Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 19 February 2022
Contents:
- Wrong solution
- Being thin-skinned
Wrong solution
Context:
Recently a legislation made by Haryana Government mandates 75% reservation for local candidates in private sector jobs that pay up to ₹30,000 a month. The Supreme Court has asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to decide the validity of the law within four weeks.
Relevance:
GS –II: Government Policies & Interventions, Issues Relating to Development,
GS-II: Employment, Growth & Development, Human Resource
Dimensions of the Article:
- Background
- Introducing quota in Private sector
- The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act
- Way Forward
Background:
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court had stayed a controversial State law which provides 75% reservation for local youths in private sector jobs earning less than ₹30,000 a month.
- The Supreme Court has set aside an interim stay order granted by the High Court. This was because the stay was granted without assigning reasons.
- It is a settled principle that legislation cannot be stayed unless there is a preliminary finding that it is unconstitutional or suffers from any glaring illegality.
Introducing quota in Private sector:
- There are few issues when the State introduces a quota in the private sector, especially if it is based on a domicile norm.
- The states like Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand have also introduced such laws, while the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu had promised 75% reservation in its election manifesto for last year’s Assembly polls.
- States seek to adopt such laws mainly due to the unemployment caused by the COVIS-19 pandemic and provide opportunities for the youths.
The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act:
- The law provides for reservation in private sector and it covers companies, societies, trusts, partnership firms and individual employers.
- Violation of Constitution: The act goes against the Constitution as there is discrimination on the basis of place of birth or residence.
- The Constitution allows the Government to prescribe a residential criterion for employment to public posts. However, its applicability to the private sector is uncertain.
- Industries affected: The industry may feel aggrieved that the residential requirement may adversely affect the hiring of talent from outside Haryana.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights:
- The law impinges individual rights as it restricts his/her freedom of movement, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country, and the right to carry on any occupation.
- Exemption clause: The Act provides for exemption to any employer if an adequate number of local candidates are not available in terms of skill, qualification and proficiency.
- Expiration: The act will cease to operate in 10 years.
Way Forward:
- Rather than using the tool of Reservation as a solution to reduce unemployment, the states should address the underlying cause.
- The state of labour economy in India is largely driven by large-scale migration in search of employment. This is mainly due to the demand for Rapid urbanisation and the agrarian situation.
- Addressing the wide spread disparities between the urban and rural areas and between advanced States and backward ones will help in resolving the issue.
-Source: The Hindu
Being thin-skinned
Context:
India lodged a diplomatic protest with Singapore over Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s remarks about the number of Indian lawmakers facing criminal charges pending against them.
Relevance:
GS-II: International relations
Dimensions of the Article:
- What is the issue?
- What the protest was meant to achieve?
- The Bigger question
- Way Forward
What is the issue?
- India protested against Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsein Loong’s remarks in the city state’s assembly that “Nehru’s India has become one where … almost half the MPs in the Lok Sabha have criminal charges pending against them, including charges of rape and murder”, saying they were “uncalled for”.
- The remark was made in the context of declining parliamentary standards during a debate sparked by accusations of lying against a member of the opposition in Singapore.
- The criticism was unexpected by the Government of India from Singapore, a country that shares strategic partnership with India and are linked by trade and cultural ties.
- There is a lot of speculations about the objections raised by India, which also includes political reasons.
What the protest was meant to achieve?
- As a matter of fact, many of the winners of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections have criminal charges against them.
- Data from the Association of Democratic Reforms:
- It analyses the affidavits of candidates every election.
- It found that- 233 winners in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, or 43 per cent,had self declared criminal charges against themselves, and of these, 159 had self declared serious criminal cases.
- India would rather objected the remarks by conveying that it will not take lying down insults to its democratically elected Parliament from the leader of a country that is hardly democratic, even if that country is a friend.
- India could have pointed out the merit that mandates self-declaration of criminal charges in the election affidavits, which is a progressive step that empowers the voters to make better choices.
The Bigger question:
- India has recently summoned many ambassadors in the recent past to question them on so-called “anti-India” statements made in their countries not just by political leaders but even by private entities or individuals.
- The Ministry of External Affairs has even used social media platforms to shout down critics abroad, complete with hashtags.
- Recently India gave its stern opposition to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for its comments on the hijab row in Karnataka.
- India is a country that aspires to be treated as a global power and being sensitive to such criticisms does not hold the key.
Way Forward:
- The Government could have won credit domestically for standing up to critics outside, but India should know that it wins no respect internationally when it does this.
- The reaction, as seen by many, does not send out a message of strength, but the opposite — it only makes itself look insecure.
-Source: The Indian Express
