2nd April

Denying Justice

The article condemns the Shiv Sainiks for their lack of jurisprudence and belief in democracy as they oppose providing Ajmal Kasab a defense in order to trial him.

While the protest is in accord with the popular belief, but the Indian judiciary and Indian Constitution allows a defense to anyone that is accused for any crime. Boldly, Anjali Waghmare has taken a step to act as a defense counsel for Kasab and ensure justice is delivered. Judiciary is based on the principle of innocent till proven guilty and it holds in Kasab’s case as well. Guilt or the lack of it has to be decided by the appointed authority and not the public. It is ironical that Beant Singh & Satwant Singh – assassins of Indira Gandhi, Nalini Sriharan – accomplice of Rajiv Gandhi’s killer and even Nathuram Godse were given these privileges, not only to defend themselves but in some cases also to elaborate on their motives or the mitigating circumstances behind the crime. It is confusing to understand the objectives of the protestors. The CJI has already said that Kasab may well be acquitted if not provided a lawyer. But this is certainly not the objective of Shiv Sena. Their intentions seem to be a sentence without any trial by assuming the guilt which is certainly unacceptable. This is a path to mob justice or say kangaroo courts. 

Creditably, Waghmare has decided to go against this. But it is disheartening that she has to require a Z-level security to do this. 

Overhaul is overdue

The article talks about the much needed overhaul in the new economic order especially with respect to the existing structure of IMF and World Bank that does not reflect the 21st century realities. 

All eyes are now set on the emerging countries to revamp the global economy. One of the ways is to increase the coffers of IMF which has regained its position as global lending agency. However it requires funds in tune of $500b, significantly more then the current level of $250b to bail out the sinking economies. However, with the post-war governance structure, it is not possible. IMF has to reflect the 21st century realities i.e. an increased say in the decision making for the emerging economic giants like India, China and Brazil. The IMF quota system, established in 1944, fixes, among other rights, voting rights, financial obligations as well as low interest loans on the criteria of size and stability of economy of a country, its foreign exchange reserves and trade volumes. But even today, China, world’s third largest economy has powers at par with Belgium and Netherlands. Even India, Brazil and Russia, having larger economies then Belgium aren’t any better. The post-war agreement between World Bank and IMF has maintained transatlantic dominance. Even Japan’s leadership in Asian Development Bank is not the reflection of reality. Under IMF quota today, while US and EU has 17% and 32% voting rights respectively, the same for China is just 3.2%. Thus, the demands of India and China on structural overhaul are perfectly legitimate. 

While British and Australian Premiers call for more inclusive global financial architecture, this is not possible without reflecting the true world economic scenario in IMF and World Bank, at first place.