Daily Editorial Analysis for 3rd August 2021

DAILY EDITORIAL ANALYSIS (03^rd August 2021)

(Source: The Hindu, Indian Express, The Economic Times, PIB, etc.)

GS PAPER II

The hacking of Indian democracy

Why in News

• The Pegasus revelations reflect an attack on Indian democracy and Indian citizens.
• With the government in denial, a commission of inquiry by a sitting Supreme Court judge can alone unravel the mystery.
• National security is important, but it can have an impact on human rights and civil liberties. The use of surveillance has serious implications for privacy.
• But the list of people targeted prima facie shows that national security is a pretext to suppress political and societal dissent in India.

Acting according to conscience

• Pegasus is a technology sold to governments to fight terrorism. The Israeli Supreme Court, in September 1999, said in Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel that shaking, waiting in the ‘Shabach’ position, the frog crouch, excessively tight handcuffs and sleep deprivationwere illegal.
• It held that they granted General Security Service investigators “the authority to apply physical force during interrogation of suspects suspected in involvement of…terrorist activities, thereby harming suspects’ dignity and liberty”.
• Raises basic questions of law and society, of ethics and policy and of the rule of law and security.”
• We are aware that this decision does make it easier to deal with that reality. This is the destiny of a democracy… A democracy must sometimes fight with one hand tied behind its back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand.
• The rule of law and the liberty of an individual constitute important components in its understanding of security.”
• The possibility that this decision will hamper the ability to deal with terrorist and terrorism disturbs.
• NSO Group and the Indian government must be reminded of these words. In the name of fighting terrorism, democracy cannot be undermined. Indian democracy is founded with the cherished ideals enshrined in the Constitution. It belongs to the people and not to political parties.
• The surveillance of the target group raises doubts about the functioning of democracy in India. The chilling effect, if the government were to succeed, would be to turn democracy into a dictatorship.
• The government has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental and human rights of its citizens, irrespective of who they are.
• Even if the government is not complicit in the surveillance, it has miserably failed in discharging this duty. There is clear evidence that the rule of law has been undermined. More evidently, this reflects extremely poor governance.
• The Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Security Council Secretariat should have forewarned the government and citizens against such surveillance seriously violating privacy and fundamental rights.
• Their silence speaks volumes about either complicity or poor governance. This being the case, an inquiry at the highest level under the supervision of the judiciary is a constitutional necessity. If this does not take place, India will cease to call itself a democracy.
• The Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), declared privacy a constitutionally protected value.
• The right to privacy is not absolute and its curtailment can take place only under a law which is just, reasonable and fair and subject to constitutional safeguards.
• India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 12 provides that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also signed by India, in Article 17 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
• In K.S. Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court noted India’s commitments under international law and held that by virtue of Article 51 of the Constitution, India has to endeavor to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations…” The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a fallout of this commitment.

Recommendations of UNHCHR

• The annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in 2014 made fundamental observations and recommendations on “digital communications technologies”.
• It said, “by amplifying the voices of human rights defenders and providing them with new tools to document and expose abuses, these powerful technologies offer the promise of improved enjoyment of human rights.” But “communications technologies also have enhanced the capacity of Governments, enterprises and individuals to conduct surveillance, interception and data collection….”.
• Earlier, due to concerns of member states, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/167 affirming that rights held by people offline must also be protected online and called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy, including in digital communication.
• The report dealt with the role of businesses and stated that when a state requires that an information and communications technology company provide user data, it can only supply it in respect of legitimate reasons.
• Surprisingly, NSO, in its Transparency and Responsibility Report 2021, informed interested parties that it “strives to guarantee that our products are used… safely, effectively and ethically.”
• If described options available if one of its customers “has acted in bad faith, or used one of our tools to target the electronic communications of someone who falls outside the prescribed target scope.”
• It outlined the range of options available to it if this happened, including “completely ending a customer’s access to our systems, as a situation may warrant.”
• Indians have a right to call upon NSO to terminate the agreement, if any, with the Indian government or any private player and to cooperate with citizens to unravel the truth.

GS PAPER III

A disconcerting picture behind the headline numbers

Why in News

• The third annual round of the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data conducted during July 2019­June 2020 was released recently.
• The PLFS captures key indicators of the labour market such as the labour force participation rate (LFPR) — the proportion of population working or seeking work; worker­population ratio (WPR) — the proportion of population that is working; and the unemployment rate (UR) — the proportion of population in the labour force that is seeking but unable to find work. It also provides data on the earnings of different segments of workers.
• The PLFS 2019­20 was expected to provide official estimates of the labour market distress that followed dwindling GDP growth and a lockdown following the novel coronavirus pandemic that brought several economic activities to a standstill.
• The data, however, show a decline in the unemployment rate to 4.8% in 2019­20 — the lowest in three years. While the headline numbers may seem pleasing, a detailed analysis paints a rather disconcerting picture.

Falling unemployment rate

• The LFPR, WPR and UR are measured using two approaches: – usual status and current weekly status.
• The usual status considers the activity of an individual over a relatively long period during the last 365 days, whereas the current weekly status is based on activity performed during the reference period of the last seven days.
• The unemployment rate, as measured by the usual status, fell from 6.1% in 2017­18 to 4.8% in 2019­20. This is because even as the LFPR increased from 36.9% to 40.1%, the WPR increased from 34.7% to 38.2% during the same period.
• In other words, while there was an increase in the share of the population in the labour force over the last three years, there was an even higher increase in the share of those who were able to find work, and hence unemployment fell.
• A fall in the unemployment rate would be heartening, except, it seems puzzling as it comes at a time of unprecedented economic distress.
• The quarterly GDP growth declined for successive quarters, sliding from 8.2% in January­March 2018 to 3.1% in January­March 2020, after which the economy contracted by 23.9% during April­June 2020.

Workforce composition

• The PLFS categorises the workforce into self-employed (which includes own account workers, employers and unpaid helpers in family enterprises); regular wage/salaried workers and casual labourers.
• Own account workers run small enterprises without hiring any labour but may take help from family members, while employers hire workers.
• Of all the worker categories, only the proportion of unpaid family workers has gone up significantly in the last three years. In fact, between 2018 and 2019, while the workforce increased by 2.9%, the proportion of all other employment categories in the workforce declined, except unpaid family helpers.
• Over the same period, almost the entire rise in the workforce was accommodated by agriculture. Agriculture continues to perform the function of a sink — absorbing the workforce that cannot find remunerative employment elsewhere.
• There is also a gendered dimension to the changing composition of the workforce. The category of unpaid family workers is dominated by women.
• The story of the declining unemployment rate can largely be explained by a movement of women from primarily being engaged in domestic work to agriculture and other petty production activities as unpaid family helpers, possibly in the hope of increasing family income in the times of unprecedented distress and lack of alternative employment opportunities.
• The usual status is based on a loose definition of work that underestimates open unemployment. This is where the alternative measure of unemployment is relevant. Using the current weekly status approach, the unemployment rate was estimated to be 8.8%, unchanged during the last three years.

Impact of the lockdown

• The PLFS survey for April­June 2020 overlapped with the national lockdown. The current weekly status unemployment rate in this quarter was 14%, and the urban unemployment rate was around 20%.
• Corrected for inflation, the average monthly income for the salaried increased by 2% in AprilJune 2020 over April­June 2019.
• The monthly earnings of the self-employed declined by 16% and the daily wage for casual workers declined by 5.6% over the same period. The real monthly per capita consumer expenditure declined by 7.6%.
• The rise in the average income of salaried workers and the muted impact on consumer expenditure, as estimated from the PLFS, do not concur with other data for the lockdown period.
• Private final consumption expenditure declined by 26.7% in April­June 2020 over the same quarter in 2019.
• Numerous small-scale surveys also reported massive earnings loss during the lockdown. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the PLFS data may underestimate the loss of earnings and fall in consumption during the lockdown.

Strengthen statistical system

• There is no official data on poverty after 2011­12 or on farm income after 2013, and no recent data on migrant workers. While the consumer expenditure data for 2017­18 was buried, the data on situation assessment of agricultural households are not yet released, despite being conducted between January­December 2019, before the latest PLFS.
• Minor tweaks in future PLFS surveys can fill the data gaps. Currently, the PLFS captures incomes from agriculture and monthly consumer expenditure, but the questions on these aspects lack credibility.
• The predecessor to the PLFS, the National Sample Survey employment and unemployment surveys, collected data on consumer expenditure using a detailed schedule.
• There is no reason why the PLFS cannot do the same.
• Adding questions on costs and returns from cultivation and related activities can also capture more accurate data on agricultural incomes.
• Lengthening the questionnaire has its costs — but the costs of the absence of reliable and timely data on important policy relevant indicators are far higher.