deficit; Japan is invested in China for returns.  The third-party interests inure China from intimidation and insure it from geopolitical risks. The dragon now seeks a stature commensurate with its size.

The moot question is how India deals with the challenge. Jingoism is good for TRPs but is a poor tactic and no strategy. Strategic thinking demands imagination and gumption. A chessboard has 64 squares and Indians play it well. But the Chinese play Weichi on a board with 361 squares. The objective of Weichi is not to check-mate but to encircle. China has completed the geopolitical encirclement. There has been much murmur about the Tibet card. The efficacy of this card is debatable, especially since it’s a long-played card. And a trump card works best with a winning hand. In the short term, India must play patience. In the long term, India must shuffle its strategy to focus on growth to acquire influential scale. It is only in the books that the meek inherit the earth.

shankkar.aiyar@gmail.com

Shankkar Aiyar is the author of Accidental India: A History of the Nation’s Passage through Crisis and Change

Options on Ladakh standoff

http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/Options-on-Ladakh-standoff/2013/04/27/article1563119.ece

By Satish Chandra

27th April 2013 07:36 AM

On April 15, around 50 People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers intruded about 10 km inside Indian territory in eastern Ladakh and erected a tented post there. Efforts to get the area vacated through flag meetings, the bilateral joint secretary level mechanism, and intervention of our Foreign Secretary with the Chinese Ambassador have so far failed. As a result, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police has established a camp 300 metres from the PLA troops leading to an eyeball to eyeball confrontation.

The problem has arisen because the 4,057-km long Sino-Indian border is disputed and because a common perception about the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is lacking. This has led each country, with a view to bolstering its territorial claims, to undertake patrolling in areas perceived by the other to be on its side of the LAC.

While such activity on our part has been relatively modest, China has each year engaged in hundreds of incursions. Such decades long activity is not risk- free as anything can happen when the armed personnel of the two contending parties are in close proximity in a disputed area. Accordingly, we should have been much more proactive in seeking to resolve the border dispute or, at least, arriving at a common perception of the LAC.

The current incident is much more serious than the earlier ones because it is the first occasion in decades when the Chinese are adamant about not vacating the area. Clearly China has decided to up the ante and this move constitutes yet another provocation which we need to appropriately address. Unfortunately, India has placed too much faith on the innumerable affirmations committing both countries to maintain peace and tranquility along their borders and to resolve their border related differences peacefully as well as in the multi-tiered mechanisms to ensure that the channels of communication remain open at all times.

Such faith is misplaced as China has shown no desire to resolve our border related differences. As recently as March 2013, President Xi Jinping in response to questions from the media asserted that “the boundary question is a complex issue”, resolving it “will not be easy” and pending settlement we should not let it affect “the all-round development in ties.”  China, obviously, does not want to work on the early resolution of the boundary issue with a view to keeping India off balance, to destabilise us and to choose the time and manner in which it would act against us.

Coupled with China’s rapid military modernization, this is naturally worrisome given its inimical approach towards India which is borne out by the rapid upgradation of infrastructure and force levels in Tibet along with India specific military exercises, ratcheting up of claims to Arunachal Pradesh, non-grant of visas to residents of Arunachal Pradesh on Indian passports, PLA presence in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, claims that Sino-Indian border is only 2,000 km, thus questioning the legality of our possession of the Ladakh sector, and use Pakistan as a proxy through grant to it of nuclear weapons related technology as well as conventional weapons. China is pursuing a string of pearls strategy to strangulate India and opposing India’s efforts to secure permanent membership of the UN Security Council and of various multilateral non- proliferation related export control regimes like the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, etc.

In view of China’s overwhelming military superiority and inimical disposition towards India we have adopted a ‘business as usual’ approach,  characterised by a casual military modernisation programme, timidity towards China calculated to avoid ruffling its feathers, and a hedging strategy in our relationship with other major players in the region.

 This is based on the hope that in the absence of any “provocative” steps by India, China will not take any aggressive steps against us. Such an approach smacks of appeasement and as history has shown will only encourage further Chinese adventurism. A reciprocal military build-up, coupled with the ‘business as usual’ approach would entail a focused China centric military build-up while continuing to appease it. While superior to a pure ‘business as usual’ approach it will invoke China’s ire without causing it to renounce its inimical policies vis-a-vis India. This is apparent from the fact that China is reported to have indicated that it will only vacate its recent incursion if India dismantles its fortifications along its borders.

A firm self-respecting policy should be our preferred approach. This should comprise rapid military build-up designed to inflict pain on China in the event of an attack on India. Such a response should include counter-attacks on China’s vulnerable points and its lines of communication both on land and sea. Our nuclear forces should be appropriately upgraded, particularly the submarine vector. Specific attention must be paid to neutralisation of Chinese military superiority through asymmetric warfare and guerilla tactics.

Linkages with countries which are similarly threatened by China should be openly pursued and plans discreetly developed for reciprocal assistance in the event of Chinese aggression. Inimical moves by China should not be brushed under the carpet and must be responded to firmly. In the instant case we should set up camps in areas regarded by China as being on its side of the LAC but are in India as per our perception. Grant of stapled visas for those from Arunachal should not merely be the object of protest but cause us to issue stapled visas for Chinese from Sinkiang and Tibet.

We must play the Tibet card by allowing the Dalai Lama and the Kalon Tripa greater access to our leadership, cease to reiterate that Tibet is a part of China, be more supportive of human rights in Tibet and in Sinkiang at international fora, instigate moves in the UN for Tibetan independence.

While welcoming increased Sino-Indian economic ties we must ensure that trade is more balanced and China does not use it as a means to damage Indian industry and enter into sensitive sectors like telecommunications.  Adoption of such a policy will, of course, provoke painful Chinese countermeasures but it will in the long term make India stronger.

Satish Chandra was former Deputy National  Security Adviser.

E-mail: satchand18@gmail.com

Why’s Khurshid rushing to China when their soft invasion continues?

http://www.firstpost.com/world/whys-khurshid-rushing-to-china-when-their-soft-invasion-continues-727875.html

Source :- FirstPost

By agreeing to go to China on 9 May, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, who himself announced his date of visit to China, has in a way given China a long handle. The Chinese will treat it as a licence to stay put where they are – 10 km inside Indian territory in the Depsang area of Ladakh.

As a corollary to the Khurshid announcement, one can expect many more Chinese incursions in the Depsang area in the coming days as the Chinese will have to provide food and other logistics to their 40-odd soldiers who have pitched their tents on Indian soil. The new incursions will be even more serious as they will inevitably be heli-borne operations. Indeed, there have been reports that Chinese helicopters have para-dropped food articles for their soldiers in Depsang and propaganda pamphlets for the consumption of Indians.

External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid. Image courtesy PIB

The question is: did Khurshid or his officials indicate a pre-condition to his China visit? Did they tell the Chinese through diplomatic channels that he will visit them only if they end their incursion into Ladakh first? If not, why not? There are no answers to these nagging, but vital, questions.

The immediate implication of Khurshid’s visit to China is that the platoon-strong Chinese troops will continue to be on Indian soil for another fortnight at least. Khurshid, the MEA and the UPA government would have done a great service to the country if they had ensured that the Indian land is vacated forthwith.

As there is nothing to suggest that the Indian government has obtained any guarantees to that effect. In this writer’s opinion it projects a poor picture of India – a self-styled emerging superpower cowering before an actual superpower.

It is important to note that Li Keqiang, the new Chinese Premier who took over on 15 March 2013, was also tipped to visit India. Though the two sides have not yet announced dates for his visit, diplomatic circles hinted that he could land in New Delhi on 20 May. Two questions arise from this.

One, if at all Khurshid had to announce a date for visit to China, why he could not ensure that the Chinese side also simultaneously announced the date of Li’s India visit? This may perhaps have happened if Khurshid had not jumped the gun and unilaterally announced his own visit. By doing so Khurshid has denied India a balancing opportunity to India.

Two, did Khurshid obtain any guarantees from the Chinese that their incursion will be ended while he is on the Chinese soil? The answer to this question, in this writer’s view, is an emphatic ‘no’. That is because the Chinese are past-masters in the art of diplomacy by other means. They respect power and accord the necessary dignity to the other side if they find the other side on a strong footing.

The Chinese will have to end their incursion, sooner or later. But the question is: how soon will the ‘sooner’ be and how late the ‘later’ be?

Now China has all the trump cards up its sleeve. It will decide when to call off its incursion in Ladakh. It may like to do so just before Li’s proposed India visit, if that visit takes place at all. Much will depend now on how Khurshid plays Chinese Checkers during his 9 May China visit.

Equally worrying is the fact it has been 10 days since the dragon landed in Ladakh but the UPA government has not taken Parliament into confidence even though a parliament session is on.

This speaks volumes for the opposition parties as well. They too have been busy in trying to score brownie points over the government in parliament on petty political issues whereas all-important national security issues do not form their agenda in parliament.

Army Chief General Bikram Singh has briefed Defence Minister AK Antony a little while ago about the current status of the Chinese incursion.  The UPA government must take parliament immediately into confidence on the issue. The opposition parties will be failing in their national duties if they they are unable to force the government to make a statement in parliament, preferably by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself.

After all, it is up to us whether we allow the Chinese to rub our noses in dirt. Their 10-km-deep incursion is still very much in place and there are no guarantees that it won’t be beefed up or the Chinese won’t open more such theatres in the same or other areas. If India allows this festering sore, it might well become a soft or mini-Kargil in the near future.

The writer is a Firstpost columnist and a strategic affairs analyst who can be reached atbhootnath004@yahoo.com.

Lesson from an unsettled boundary

In 1950, the Survey of India issued a map of India showing the political divisions of the new republic. While the border with Pakistan was defined as it is now, including the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir area, the borders with China were depicted differently. In the east, the McMahon Line was shown as the border, except in its eastern extremity, the Tirap subdivision, where the border was shown as “undefined.” In the Central sector of what is now Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and the eastern part of Jammu & Kashmir, including Aksai Chin, the boundary was depicted merely by a colour wash and denoted as “boundary undefined.”

Unilateral act

In March 1954, the Union Cabinet met and decided to unilaterally define the border of India with China. The colour wash was replaced by a hard line, and the Survey of India issued a new map, which depicts the borders as we know them today. All the old maps were withdrawn and the depiction of Indian boundaries in the old way became illegal. Indeed, if you seek out the White Paper on Indian States of 1948 and 1950 in the Parliament library, you will find that the maps have been removed because they too showed the border as being “undefined” in the Central and Western sectors.

What was the government up to? Did it seriously think it could get away with such a sleight of hand? Or was there a design that will become apparent when the papers of the period are declassified? Not surprisingly, the other party, the People’s Republic of China, was not amused and, in any case, there are enough copies of the old documents and maps across the world today to bring out the uncomfortable truth that the boundaries of India in these regions were unilaterally defined by the Government of India, rather than through negotiation and discussions with China.

It is not as though the Chinese have a particularly good case when it comes to their western boundary in Tibet. The record shows that the Chinese empire was unclear as to its western extremities, and rejected repeated British attempts to settle the border. The problem in the Aksai Chin region was further compounded by the fact that this was an uninhabited high-altitude desert, with few markers that could decide the case in favour of one country or the other. But there was cause for the two countries to sit down and negotiate a mutually acceptable boundary. This as we know was not to be and, since then, the process has gone through needless tension and conflict.

In the initial period, India’s focus was on the McMahon Line which defines the boundary with China in what is now Arunachal Pradesh. It tended to play down the issue of Aksai Chin because it was a remote area and of little strategic interest to India. But for China, the area was vital. Indeed, according to John W. Garver, it was “essential to Chinese control of western Tibet and very important to its control of all of Tibet.” In other words, in contrast to India’s legalistic and nationalistic claims over the region, for China, control over Aksai Chin had a geopolitical imperative.

For this reason, it entered the area, built a road through it and undertook a policy to expand westward to ensure that the road was secure. India woke up to the issue late and when it sought to confront the Chinese through its forward policy in 1961, it was already too late. And the 1962 war only saw a further Chinese advance westward which led to almost the entire Galwan River coming under the Chinese control.

We can only speculate on the causes of their present westward shift in the Daulat Beg Oldi area. But one thing is clear: the central locomotive of Chinese policy remains Tibet. Despite massive investments in the region, large numbers of Tibetans remain disaffected. No country in the world, including India, recognises Tibet as being a disputed territory yet, for two reasons. The Chinese constantly seek reassurance from New Delhi about its intentions. First, because of the past support that Tibetan separatist guerrillas got from the U.S. and India, and second, because of the presence of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in India. Despite the massive growth of Chinese power, their insecurities remain high. In great measure, they are due to Beijing’s own heavy-handed policies and only China can resolve the issues through accommodation and compromise with its own people. But not untypical of governments, Beijing seeks to deflect the blame of its own shortcomings on outsiders.

There could be other drivers of the tension as well. In the past five years, the Chinese have been generally assertive across their periphery and this could well be an outcome of policy decisions taken by the top military and political leadership of the country or, as some speculate, because of an inner-party conflict. Exaggerated Chinese maritime boundary claims have brought them into conflict with the ASEAN countries, principally the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. A separate order of tension has arisen with Japan over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. In the case of India, an important initiative to resolve the border dispute through Special Representatives has been allowed to run aground.

Another possible explanation for the Chinese behaviour could be the steps India is taking with regard to its military on its borders with China. India’s border infrastructure and military modernisation schemes have been delayed by decades. But in recent years, there have been signs that New Delhi may be getting its act together. In any case, the cumulative impact of the huge defence expenditures since 2000 is beginning to show in terms of better border connectivity and modernisation programmes. This momentum could see Indian forces’ confrontation with China become even stronger when you take into account new manpower and equipment such as mountain artillery, attack helicopters, missiles and rocket artillery.

Overlapping claims

Even so, it would be hazardous to speak definitively about Chinese motivations. After being lambasted by the Indian media for occupying “Indian territory,” the Chinese might be concerned about losing face with a hasty retreat. The fact of the matter is that the boundary in the region is defined merely by a notional Line of Actual Control, which is neither put down on mutually agreed maps, let alone defined in a document through clearly laid out geographical features. While both sides accept most of the LAC and respect it, there are some nine points where there are overlapping claims and both sides patrol up to the LAC, as they understand it. In such circumstances, the Chinese could well withdraw after a decent interval.

This more benign interpretation of Chinese behaviour is also in tune with the statements that the new leadership in Beijing has been making. As has been noted, following his meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the BRICS conference in Durban, the new supremo of China, Xi Jinping, was quoted in the Chinese media as saying that Beijing regarded its ties with New Delhi as “one of the most important bilateral relationships.” Belying the belief that the Chinese were dragging their feet on the border issue, Mr. Xi declared that the Special Representative mechanism should strive for “a fair, rational solution framework acceptable to both sides as soon as possible.” This last sentence is significant because a week earlier, he was quoted as making the standard formulation that the border problem “is a complex issue left from history and solving the issue won’t be easy.”

2013 is not 1962 and the Indian media and politicians should not behave as though it was, by needlessly raising the decibel level and trying to push the government to adopt a hawkish course on the border. But what the recent controversy does tell us is unsettled borders are not good for two neighbours because they can so easily become the cause of a conflict that neither may be seeking.

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

The reality is that the Line of Actual

Control between India and China is

notional and has not been put down

on any mutually agreed map

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/lesson-from-an-unsettled-boundary/article4659138.ece

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-virtuous-on-the-ramparts/1107146/0

The virtuous on the ramparts

At a time when democracy is seen to be beyond repair, Justice Verma taught us that change happens when good people work within the limits of institutions

Jagdish Sharan Verma's career in the law stretched from a pleader in a small town in Madhya Pradesh to eventually becoming the judiciary's conscience keeper. And through that long journey, he never forgot the distinction between an active constitution and an activist judiciary.

To understand this distinction, one must grasp the journey of judicial power in India. The 1970s saw a sustained assault on the Supreme Court by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The judicial pushback in later years was led by non-Congress politicians wanting a powerful court to protect them, as well as judges who felt the need to block executive excess. Politicians such as the Janata Party law minister Shanti Bhushan responded with constitutional amendments guaranteeing judicial independence; judges such as P.N. Bhagwati and Y.V. Chandrachud responded by expanding the kinds of people who could make demands on the court (the emergence of public interest litigation) as well as the varied rights they could access. To this court activism, Justice Verma added two pillars. In his 1993 judgment, he began a process by which Supreme Court appointments were made by judges only, not by politicians. And in his 1997 judgment on the Jain Hawala scam, he invented the "continuing mandamus" — constant court monitoring of police and CBI investigations that has made, for instance, such a difference to the 2G investigation. Thus was born the world's most powerful court.

Verma himself was uneasy with such power. He avoided judgments designed to grab headlines, and respected elected representatives. He aimed to prevent the brazen meddling of the Indira Gandhi era, yet involve democratic leaders in judicial functioning. He was also critical of his own. As chief justice, he pushed senior judges to make their asset details public. Verma's scrutiny of judges extended to himself. He later questioned his own judgments, on the validity of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and on judicial appointments. Can you imagine other public figures being so open about their own failings? And in retirement, this most self-effacing of men lived in an unremarkable rented house on the outskirts of Delhi.

The persistent criticism of Verma has been on his ruling in the Hindutva cases. Election law bans politicians from canvassing on the basis of religion. In the 1987 Maharashtra assembly elections, Shiv Sena candidates asked for votes on the basis of Hinduism. When the case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court, one of the many legal questions was whether asking for votes on the basis of "Hindutva" was, of itself, a communal appeal that disbarred the candidate. Verma said no, holding that the word "Hindutva", of itself, could just mean "a way of life". Verma was not certifying BJP politics; he was simply creating a high bar for disqualifying an elected representative. The BJP trumpeted his judgment as an endorsement, while others bought their lie, savaging Verma for being communal. These criticisms were especially harsh for a man who, post retirement, breathed life into the National Human Rights Commission. His unrelenting pursuit of justice for Muslim victims of the 2002 Gujarat riots echoed in the Supreme Court. In the NHRC vs State of Gujarat set of cases, the Supreme Court responded by getting more than 1,600 cases re-examined, appointing investigators, prosecutors and transferring trials. It was doubtless the heft and integrity of Verma as NHRC chief that prompted the court to go after the Modi government.

The public's enduring image of Verma will likely be the eponymous report he worked on, along with others, in the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gangrape. Verma's commitment to battling for women's rights was seen in 1997 itself when, as chief justice, he imported foreign law into India to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. The 2013 Verma Committee report avoided comforting clichés ("castration for rapists"), suggesting instead systemic changes to tackle the culture of violence against women. In 630 magisterial pages, the committee moved beyond the Victorian presumptions embedded in our laws to the sexual assault and harassment that women actually face — on the street, in the workplace and within bedrooms. The report also focused on violence against women in conflict zones such as Kashmir and the Northeast, shone a light on how the justice system further humiliates the victim and suggested a host of judicial and police reforms. All of these reflected the enduring constitutional vision of rights and dignity that Verma championed. Not bad for 29 days of work! Like all good reports (The Srikrishna Commission report on the 1993 Bombay riots comes to mind) the government ignored it, cherry-picking cosmetic changes to produce a hash of a law. But the public have formed their own conclusions. In an age where committees and commissions are seen as burial sites for the truth, the swiftly produced report is widely viewed as a model.

Verma's work ethic won him admirers from those he worked with. Mrinal Satish, a professor at National Law University, Delhi, was part of the research team that worked on the Verma Committee report. He told me that on January 18 this year, they were hard at work with Verma ploughing through reams of documents. Midway, the team realised that it was the ageing judge's 80th birthday. "We asked him why he wasn't taking time off to celebrate," Satish said. Verma simply shrugged, pointed to the work ahead, and continued reading.

In this age of Kejriwal, our democracy is seen as beyond repair and the worst is expected of those in power. From Verma, we learnt something else: change happens when good people work within the limits of institutional democracy. As a judge, he pushed for judicial independence and individual rights, yet made other judges accountable. At the NHRC, he went after the Gujarat government for failing its constitutional role. And as head of the Verma committee, he helped produce a report that was quick, consultative and thorough. He taught us that our democracy can be saved by manning its ramparts with the virtuous, not by bypassing it altogether.

The writer is a PhD candidate at Princeton University and visiting scholar at Centre for Policy Research, Delhi