Daily Hindu Editorials

👉The problem with the SC/ST Act is the failure of the criminal justice system to recognise its own casteist biases👈 For India’s Dalits and Adivasis, May 1 this year was a ‘May Day’ in more ways than one. It was May Day, the day to commemorate the labour movement (the vast majority of them do belong to the working classes), and also ‘mayday’ in the maritime sense, an occasion to broadcast their distress over a life-threatening emergency. Dalit and Adivasi rights organisations observed May 1 as ‘National Resistance Day’. The immediate trigger was the Supreme Court order of March 20 on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter SC/ST Act). Protest meetings held across the country had three demands for the government: neutralise the Supreme Court order through an ordinance that would reinstate both the SC/ST Act and the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015, in their original form; include both these laws in the Ninth Schedule to protect them

👉JD(S) maintains equidistance from the BJP and Congress to maximise post-poll options👈 A kingmaker with only one option is no kingmaker at all. The Janata Dal (Secular) is probably headed for a third-place finish in Karnataka, but is banking on making its seats count in a hung Assembly, which many opinion polls suggest is likely. The party’s ‘secular’ outlook did not prevent it from partnering in a coalition government with the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2006; notwithstanding the protestations of patriarch H.D. Deve Gowda, another such arrangement between the two parties cannot be ruled out. Mr. Gowda likes to put all the blame on his younger son, H.D. Kumaraswamy, for the 2006 partnership and vows it will not be repeated. But the reasons that drove the party to join hands with the BJP at that time have not disappeared now. The support bases of the two parties are in different regions, with the JD(S) confined to Mysuru and southern Karnataka where the Vokkaligas have a strong pres

👉Israel’s so-called revelations make no case to junk the Iran nuclear deal👈 The timing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran had a robust nuclear weapons programme is not lost on anyone. On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu shared thousands of documents related to Iran’s nuclear programme at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump is considering ripping up the Iran nuclear deal. Mr. Trump, who has never hidden his opposition to the deal signed by the Obama administration with Iran and five other countries, is expected to take a decision before May 12. The documents Mr. Netanyahu cited were stolen from Iran by Israeli spies, and suggest that Iran had a robust nuclear weapons programme before the multilateral deal was signed — while Iran had always maintained that its nuclear programme was for civilian purposes. Mr. Netanyahu argued that the documents pointed to an act of deceit on Iran’s part, a claim the U.S. immediately backed. But Israel’s opposition to the Iran de

👉The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is a thorn in India-Pakistan relations👈 The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is China’s ambitious project for increasing connectivity and economic cooperation within Eurasia. Since its announcement in 2013, the BRI has been positively received by many countries covered within its ambit. However, notwithstanding the recent meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan, China, one issue associated with the BRI will likely be considered an irritant for China: India’s position on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Last May, New Delhi sent a clear message to Beijing that it doesn’t support CPEC. India registered its protest by boycotting the high-profile Belt and Road Forum organised by China. Its principal objection was that CPEC passed through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Earlier this month, the Ministry of External Affairs made its position clear on this issue when asked about a possibili

👉The requirements under the Judges (Inquiry) Act👈 The failed bid to initiate the impeachment process for the removal of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has also drawn attention to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. A procedural statute, it regulates “the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court and for the presentation of an address by Parliament to the President and for matter, connected therewith”. It covers the stages between the admission of the removal motion and the address of the motion in the Houses of the Parliament. Section 3 describes the investigation into the charges by a committee of three members, who would be selected by the Chairperson or Speaker. Once formed, the committee will frame definite charges against the judge on the basis of which the investigation is proposed to be held. Such charges, together with a statement of the grounds on which each such charge is ba