The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 20th November, 2020 | Additional Study Material for UPSC PDF Download

1. CURBING ON-AIR BIGOTRY-

GS 2- Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability

Context
The Supreme Court’s posers to the Union government on the measures it can and is willing to take against communally slanted television coverage should not end in undesirable consequences.

Down A Slippery Slope
(i) The questions appear to be an attempt to elicit(get) a commitment to a course of action that will curb(restrict) inflammatory(provoking) journalism on broadcast media.
(ii) The Court is hearing petitions against the communal colour given by some channels to the incidence of large clusters of COVID-19 infections among those who attended a Tablighi Jamaat event in New Delhi.
(iii) The portrayal(showing) of the participants as intentional super-spreaders was vicious and motivated.
(iv) Curiously, the Centre seems reluctant to intervene, while the Court seems to be batting for greater media regulation.
(v) The Centre’s affidavit stated that media coverage “predominantly struck a balanced and neutral perspective” and that it was open to the viewers to choose from a number of varying perspectives given by different media channels.
(vi) However, the Court is keen to know what action has been taken under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act against offending(violating) broadcasters.
(vii) One hopes that the Centre’s position arises from a commitment to media freedom, and is not based on a partisan(biased) leniency towards channels that peddled a certain narrative that suited its interests.

Distinguishing Between Free Speech And ‘Hate Speech’
(i) The Court appears unconvinced that the present mechanism of self-regulation, the National Broadcasting Standards Authority, is effective.
(ii) It would be in order if the self-regulation mechanism deals with departures from normative journalism.
(iii) And the government is, in any case, empowered under the Act to prohibit transmission of programmes that violate the programme or advertising codes (Section 19) and even an entire channel, in public interest (Section 20).
(iv) In the past, channels have been asked by the I&B Ministry to take some programmes off the air.
(v) There is no doubt that egregious(shocking) violations of norms are not uncommon.
(vi) Depending on the damage done to individuals or institutions, or even society at large, there is enough scope for action under the penal law.
(vii) However, there is a class of violation of norms in broadcasting that stands apart. The case of Sudarshan News, which began a series that propagated hate against Muslims, is a flagrant example.
(viii) The government has merely administered a ‘caution’ to the channel and asked it to moderate the content of future episodes and avoid breaching the Programme Code.
(ix) In September, while ordering the suspension of further episodes, the Court distinguished between free speech and ‘hate speech’.
(x) The distinction should be at the heart of any order creating a new mechanism, if at all one is needed, to deal with broadcast media excesses.

Conclusion
The distinction between free speech and hate speech should be at the heart of regulation.

2. ANOTHER BAILOUT-

GS 3- Indian Economy and issues relating to planning, mobilization of resources, growth, development and employment

Context
(i) RBI decided to recommend the imposition of a one-month moratorium(ban) on Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB).
(ii) RBI also simultaneously announced a draft scheme of amalgamation(combine) that entails(involes) the Indian unit of the Singapore government-controlled DBS Bank taking over the capital-starved private lender.
(iii) This marks a welcome intervention by the banking regulator.

Warding Off Risks
(i) The well-choreographed(decided) move will protect the interests of depositors and employees, while shareholders will see the value of their holdings written off once the merger is operationalised.
(ii) Eight months before, another flailing(struggling) private lender, Yes Bank, was rescued by an RBI-orchestrated(arranged) capital infusion.
(iii) The Karur-based bank’s proposed bailout signals that the regulator is keen to proactively step in to ward off risks to wider financial sector stability.
(iv) That the LVB had become a candidate for regulatory intervention was evident(obvious) after its continuous losses, steady erosion of its net worth and inability to raise fresh capital to bolster(push) its balance sheet.
(v) Despite being placed under the RBI’s Prompt Corrective Action framework in September 2019, the lender’s finances deteriorated(worsened) to the point where its gross ratio of non-performing assets to advances shot up to 25.4% in March 2020 and the Tier 1 Capital ratio turned a negative 0.88% at the end of that quarter.
(vi) The capital ratio subsequently worsened to -4.85% by the end of September, tipping the central bank’s hand.

Banking Sector Concern
(i) Overall banking sector health, however, remains a significant concern notwithstanding this latest rescue effort.
(ii) On Wednesday, Gita Gopinath, the IMF’s chief economist, flagged the wide-ranging damage the COVID-19 pandemic had inflicted(done) on the global economy and warned of deeper legacy scars(marks) — more stress on corporate balance sheets and governments burdened with large debt.
(iii) For all its liquidity bolstering(encouraging) measures since March, the RBI now faces the prospect of having to maintain a heightened vigil over scheduled commercial banks, as well as non-banking financial companies and mortgage lenders, given the threat of contagion(virus) from a failure here.
(iv) The RBI had in its Financial Stability Report in July pointed out that its stress tests indicated that the gross NPA ratio of commercial banks could worsen to 14.7% by March 2021, from 8.5% a year earlier, if the pandemic’s adverse economic impact caused the GDP to contract by 8.9% in the current fiscal.
(v) In October, the bank forecast India’s GDP would shrink by 9.5% and earlier this month cautioned that “lurking around the corner” was the major risk of stress intensifying among households and firms that could spill over into the financial sector.
(vi) The RBI has its task cut out in ensuring it keeps the crucial engine of credit ticking over as the economy strives to revive.

Conclusion
Overall banking sector health is a concern despite the RBI’s pre-emptive(preventive) rescue efforts.

3. INDIA’S MASK OF ECONOMIC LIBERALISM IS OFF-

GS 3- Effects of liberalization on the economy, changes in industrial policy and their effects on industrial growth

Context
(i) India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently disapproved of free trade and globalisation.
(ii) Sounding like a politician of the bygone(past) era where the government shielded(protected) the domestic industry from competition by putting up protectionist barriers, he said,
(a) “in the name of openness, we have allowed subsidi[s]ed products and unfair production advantages from abroad to prevail... justified by the mantra of an open and globali[s]ed economy. It was quite extraordinary that an economy as attractive as India allowed the framework to be set by others.”
(iii) He was speaking at a “dialogue”. Taking a dig at free trade agreements (FTAs), the Minister said, “the effect of past trade agreements has been to de-industriali[s]e some sectors.”
(iv) The fact that these observations were made just a day after 15 countries of the Asia-Pacific region signed, on November 15, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, the largest regional trading arrangement, is no coincidence.
(v) The Minister tried hard to rationalise the government’s decision to walk away from RCEP last year. However, there are several flaws(errors) in Mr. Jaishankar’s arguments.

Rhetoric Versus Reality
(i) First, by refusing to sign RCEP — a sign of weakness, not boldness — India is now truly at the margins of the regional and global economy.
(ii) With trade multilateralism at the World Trade Organization (WTO) remaining sluggish, FTAs are the gateways for international trade. By not being part of any major FTA, India cannot be part of the global value chains.
(iii) India’s competitors such as the East Asian nations, by virtue of they being embedded(fixed) in mega-FTAs, are in a far superior position to be part of global value chains and attract foreign investment.
(iv) Second, has India embraced(welcomed) the economic openness that Mr. Jaishankar laments(cries) about?
(v) While India is surely a much more open economy than it was three decades ago, globally, India continues to remain relatively closed when compared to other major economies.
(vi) According to the WTO, India’s applied most favoured nation import tariffs are 13.8%, which is the highest for any major economy.
(vii) Likewise, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, on the import restrictiveness index, India figures in the ‘very restrictive’ category.
(viii) From 1995-2019, India has initiated anti-dumping measures 972 times (the highest in the world), zealously(whole-heartedly) endeavouring(trying) to protect domestic industry.

Lack Of Competitiveness
(i) Third, in blaming FTAs for the woes(problems) of India’s manufacturing, the Jaishankar is contradicting his own government’s economic survey presented earlier this year, which concluded that India has benefitted overall from FTAs signed so far.
(ii) Moreover, impugning(questioning) FTAs for deindustrialisation means being oblivious(unaware) to the real problem of the Indian industry — which is the lack of competitiveness and absence of structural reforms.
(iii) Fourth, the External Affairs Minister, following the finest traditions of the Modi government, criticised the past governments for compromising India’s interests by doing business as per the ‘framework’ set by others.
(iv) However, he did not share why his government utterly failed in the last six years to convince 15 other RCEP nations about a framework that would be advantageous to India.
(v) Finally, in criticising economic openness and globalisation, the External Affairs Minister wholly ignored the fact that India has been one of the major beneficiaries of economic globalisation — a fact attested by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
(vi) Post-1991, the Indian economy grew at a faster pace, ushering in an era of economic prosperity.
(vii) According to the economist and professor, Arvind Panagariya, poverty in rural and urban India, which stood at close to 40% in 2004-05, almost halved to about 20% by 2011-12.
(viii) This was due to India clocking an average economic growth rate of almost 8% with international trade being a major engine of progress.

Economic Illiberalism
(i) The comments of the External Affairs Minister give us a window to understanding the larger ideological moorings of the Narendra Modi government on free trade.
(ii) When Mr. Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014, it was widely perceived that while his government might be socially conservative, it would be economically liberal and advocate globalisation and free trade.
(iii) This was even though all ideological gurus of the Sangh Parivar, whether Deen Dayal Upadhyay or Dattopant Thengadi, championed swadeshi (indigenous products) over videshi (imports).
(iv) Over the last few years, the Narendra Modi government has started walking on the path shown by its ideological gurus.
(v) Tariffs have been increased, FTAs are being demonised, and ‘vocal for local’, which strikes at the heart of international trade and globalisation, is the new mantra.

Conclusion
(i) The Prime Minister’s desire to make India a global destination for foreign investment is a pipe dream because it is naïve(innocent) to expect foreign investors to be gung-ho(not eager) about investing in India if trade protectionism is the government’s official policy.
(ii) The mask of economic liberalism is finally off and the real ideological colours are there for everyone to see.