Editorial
The Hindu
November 10, 2016
Updated: November 10,
2016 01:07 IST
Understanding Trumpocalypse
Donald Trump will be the 45th
President of the United States. These
words will echo in the hearts of 324 million Americans today, some
shell-shocked and downcast, others delirious with joy. The sheer divergence of
emotions over the surprise result is a poignant signal of how deeply divided
the nation is, after a polarising two-year election campaign. Bigotry,
patriarchy and racist rancour, which reared their ugly heads throughout this
season of incivility, may find no welcome catharsis with the apotheosis of Mr.
Trump. According to the exit polls, 58 per cent of whites and 21 per cent of
non-whites voted for Mr. Trump, whereas 37 per cent of whites and 74 per cent
of non-whites voted for his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. He also scored
higher with men than women, and with those voters who did not have a college degree.
In other words, blue-collared white men and women thronged to Mr. Trump in
droves, angry about their perceived impoverishment and disenfranchisement
inflicted by the country’s political and financial elites. It had left them
with only one option: to throw a metaphorical grenade at these power centres.
At the
heart of the shock result is the shock itself, which stemmed from what most
analysts have been calling the vote of the “silent majority”. Why did the U.S.
media and pollsters fail to see which way the wind was blowing? They apparently
did not suspect, when poll results suggested that Ms. Clinton was the more
acceptable candidate, that some of the respondents to these polls may have been
unwilling to admit to being supporters of Mr. Trump. It is likely for instance
that women, 42 per cent of whom voted for Mr. Trump, were reluctant to reveal
their preference after Mr. Trump was exposed for boasting about sexual assault
and faced allegations of the same. What was not taken proper note of was that
in almost every swing State, there were between 11 and 18 per cent “undecided”
voters in late October — a significant number of people that tilted the
election in favour of Mr. Trump. Insofar as this election reflected expressions
of frustration that went against the grain of political correctness, the Trump
victory resembles Brexit. However, in his victory speech Mr. Trump has appeared
to quickly move past campaign recrimination, the conciliatory tone of which may
go a little way in calming nerves at home as well as of anxious world leaders
watching the election from afar. If indeed he presents a softer, more
collaborative face at home and abroad, the Divided States of America may yet
hold firm and lend strength to the global order, as it has done in the past.
November
12, 2016
Updated: November 12,
2016 00:32 IST
Punjab’s
legislative adventurism
There
was never any doubt that Punjab’s legislative adventurism in enacting a law in
2004 to terminate all previous agreements on sharing the waters of the Ravi and
the Beas with its neighbours would not survive judicial scrutiny. Answering a
Presidential reference on the validity of Punjab’s action, the Supreme Court
has declared the State’s law illegal. It
has ruled that Punjab reneged on its solemn promises by terminating its 1981
agreement with Haryana and Rajasthan to discharge itself of the obligation to
construct the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal. Its objective was to overcome the
2004 decree passed by the Supreme Court directing it to complete the canal work
expeditiously. The court’s reasoning draws from previous verdicts relating to
the Cauvery and Mullaperiyar disputes, reiterating the principle that “a State
cannot, through legislation, do an act in conflict with the judgment of the
highest court which has attained finality.” It is another matter if legislation
takes the form of a validating Act to cure specific illegalities or one that
removes the basis for a particular verdict. The verdict by a five-member Bench
is a timely reminder that it would be destructive of the rule of law and
federalism if a State were to be allowed to usurp judicial powers by nullifying
a verdict that has rendered findings on both fact and law.
As
Punjab heads for the Assembly election, this issue has already led to posturing
by all major parties on which among them is the best protector of the State’s
interests. This attitude leads to a disturbing tendency among States to be
judges in their own cause, especially when it comes to water disputes.
Political parties in power increasingly resort to legislation or Assembly
resolutions rather than negotiation. The Opposition parties collaborate in this
with equal zeal, lest they be seen to be wanting in passion for the cause.
Punjab may well have had legitimate grievances, historically, in the sharing of
waters. This was, in fact, the reason the Rajiv-Longowal accord of 1985
contained clauses relating to river-water sharing too. Earlier, differences
were first settled by a notification by the Centre in 1976. When the matter led
to litigation, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi brokered an agreement in 1981. In
effect, the present arrangements, which Punjab seeks to wriggle out of, are
backed by three agreements. The Supreme Court ruled against Punjab in 2002 as
well as in 2004. The State’s obligation to allow the completion of the SYL Link
Canal, so that Haryana can utilise the share of water allocated to it, cannot
be frustrated any more. If Punjab feels aggrieved, there may be scope for
negotiation and conciliation even now, but it cannot take action unilaterally.
No comments:
Post a Comment