EDITORIAL SERIES

Editorial Series – 1/20

Waiting for an Act

Source: By Bibek Debroy: The Financial Express

In the context of Wuhan virus, the ministry of health and family welfare (MoHFW)
suggested that states/UTs invoke Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, and
many states/UTs have done so. This piece of legislation was a reaction to the third plague
epidemic (Byzantine Empire, and Black Death being the first two).
The third plague epidemic also originated in China, though in Yunnan, not
Wuhan. It, too, was imported, through port cities like Mumbai (spreading to Pune),
Kolkata, and Karachi. The upshot was the Plague Commission, which identified
September 23, 1896, as the first official outbreak of the plague, and delivered a
mammoth five-volume report. There were four specific questions Plague Commission was
expected to answer: (a) How did the plague originate in different parts of India?; (b) how
was the disease communicated?; (c) what were the effects of the curative serum?; and
(d) what were the effects of preventive inoculation? How many people died as a result of
plague?
This isn’t a simple question to answer. It depends on timeline and region, as well as
definition of “India”. “The differences in plague mortality in different places in India were
very striking.” On an all-India basis, Plague Commission computed mortality as 0.5 per
1,000 per year. But, that is for three years—1896 to 1898. With an extended timeline (the
plague lingered on), estimates of Indian mortality figures range from 2 million to 10 million.
The plague led to the Epidemic Diseases Act, enacted on February 4, 1897. Once
legislation is passed, we rarely read the statement of objects and reasons, although those
explain why a specific statute is necessary. In this case, the statement of objects and
reasons said, “The object of the Bill is sufficiently explained by the title thereof and the
spread of the bubonic plague from Bombay unfortunately renders it unnecessary to dwell
on the reasons for its introduction in Council. It may however be stated that its main
provisions are based upon those contained in Sections 4.34 and 47.1 of the City of Bombay
Municipal Act, 1888.”
This conferred special powers on local authorities, implemented with oppressive
force, such as in Bombay and Pune. In March 1897, Bombay Presidency established a
Plague Committee. WC Rand was the Chairman. Films like Chapekar Brothers (Hindi)
and 22 June 1897 (Marathi) document what happened next—the assassination of Rand and
Ayerst by the Chapekar brothers. There was also the trial and imprisonment of Tilak.
The Epidemic Diseases Act is a very brief statute. There are four sections, of
which one is the title. Section 2 confers special powers on the government, over and
above its normal powers. No statute is constant over time. This legislation from 1897 is no
different. It has been amended in 1914, 1920, and 1956.
Nevertheless, if you read it, you realise the vintage. For example, in Section 2(2)(b),
the state government can take measures and prescribe regulations for “the inspection of
persons travelling by railway or otherwise, and the segregation, in hospital, temporary
accommodation or otherwise, of persons suspected by the inspecting officer of being
infected with any such disease”.
Similarly, under Section 2A, “When the Central Government is satisfied that India or
any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic
disease and that the ordinary provisions of the law for the time being in force are
insufficient to prevent the outbreak of such disease or the spread thereof, the Central
Government may take measures and prescribe regulations for the inspection of any ship or
vessel leaving or arriving at any port in [the territories to which this Act extends] and for
such detention thereof, or of any person intending to sail therein, or arriving thereby, as
may be necessary.” Railways, and ships, and ports; what about airlines and airports?
There used to be a Section 2B that allowed state governments to requisition private
1

vehicles in times of plague, but that has been repealed.

Page

DELHI: VIJAY NAGAR 9717380832 & OLD RAJENDER NAGAR 9811293743 | JAIPUR: 8290800441
BENGALURU: KORMANGALA 7619166663 & CHANDRA LAYOUT 7619136662 | BHOPAL: 7509975361
PATNA: 7463950774 | INDORE: 7314977441 | RANCHI: 9939982007 | www.ksgindia.com
EDITORIAL SERIES

A statute doesn’t become dysfunctional simply because it is old. But, it does become
dysfunctional, requiring a relook, when it is overtaken by events. Among other things, it has
been overtaken by the Constitution. The seventh schedule lists health as a state subject,
and different states have provisions that aren’t necessarily uniform and harmonised. Some
have amended the Epidemic Diseases Act, some have their own public health laws
(Tamil Nadu was the first in 1939).
Kerala has two separate public health acts—one for Travancore-Cochin, and the
second for Malabar. There were plans to unify the two, but I don’t think that has come
about. Today, health issues are different, and broader, than what they were in 1897. The
role of the private sector is different from what it was then. In 2017, MoHFW prepared
a bill known as “The Public Health (Prevention, Control and Management of Epidemics,
Bio-terrorism and Disasters) Bill”.
This is still a draft. The world has moved beyond epidemic diseases. The Epidemic
Diseases Act has four sections, this draft bill has fourteen, with 14(1) being probably the
most important. This says, “The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is hereby repealed.”
Incidentally, the 1897 legislation doesn’t define “epidemic”. Admittedly, the word is difficult
to pin down. But, the bill makes an attempt, saying, “Epidemic means the occurrence in
a community or region of cases of an illness, specific health related behaviour, or other
health related events clearly in excess of normal expectancy”. However, it is still a bill.
The Gandhian economic model
Source: By R. Jagannathan: Mint
Mahatma Gandhi has not been taken very seriously as an economic thinker. His
forte was moral ideas. But, in a post-covid world, economic ideas must have an ethical
quotient. The way the world economy is crumbling and inequities rising, we should give his
ideas a second look. We may find some answers to our current situation in his ideas, even if
he arrived at those conclusions intuitively rather than through empirical observations.
Core Gandhian ideals include swadeshi, self-reliance at the individual and village
community levels, an abhorrence of mass production and mindless industrialization, a
dislike for the amoral extremes of capitalism and communism, and a reduction of mutual
antagonisms between the rich and poor. He believed that wealth must be held in trust by
the rich on behalf of the poor. Unlike Marx, who saw the interests of workers and
capitalists as irreconcilable, Gandhi sought a new convergence of interests. Marx saw
labour handicapped as it did not own the means and tools of production; Gandhi’s
charkha visualized the opposite reality. A worker can and should be able to provide for
his or her basic needs through his or her own tools and ability to earn a living.
Gandhi’s vision did not materialize during his lifetime, and his instincts on
technology were overly negative. But today, as we adopt work-from-home norms and
refocus on basics, we find that digital technology has enabled what Gandhi envisioned:
empowerment at the individual and village level.
While we are unlikely to revert to the village republics he would have liked, we can
see that web-linked villages can indeed earn enough for themselves by offering goods
and services from remote places. If you can work from home, you can work from your
village too. As the world de-globalizes partially, countries are going for self-sufficiency;
local supply chains are less likely to be disrupted by global events. As renewable energy
sources grow, a country endowed with sun and wind can produce power locally; today, even
housing colonies feed solar power to grids. Much else can be decentralized.
Gandhi was right to take a dim view of both capitalism and communism. Today,
the middle path is looking increasingly attractive, not only in welfarist Scandinavia, but also
in the US, where redistributive justice is being sought to counter-balance the excesses of
unbridled capitalism. As wealth gets more concentrated, wealthy capitalists are
displaying new concern for the poor, from Warren Buffett and Bill Gates to Azim Premji and
Shiv Nadar. The Tatas, of course, arrived here much earlier. They are giving up a large part
of their wealth for social causes, even though they will stay wealthy. Gandhi got it right
again, and Marx wrong. “No doubt capital is lifeless," said Gandhi, “but not the
capitalists, who are amenable to conversion."
2

Many entrepreneurs are developing and offering software for free, even as they use
Page

other means to make money off their inventions (consider Linux, Google Docs, etc). The
DELHI: VIJAY NAGAR 9717380832 & OLD RAJENDER NAGAR 9811293743 | JAIPUR: 8290800441
BENGALURU: KORMANGALA 7619166663 & CHANDRA LAYOUT 7619136662 | BHOPAL: 7509975361
PATNA: 7463950774 | INDORE: 7314977441 | RANCHI: 9939982007 | www.ksgindia.com
EDITORIAL SERIES

“Collaborative Commons" will drive a lot of innovation in the future. One should not be
surprised if the discoverer of a covid-19 vaccine offers it for a very low licensing fee, or even
free.
Even at the macro level, high income inequalities and growth without jobs are
forcing economists to think whether an obsession with gross domestic product (GDP) is
healthy. The quality of growth matters. An understanding of who benefits or loses from
globalization is becoming a critical issue for policy-makers everywhere.
Gandhi’s maxim that there is enough for everybody’s need but not for everybody’s
greed makes a lot of sense today, as we focus on what is truly important to live a dignified
life and what we can do without. Once we have seen the back of covid-19, maybe some of
the old greed will return. But it’s a fair bet that it will not be the sort of unbridled greed that
caused the dotcom bust of 2000 and the 2008 global financial crisis.
Gandhi did not have much to say about the excessive financialization of the global
economy, for it did not exist when he was around. But it’s more than likely that he would
have criticized it as excess greed. Nor would he have liked the speculation and debt-fuelled
spending by governments and individuals that brought the house down in 2000 and 2008.
His advice for economic adversity would have been to limit your needs. Parsimonious to
a fault, his message would have been commonsensical: If you want to spend more, save
first. Gandhi valued thrift, and a post-covid world will have to relearn its virtues.
A counter-point: If today Gandhian virtues are looking distinctly achievable, we
have to acknowledge that this has happened only because we went in the opposite direction
and saw both its benefits and costs. Today’s digital economy and remote-working would not
have been possible if we had remained village republics and millions had not congregated in
cities to earn and innovate. Nor would food and energy have been available in plenty
without opting for polluting technologies (inorganic fertilisers, solar photo-voltaics, storage
batteries, and so on). Gandhi has come good today because over the last half-century, he
turned out to be wrong.

Arms and the men

Source: By Sunanda K Datta Ray: The Telegraph
New Delhi was exultant in 1985 when a memorandum of understanding with the
United States of America promised sophisticated American military technology in
return for India in effect renouncing the bomb. Fred Iklé, the defence expert who
crafted it, was a brilliant advocate of US nuclear supremacism who spoke "with the tongue
of angels but was drawn back in every argument to the same devilish conclusion",
according to Michael Foot. George Fernandes, the lost romantic with an earthy streak of
realism, feared Iklé had "conned" Rajiv Gandhi into accepting a surrogate role that
overextended India's already strained resources.
That fear rides again amidst the expected razzmatazz of Donald Trump's visit.
Imagination boggles at Narendra Modi's promise of seven million people along the road from
Ahmedabad airport to the Motera stadium, supposedly the worlds largest. Another
100,000 spectators must assemble there for the "Namaste Trump" event to trump
Houston's "Howdy, Modi" which 50,000 applauded. Trump may have given up on a major
trade pact but must pull some other white rabbit -- a security deal perhaps or more sales --
out of his hat because whatever Barack Obama did, he does bigger and (presumably) better.
With the US presidential election due in November, he can't forget the "Joint Strategic
Vision for Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region" Obama and Modi issued in 2015.
Gamesmanship notwithstanding, India undeniably needs the US. Even Jawaharlal
Nehru conceded we should "align with the United States somewhat and build up our
economic and military strength". So, there's no question of dismissing Trump as only
Vladimir Putin's "shithouse cleaner" as Arkady, a former double agent, does in John Le
Carré's latest novel, Agent Running in the Field. "He does everything for little Vlad that little
Vlad can't do for himself: pisses on European unity… pisses on NATO.
Assures us that Crimea and Ukraine belong to the Holy Russian Empire, the
Middle East belongs to the Jews and the Saudis, and to hell with the world orderMulling
3

over that diatribe, one recalls that Trump's first presidential pilgrimage to Riyadh wasn't all
Page

diplomatic nicety. The US is in the business of selling arms, and the 2017 Saudi trip led to
DELHI: VIJAY NAGAR 9717380832 & OLD RAJENDER NAGAR 9811293743 | JAIPUR: 8290800441
BENGALURU: KORMANGALA 7619166663 & CHANDRA LAYOUT 7619136662 | BHOPAL: 7509975361
PATNA: 7463950774 | INDORE: 7314977441 | RANCHI: 9939982007 | www.ksgindia.com
EDITORIAL SERIES

immediate sales of $110 billion with $350 billion weapons contracts over 10 years. Trump's
blatant partiality for Benjamin Netanyahu's aggressive Zionism may also owe something
to Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, senior adviser, an observant Jew and, paradoxically, a
buddy of the by all accounts unsavoury MBS, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammad bin
Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
We can't adapt and adopt Le Carré's own complaint that "Britain is rolling out the
red carpet to an American President who has come to sneer at our hard-won ties with
Europe and humble the Prime Minister who invited him" for two reasons. Trump likes Modi
"a lot" and the prime minister revels in being liked. No doubt he will regale awestruck Mann
ki Baat listeners with gloating accounts of how the Sare sansar ke maalik, as Rajasthani
women dubbed Bill Clinton, graciously treated him as an equal and even let him address
the president familiarly as "Don".
Nehru's pragmatic reasons for seeking American friendship are even more valid today.
But foreign policy now being a one-man show, personal predilection takes precedence over
strategic and economic considerations. The "Green Card" syndrome mesmerizes Indians
at all levels. Pictures of Modi with the Russian and American presidents say it all. The one
with Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on December 24, 2015 shows two stony-faced men
staring unseeingly into the middle distance as they clap mechanically. Not even the
revelation that the jaunt enabled Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence to ratchet up a $6 billion
deal with Russia's state-owned Almaz-Antey corporation to develop air defence missile
systems erases the visual impression of personal distance. Putin doesn't hug or hold hands.
In contrast, Modi and Trump are shown fingers entwined, pointing, grinning and
giggling like irrepressible adolescents at the G7 summit in Biarritz. Trump at least has
good reason for celebration: Indian defence purchases from the US have soared by an
astronomical 569 per cent. Harsh Vardhan Shringla must be credited with the
understatement of the century for saying in his previous incarnation of ambassador to the
US, "We are obviously diversifying our purchases." Correspondingly, acquisitions from
Russia dropped from 76 per cent in 2008-2013 to only 58 per cent in 2013-2018.
Some landmarks along that road are George W. Bush's indisputable contribution to
legitimizing India's nuclear capability, Condoleezza Rice's magnanimous offer to make India
a "great power", Obama's grant of "Major Defence Partner" status, the 2016 pact enabling
the two militaries to use each other's assets and bases for repairs and replenishing
supplies, and, finally, the triumph of Trump's 2018 decision to rename the oldest and
largest US command "which includes 36 nations as well as both the Pacific and Indian
Oceans" Indo-Pacific Command. Headquartered in Honolulu, the Indo-Pacific Command
covers "over half of the earth's surface and its diverse populations, from Hollywood to
Bollywood, from polar bears to penguins", to quote the defence secretary, Jim Mattis.
China is the catalyst. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad, as the
strategic engagement among the US, Japan, Australia and India is named, began in 2007
when Manmohan Singh was prime minister. It was accompanied by joint military exercises
on an unprecedented scale. China's testy reaction prompted Singh to explain the Quad
wasn't "a military alliance" and "there's no question of ganging up against China".
The Quad was dormant until Singh's successor agreed with Trump and the Australian
and Japanese prime ministers to revive it against a backdrop of heightened tensions in the
South China Sea caused by China's territorial claims. There is a likelihood now of the
threat perception, underlined by Chinese stridency over Arunachal Pradesh, leading to even
more massive militarization. The 1985 memorandum prompted 7,750 Pentagon licences
for assorted military supplies, and generated 850 partnerships, 75 per cent more than in
1980. Modi's tenure has already seen purchases from the US rise to $17 billion while other
contracts, as for a $5 billion Russian S-400 mobile, long-range, surface-to-air missile
system, continue.
Despite the government's bluster, however, the Americans don't need to peer behind
Ahmedabad's slum-concealing wall or taste Air India's economy class meals on domestic
flights to understand that India is living beyond its means. They must know that the growth
rate of Indo-US trade would not have fallen from 8.4 per cent in last year's first two
quarters to a mere 4.5 per cent in the last quarter if the economy hadn't been pretty well
4

stagnant. Trade in goods and services stood at a miserable -2.3 per cent, in contrast
Page

DELHI: VIJAY NAGAR 9717380832 & OLD RAJENDER NAGAR 9811293743 | JAIPUR: 8290800441
BENGALURU: KORMANGALA 7619166663 & CHANDRA LAYOUT 7619136662 | BHOPAL: 7509975361
PATNA: 7463950774 | INDORE: 7314977441 | RANCHI: 9939982007 | www.ksgindia.com
EDITORIAL SERIES

with the 9.6 per cent growth witnessed for the year's first two quarters. The old "Make in
India" slogan associated with Congress's swadesi commitment that Modi discovered and
mouthed as if it was his own coinage can't by itself boost manufacturing. High
unemployment is partly due to demonetization's devastating impact on the informal sector.
Echoing Nehru, the late T.N. Kaul wrote somewhere, "India would like to be friendly
with the USA, but not as a surrogate or client state." That was also the burden of my
book,Waiting for America: India and the US in the New Millennium. India cannot be the
new Pakistan. It has to be an equal relationship in which the economic needs of Indians
come first. There is no glory in being the world's second largest -- some say largest --
importer of arms if you are also one of the poorest countries in the world.
A pragmatic water policy
Source: By J Harsha: The Statesman
India has had three National Water Policies (NWP) so far. The first was framed in
1987, the second in 2002 and the latest one in 2012. Government of India has now
constituted a committee for the formulation of the fourth National Water Policy; the
process is underway, and the exercise is expected to be completed in a few months. In
addition, a number of states have their own water policies applicable within their political
boundary. But despite multiple policies, the water crisis is not getting any better.
In the third decade of the 21st century, one might already be witnessing any one of
these water crises: failure of borewells; stink emanating from toxic streams in the town;
taps running dry; guzzling water tankers and unforeseen floods causing significant loss of
life and property, etc. About 600 million in India suffer from severe water crisis; and 40
per cent Indians may not have access to drinking water by 2030 according to
Government think tank NITI Aayog. 170 million people live in 66 coastal districts of India
spanning 7,500 km. They face the challenge of saline water ingress and contaminated
groundwater.
As per Central Water Pollution Board, India’s gap between sewage generation and
treatment plant stands at 60 per cent as in 2018. These are the signatures of water policies
not making significant impact in India. And that raises an important question: What ails
India’s water policies? A water policy can only be termed successful if and only if it
achieves all the goals set for itself and attracts no criticism from stakeholders. Looking at
the goals envisaged in National Water Policy – 2012, progress has been observed with
respect to National Water Informatics Centre, water conservation activities, use of
drip-sprinkler irrigation etc.
However, there is not much progress in the case of adaption and accounting of
climate change in water crisis, institutional reforms, integrated water resources
management, creation of River Basin Organisations, pollution in water bodies, dam-
induced water crisis, etc. Given the fact that NITI Aayog, a stakeholder, has outlined a
bleak water future for India, the success of NWP-2012 cannot be said to be spectacular. So,
how should next national water policy shape up? First and foremost, the formulation of
national water policy should synchronize with the state and local water policies in order to
achieve the goals or conversely, the state and local water policies should align with the
priorities attached with national water policies.
This is because the implementing agencies of water policies largely belong to
state and local governments. At present, the link between national water policy and various
states and local policies is missing. So how to establish the link between national water
policy and state water policies? As water is intricately connected to multiple sectors,
multiple and diverse agencies, the right way to link and change the pattern of behavior of
any agency so as to align them with national policy goals is through incentivisation and/or
accountability. Currently, the system of providing incentives for achievement of policy goals
is limited whereas accountability for not implementing the policy goal is absent.
This has to change in next water policy. No matter where the subject of “water” lies
in the Constitution of India, the policy goals can only be achieved with collaborative or
participatory mode rather than dictating via top-down approach from union to state to local
agencies. Second, national water policies should connect stakeholders in diverse
5

agencies vertically and laterally. This is because those professionals, practitioners,

Page

scholars and managers who work on the frontlines within and without government are
DELHI: VIJAY NAGAR 9717380832 & OLD RAJENDER NAGAR 9811293743 | JAIPUR: 8290800441
BENGALURU: KORMANGALA 7619166663 & CHANDRA LAYOUT 7619136662 | BHOPAL: 7509975361
PATNA: 7463950774 | INDORE: 7314977441 | RANCHI: 9939982007 | www.ksgindia.com
EDITORIAL SERIES

aware of the challenges to the national policy goals. Example: Scientist – B at the ground
level is aware of local challenges more than Scientist – G. Similarly, an Executive Engineer
in the command area is aware of challenges more than the Chairman of his organization.
Currently, the policy formulation process and the implementation process are
disconnected from the inputs of the knowledge and experience of professionals and
managers down the hierarchy, be it water supply utilities or pollution control or flood
forecasting. Therefore, it is not enough if water policies are formulated with only top
echelons of the government agencies. Third, the performance of the policy over time has
to be measured. For example, NITI Aayog’s Composite Water Management Index gives an
indicator of the status of water management across the states.
Similarly, an index for implementation of water policy goals across states gives a
picture of the stage of implementation of policy goals from time to time and helps in course
correction. Further, all of India’s three national water policies and various state water
policies lack a progresstracking system. If water is “elixir” of life or if water truly matters
to India right from economy to environment, then there is need to create a “centralized
delivery and tracking unit” that independently tracks and reports the progress of
implementation of policy goals to the union government.
Fourth, before embarking upon the new National Water Policy, it is essential to
conduct post-implementation reviews of the past water policies, to ascertain the goals
envisaged, the policy expectations, the goals realised and missed, and the causes of success
and failure in implementation. Such a review is necessary for NWP-2012 before
finalisation of NWP-2020. Then, the new water policy should resist the urge to be over-
optimistic or underestimate the challenges and formulation without satisfactory evidence.
For example, the large dam induced water crisis due to sedimentation and loss of live
storage is the new “invisible” crisis of the 21st century that has been severely
underestimated in water policies so far.
Last but most important, the success of any policy depends on its
implementation phase which again depends on the health of multiple agencies
transforming the policy goals into reality. Currently, India’s water organisations being the
implementing agencies are the direct descendants of colonial organisational structures be it
state WRDs or Pollution Control Boards or central agencies. The command and control
style, lack of a multi-disciplinary and water specific cadre, domination of civil engineers
with a goal of buildneglect- rebuild and sycophancy run contrary to modern water
management practices such as integrated water resources management, multidisciplinary
organisations, and hydrological unit-based scientific water management.
The lack of financial and decision- making autonomy, budgetary issues,
suppression of expert advice, misuse of colonial-inspired conduct rules destroy the
participation of frontline managers and professionals leading to gaps between policy goals
and implementation. So, any new national water policy sans reformation of water
organisations will resemble a 21st century army equipped with colonial era arms and
ammunition (like .303 Lee Enfield rifles). Hence, reformation and realignment of water
organisations in line with policy goals and strategies is the key for success of any future
national water policy. The coming two decades pose a daunting challenge to water sector in
India due to mounting population, urbanization, climate change, pollution and aging large
dams. The crisis is set to worsen under a business-asusual scenario. Hence, the next
national water policy should be more pragmatic and implementable with targets, strategies
and timelines in the best interests of the country.

Practice 1. Critically Evaluate the India’s epidemic Act which is deals in Corona
question for virus Crisis.
Mains 2. What is the Gandihian Model of Economy? How it is relevance in the
Coronavirus Pandemic situation.
3. In 21th century, India needs a pragmatic Water policy. Substantiate
with examples.
6
Page

DELHI: VIJAY NAGAR 9717380832 & OLD RAJENDER NAGAR 9811293743 | JAIPUR: 8290800441
BENGALURU: KORMANGALA 7619166663 & CHANDRA LAYOUT 7619136662 | BHOPAL: 7509975361
PATNA: 7463950774 | INDORE: 7314977441 | RANCHI: 9939982007 | www.ksgindia.com