1. Live-in Couples and Indian Law point of view
Introduction:
The article discusses the vulnerabilities faced by live-in couples in India, especially in light of recent high-profile cases like the murder of Shraddha Walkar, allegedly by her live-in partner. This incident reignited debates on the legal protection and societal challenges faced by such couples, especially in a society that largely values traditional, arranged marriages. The article also examines how legal frameworks and judicial interpretations impact live-in relationships.
- Legal Protection for Live-in Couples:
- The Domestic Violence Act (2005) extends protection to live-in relationships. The Supreme Court in several judgments has acknowledged the rights of individuals in such relationships, granting protection against domestic violence and other related issues.
- However, legal provisions are often restrictive and narrow. For example, while the law protects from abuse, live-in relationships lack the same rights as married couples, including financial security, inheritance, and social recognition.
- Societal Pressure:
- Indian society heavily favors traditional marriages, often framing live-in relationships as immoral or socially unacceptable. Social conservatism, deeply rooted in India’s cultural and religious practices, shapes attitudes towards live-in couples, leading to discrimination and stigma.
- Recent crimes against women in live-in relationships have exposed their vulnerability and lack of societal support.
- Judicial Interpretations:
- Courts have often upheld conservative views on live-in relationships. For instance, the Chawla v. State of UP (2015) ruling warned against the psychological and social consequences of live-in relationships. Such interpretations often legitimize customary practices that are discriminatory toward non-marital unions.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2024 dismissed an interfaith couple’s plea for police protection due to the woman’s family opposition, highlighting how legal structures sometimes fail to provide adequate protection to live-in couples.
- Negotiating Legality and Rights:
- The rights of live-in couples are weighed against traditional family and social structures. While the judiciary has sometimes granted protection, it often views live-in relationships through a narrow lens, failing to acknowledge the changing dynamics of relationships in modern India.
- The restrictive nature of legal provisions on live-in relationships reflects the underlying social conservatism and cultural resistance to non-traditional partnerships.
- Need for Reform:
- There is a growing need to reevaluate the legal system to provide equal rights and protection to live-in couples, recognizing their choices as legitimate forms of companionship.
- Broader societal acceptance is also crucial. Non-governmental efforts aimed at changing societal attitudes towards live-in relationships could help foster a more inclusive and less discriminatory environment.
Conclusion:
Live-in couples in India continue to face significant legal and social challenges. While the law has evolved to some extent, providing limited protection to such relationships, it remains largely rooted in traditional views of marriage.
For live-in relationships to be fully accepted and protected, both legal reforms and shifts in societal attitudes are necessary. Ensuring that individuals in non-marital unions have access to the same rights and protections as married couples is crucial for advancing personal liberty and equality in India.
Mains Practice Question:
|
Q. Examine the legal and societal challenges faced by live-in couples in India. How can India’s legal framework be reformed to provide equal protection to individuals in live-in relationships?
|
2. Public Health Sector – Analysis and Needs of the time
Introduction:
The article discusses the state of India’s public health sector, highlighting the policy gaps and the government’s failure to address the real health needs of the population. Public health policies should be designed to cater to the felt needs of the people, focusing on essential services such as primary care, water sanitation, and addressing diseases of poverty. However, recent policy directions and the increasing reliance on the private sector have weakened the public health infrastructure.
- Felt Needs in Public Health:
- Public health needs can be broadly divided into three categories:
- Diseases of poverty: These include diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and malnutrition, which disproportionately affect the poor. Public health interventions must prioritize addressing these diseases.
- Environmental and lifestyle issues: Issues such as air and water pollution, waste management, climate change, and rising road traffic accidents are increasingly becoming public health priorities.
- Curative care: Access to primary healthcare is essential for treating everyday illnesses and managing chronic conditions. Tertiary care can only be effective if strong primary and secondary healthcare systems are in place.
- Public health needs can be broadly divided into three categories:
- Challenges with Current Policies:
- National Health Mission (NHM): The NHM and its subsequent programs, like Ayushman Bharat, were expected to strengthen public healthcare, especially primary care. However, the focus has shifted towards secondary and tertiary care, often benefitting the private healthcare sector at the expense of the public sector.
- Private Health Insurance Schemes: Government schemes like Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMAJY) largely benefit the private healthcare sector. For example, 50 crore people are eligible for the PMAJY, but only 2.5 crore people have used it, indicating that the scheme is mostly serving private hospitals rather than addressing the broader needs of the population.
- Primary vs. Tertiary Care:
- The article highlights that the focus on tertiary care (such as hospitals and specialized treatments) neglects the essential role of primary care. In India, most healthcare needs can be met through primary care facilities, but these are underfunded and poorly staffed.
- Primary healthcare institutions like sub-centers, Primary Health Centers (PHCs), and Community Health Centers (CHCs) are critical for delivering preventive care. However, these institutions are under strain and unable to meet the growing demand, especially in rural areas.
- Commercialization and the Private Sector:
- With increasing privatization in healthcare, the public health system has become more commercialized, making basic healthcare services unaffordable for many. This has eroded public trust in government-funded health initiatives.
- The shift towards Private Health Insurance (PHI) schemes is seen as a move that primarily benefits the private healthcare industry rather than the public.
- Need for Policy Reform:
- There is an urgent need to strengthen public health infrastructure, especially at the primary and secondary care levels. Investment should focus on improving rural healthcare, training more medical professionals, and increasing access to preventive services.
- Public health policies must address the basic needs of the population, such as nutrition, clean water, sanitation, and environmental health. These are non-negotiable from a health and developmental perspective.
Conclusion:
India’s public health sector is experiencing a policy paralysis, with increasing reliance on the private sector for secondary and tertiary care while neglecting primary healthcare needs.
This has weakened the public health system and created a gap in healthcare accessibility, particularly for the poor and vulnerable populations.
To correct this, the government must refocus on strengthening primary healthcare, ensuring that public health policies address the real needs of the people.
Mains Practice Question:
|
Q. Discuss the challenges faced by India’s public health sector due to policy paralysis and the increasing role of the private sector. Suggest measures to strengthen primary healthcare and address the felt needs of the population.
|
3. Inian Manufacturing sector policies and Chinese Companies
With or Without is the Question
Introduction:
The article examines India’s strategy to become a global manufacturing hub under the Make in India initiative, while facing the challenge of balancing domestic manufacturing capabilities and the influence of Chinese companies, especially in the electronics sector. The piece delves into how India’s policy on Chinese investments and participation has evolved, particularly since the Galwan valley clash in 2020.
- Make in India and Chinese Presence:
- The Make in India project, launched in 2014, aims to boost India’s domestic manufacturing capabilities. The Production Linked Incentives (PLI) scheme is a critical component of this strategy, aimed at attracting both domestic and foreign investments.
- Chinese smartphone companies have been significant beneficiaries of this initiative. By 2023, Chinese brands captured over 50% of India’s smartphone market, with their strategies tailored to Indian consumers’ preferences through aggressive marketing and sponsorships.
- The increased scrutiny of Chinese investments after the Galwan incident led to calls for boycotting Chinese products and limiting their influence in India’s electronics industry.
- India’s Balancing Act:
- India’s government has taken steps to “Indianise” Chinese operations by requiring the inclusion of Indian equity partners, appointing Indian executives to key roles, and promoting local manufacturing and exports.
- Despite these efforts, Chinese smartphone manufacturers have cautiously complied, adjusting their operations, hiring local distributors, and streamlining their Indian supply chain.
- Challenges of Indigenization:
- India’s goal to manufacture all smartphone components domestically requires robust supply chains and a significant investment in infrastructure, technological clusters, and knowledge-sharing.
- Developing a strong homegrown supplier ecosystem remains a challenge, as India lacks the same scale as China. Moreover, Chinese companies are reluctant to transfer advanced technologies without clear equity participation terms.
- Ground Reality:
- The Indian government has tightened norms for Chinese companies, restricting visas for Chinese technicians, and advocating for foreign direct investment from non-Chinese sources.
- However, the Economic Survey of 2024 highlights the need for careful diplomacy. India’s diversification strategy aims to reduce dependency on China while simultaneously balancing Chinese investments to meet domestic manufacturing targets.
- Attempts at Indianization:
- The entry of Tata Electronics as a contract manufacturer for smartphone devices is a sign of growing indigenization in India. Indian suppliers are slowly gaining ground, aided by Taiwanese companies like Pegatron and Foxconn.
Conclusion:
India must navigate a complex path between promoting domestic manufacturers and managing the substantial influence of Chinese companies in its electronics industry.
While the Make in India initiative has opened doors for homegrown talent, China’s entrenched role in the supply chain cannot be easily sidelined.
A careful balancing act between developing indigenous capabilities and allowing Chinese investments is required to sustain India’s goal of becoming a global manufacturing hub.
Mains Practice Question:
|
Q. Discuss the challenges faced by India in balancing domestic manufacturing growth with the presence of Chinese companies in the electronics sector. What steps can the Indian government take to promote indigenous industries while reducing reliance on Chinese investments?
|
