Introduction
On August 11, the Home Minister introduced three Bills in the Lok Sabha with the intention to replace the existing criminal laws of the country. The stated goal of these reforms is to strengthen law and order.
However, a critical analysis reveals that these reforms may not address the root causes of crime and instead serve other political purposes.
The Limits of Criminal Law in Maintaining Social Order
- Misconception of Criminal Law’s Role
- The Bills assume that criminal law alone can maintain “public order” by reducing crimes.
- However, criminal law’s focus on individual blame and punishment obscures the social roots of crimes.
- Universal Individualism
- The current criminal law system operates under the concept of “universal individualism,” where individuals are solely responsible for their crimes.
- This outdated perspective disregards the influence of social and environmental factors on decision-making.
- Social Production of Crime
- Research suggests that a person’s decision-making and risk coping mechanisms are significantly influenced by socio-economic status, upbringing, education, family, and social connections.
- The role of environmental factors in contributing to and perpetuating criminal conditions should be considered.
The Impact of Socio-cultural Realities
- Rape Culture
- The persistence of crimes like rape is deeply influenced by socio-cultural realities.
- This raises questions about the effectiveness of legislative reforms in addressing these complex issues.
- Political Motivations
- Governments exaggerate the capacity of criminal law to reduce crimes, even when aware of its limitations.
- Legislative reforms allow the state to symbolically condemn crimes and gain public support without addressing underlying problems.
- Demonstrative vs. Substantive
- The law-and-order discourse is often “demonstrative rather than substantive.”
- Criminal law, in practice, can be a tool of oppression and violence, particularly affecting the marginalized.
The Need for Comprehensive Criminal Justice Reforms
- Beyond Criminal Law
- Meaningful reform should encompass the broader framework of “criminal justice” rather than focusing narrowly on “criminal law.”
- Mere legislative changes are insufficient to address the systemic issues in the criminal justice system.
- Institutional Reconfiguration
- The reform should involve reconfiguring institutions involved in criminal justice, including police, investigations, courts, prosecution, defense, prisons, and support services.
- The emphasis should be on fairness, justice, and effectiveness for both victims and accused individuals.
Conclusion
The proposed criminal law reforms, presented as an “overhaul,” may not achieve the intended goals. Instead, they appear to be a populist move that lacks substantial changes in criminal law or criminal justice.
A closer examination reveals that the reforms do not address the complex socio-cultural factors contributing to crimes or the systemic issues within the criminal justice system. To truly effect change, a comprehensive approach that goes beyond legislative amendments is required.
One Nation-One Poll: A Constitutional Challenge
Introduction
The government is making a fresh attempt to implement the concept of “One Nation-One Poll,” which would synchronize state elections with the general Lok Sabha elections.
However, this endeavor raises significant challenges and undemocratic possibilities, particularly in the context of India’s parliamentary system.
Undemocratic Options
- In India’s parliamentary democracy, governments rely on the confidence of the majority in the legislative house.
- This system allows for mid-term changes due to party splits, defections, or loss of support from legislators.
- However, in a One Nation-One Poll scenario, mid-term elections become impossible.
- Instead, two undemocratic options emerge: continuing with a minority government or imposing President’s rule.
- Both options undermine the essence of democracy, as they entail governing without majority support.
Presidential System as an Alternative
- To overcome the democratic challenges, transitioning to a presidential system is proposed, similar to the United States.
- In such a system, the President does not need majority support in the legislative house, ensuring that simultaneous elections can occur without compromising democracy’s core principles.
Constitutional Amendments Required
- Implementing a presidential system would necessitate significant amendments to the Indian Constitution.
- Key areas for modification include Part V (The Union) and Part VI (The States), which govern the executive and legislative powers of the President and Governors.
- Additionally, new provisions for the President’s powers, Governors, the Council of Ministers, and the line of succession would need to be incorporated.
Preservation of Democracy
- Some argue that parliamentary democracy is an integral part of India’s Constitution.
- However, democracy itself can be maintained within a presidential system, as evident in the American model.
- The key lies in upholding democratic values, not the specific form of governance.
Challenges and Political Realities
- While the government has formed committees to explore One Nation-One Poll, it lacks the required two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass the necessary constitutional amendments.
- The opposition is also opposed to the idea, making this initiative a non-starter.
Potential Motivations
- The government’s push for One Nation-One Poll may be an attempt to delay elections in five states facing likely defeats.
- Postponing these elections requires addressing constitutional issues.
- It is suggested that the ruling party might consider imposing President’s rule in these states and manipulating the Election Commission to postpone state elections until the Lok Sabha election.
- However, this approach may violate the Constitution and face legal challenges.
Conclusion
Implementing One Nation-One Poll poses significant constitutional challenges in India’s parliamentary system. While the idea has been considered, switching to a presidential system appears to be a more viable option. However, the current political landscape and constitutional hurdles make the immediate realization of this concept unlikely.
Introduction
The 2023 G-20 summit held under India’s presidency has garnered significant attention due to its achievements and noteworthy outcomes.
India’s Successful Summit
- Under India’s leadership, the 2023 G-20 summit achieved considerable success, despite the group’s traditionally limited economic focus on global issues.
- Notable outcomes included the inclusion of the African Union in the G-20, a commitment to clean energy through a biofuel alliance, increased aid for Asia and Africa, and the joint Delhi Declaration.
Delhi Declaration: A Fragile Consensus
- The Delhi Declaration, a joint statement signed by G-20 members, stands out in a fractured international order.
- Despite tensions between major powers such as India, the United States, China, and Russia, the declaration managed to secure the agreement of all parties.
- While the statement refrains from naming Russia for its actions in Ukraine, it upholds the principles of the United Nations charter and territorial sovereignty.
- The diplomatic success of this statement lies in its ability to provide something positive for each member.
The Bold Announcement: India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor
- A surprising and transformative development at the summit was the announcement of the “India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor.”
- This ambitious rail and shipping route aims to connect India, West Asia, and Europe, challenging China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
- S. President Joe Biden lauded this project as a significant milestone with far-reaching implications, highlighting its potential to reshape global geopolitics.
Israel’s Role and Absence
- While Israel is a key partner in the proposed economic corridor, it was conspicuously absent from the list of non-member countries invited to the summit.
- This omission raised questions, given India’s close relationship with Israel and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- Possible reasons for Israel’s absence include diplomatic normalization requirements with Saudi Arabia, domestic politics, and Biden’s preferences.
Saudi Arabia’s Role in Diplomacy and Peace
- Saudi Arabia’s willingness to end its diplomatic boycott of Israel marks a historical shift in the Middle East.
- This acceptance could pave the way for improved relations with other Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
- However, Saudi Arabia insists on Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution and the well-being of Palestinians.
- The “Peace Day Effort,” initiated by Saudi Arabia in partnership with the Arab League and the European Union, aims to incentivize compromise between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
- Achieving peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict remains challenging, but Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic efforts signal a potential breakthrough.
Conclusion
- The 2023 G-20 summit under India’s presidency yielded significant achievements, with the Delhi Declaration and the announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor being particularly noteworthy.
- The absence of Israel from the summit raised questions, likely tied to diplomatic normalization with Saudi Arabia and political considerations. Saudi Arabia’s role in promoting peace in the Middle East remains a critical factor in the success of the proposed economic corridor.
- The summit demonstrated India’s diplomatic prowess and its potential to shape global geopolitics.
