Politicization of Science in India
Introduction:
- Several scientific institutions and national laboratories have recently installed ‘selfie points’ on their premises, featuring a portrait of Prime Minister Modi on one side and displays of the laboratory’s achievements on the other.
- This move, along with its presence in school textbooks, reflects a growing trend of political glorification in Indian science, which raises concerns about the politicization of scientific achievements.
Politicization of Science:
- Projection of Political Leadership: The ‘selfie points’ aim to convey that scientific achievements are solely attributable to the Prime Minister, creating the perception that his leadership is the driving force behind scientific success.
- Glorification in Textbooks: School textbooks have been modified to emphasize the Prime Minister’s role in Chandrayaan-3’s success, overshadowing the collective efforts of Indian scientists. This overt glorification is evident in the textbooks’ content.
Historical Perspective:
- Nehru’s Approach: After Independence, Prime Minister Nehru supported scientific research but maintained a facilitative role, ensuring autonomy and fair allocation of resources to research councils. He did not interfere with the scientific process.
- Bipartisanship: Past leaders, including Rajiv Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, maintained bipartisanship in scientific endeavors, preventing personal political credit for scientific achievements.
Harmful Consequences:
- Eroding Autonomy: Politicization and political interference harm the autonomy of scientific institutions, leading to centralization of decision-making and affecting the direction of research.
- Suppression of Scientific Results: Interference can lead to the suppression of scientific results or data that do not align with the prevailing political ideology, hindering transparency and unbiased scientific inquiry.
- Impact on Research Funding: Politicization can skew research funding, as seen in the allocation of funds for controversial areas like cow science.
- Impact on Research Institutions: Science awards have been abolished, research centers closed, and scientists have faced consequences for not adhering to political directives, leading to self-censorship and silence.
Conclusion
The growing politicization of Indian science threatens its integrity and independence. To ensure the continued success of scientific endeavors, it is crucial to separate political support from political interference and maintain a focus on collective scientific achievement rather than personal political credit.
Introduction:
The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee’s recent investigation into the allegations against All India Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra has sparked public debate.
The complaint lodged by Nishikant Dubey, a senior MP from the Bharatiya Janata Party, accuses Ms. Moitra of receiving money from a businessman in exchange for promoting the person’s business interests through parliamentary questions.
This editorial analyzes the proceedings against Mahua Moitra, drawing on historical cases and the role of the Ethics Committee.
Expulsion and Historical Instances:
- If an MP accepts money for submitting parliamentary questions, it constitutes a breach of privilege and contempt of the House.
- Such cases are typically referred to the Committee of Privileges for investigation.
- Historical cases, such as G. Mudgal in 1951 and a sting operation in 2005, resulted in MPs being found guilty of misconduct and being expelled from the Lok Sabha.
- The punishment is related to their functioning within the House.
Ethics Committee’s Role
- The Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha, established in 2000, is responsible for examining complaints related to unethical conduct of MPs and recommending appropriate actions.
- Notably, the term “unethical conduct” is not strictly defined but is left to the committee’s discretion.
- The committee has dealt with cases like MPs taking unauthorized companions on official tours or misusing privileges, imposing penalties such as suspension.
Distinction Between Misconduct and Criminal Offense
- The crucial distinction lies in cases involving criminal offenses, which are investigated by government agencies, not parliamentary committees.
- Parliament’s role is to determine if an MP’s conduct constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt of the House, with disciplinary actions being related to parliamentary functioning.
- Cases like the 10 MPs expelled in 2005 still face trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Parliamentary Probe vs. Judicial Probe
- Parliamentary investigations differ from judicial probes.
- Parliamentary committees, consisting of MPs, function under the Rules of the House, conducting oral examinations, sifting evidence, and arriving at findings.
- While MPs can engage advocates and cross-examine witnesses, the rules of evidence under the Evidence Act do not apply. The Speaker has the authority to decide the relevance of evidence.
Online Submission of Questions
- The issue of MPs sharing their login details with personal assistants for online submission of questions has arisen. MPs often lack the time to draft questions themselves.
- The absence of specific rules for regulating online question submission and the right of MPs to engage individuals for parliamentary work may complicate investigations into the sources of information used for parliamentary activities.
Conclusion
The investigation into Mahua Moitra’s case by the Ethics Committee raises questions about defining unethical conduct and the line between misconduct and criminal offenses.
The Lok Sabha’s unique role in scrutinizing its members is distinct from judicial processes, relying on a preponderance of probabilities rather than strict evidence rules.
The ongoing debate highlights the need for clear guidelines and distinctions in such cases, balancing parliamentary privilege and the pursuit of justice.
Climate Finance and its Role in COP 28:
- The issue of climate finance plays a critical role in maintaining the trust of developing countries in future climate change negotiations.
- This matter is expected to be prominent in the upcoming Conference of the Parties (COP 28) meeting in Dubai, particularly in light of the Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, which highlights the impact of the current 1.1°C temperature increase on hazardous weather events.
- The report emphasizes the need for increased mitigation efforts by developing countries, which may be met with demands from climate-vulnerable countries for developed nations to fulfill their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion in climate finance.
Inadequacy of Climate Finance:
- The current $100 billion climate finance goal, set at the Copenhagen Change Conference in 2009, is seen as inadequate to address the challenges faced by developing countries in transitioning to low-carbon and climate-resilient development.
- Providing financial support to developing countries is a key principle of the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities framework.
Mandatory Financial Contributions:
- The Paris Agreement mandates that developed countries must provide financial resources to developing countries.
- These financial commitments are supposed to be reported in Biennial Update Reports (BUR), including projected levels of public financial resources.
- Despite the commitment to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020, the developed countries have fallen short, having only mobilized $79.6 billion by the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow in 2021.
Escalating Financial Needs:
- The combined nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of all parties project the overshooting of the 1.5°C temperature goal.
- The estimated financial needs for developing countries, especially those in the Global South, approach $6 trillion until 2030.
- For India, the financial needs derived from its NDCs are substantial, with $206 billion required for adaptation and $834 billion for mitigation purposes.
- The transition to cleaner energy systems poses a significant financial burden, which the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) financial mechanisms may not fully cover.
Challenges of a Just Transition:
- India has called for a just transition at COP27, highlighting the need to support millions of people who are employed in the fossil fuel economy, particularly in coal mining and power sectors, in transitioning to alternative economic opportunities and livelihoods.
Unclear Burden Sharing Formula:
- While developed countries are obligated to provide financial resources, there is no agreed-upon approach among them to share this burden equitably. One analysis suggests that the United States provided only 5% of its fair share in 2020.
- The lack of a mandatory formula for collecting funds makes it difficult to predict how climate finance goals will be met. Neither the UNFCCC nor the Paris Agreement specify the criteria for mobilization; instead, it relies on a replenishment process.
The Role of Funding Mechanisms:
- The Global Environment Facility, designated by UNFCCC to provide funding to developing countries, is replenished every four years.
- The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has adopted a similar approach for mobilizing finance. In its second replenishment, only 25 out of 37 developed countries pledged $9.3 billion in new contributions to the GCF.
- The inclusion of voluntary contributions from some developing countries aims to facilitate the counting of international public climate finance.
Lack of Urgency for Climate Finance:
- In contrast to the swift response to the global financial crisis in 2009-10, when $1.1 trillion was mobilized to support the global financial system, there appears to be a lack of strong political will, perceived urgency, and enlightened self-interest among developed nations in addressing climate finance transfers to developing countries, jeopardizing the global common of the atmosphere.
Conclusion
Climate finance remains a contentious and inadequately addressed issue, with challenges in meeting funding commitments and ensuring a just transition, leaving many developing countries struggling to achieve their climate goals.
