BOYCOTTING CHINESE GOODS: HOW PRAGMATIC IS IT?
A war hysteria is gripping the country after violent clashes between the Indian and Chinese soldiers on the Ladakh border left 20 Indian soldiers dead. Without understanding the gravity of the situation, a few media organizations are giving unnecessary advice to the government, almost encouraging the government to wage a war without showing even a modicum of concern for those who lost their lives in the recent clashes.
It is easy to issue a clarion call for a war from television studios. Soldiers who have served in the snowy terrain and waged a daily battle against the difficult climatic conditions have now returned home in coffins. It is difficult to imagine the extent of death and suffering that would ensue if India wages a war against a strong country such as China. Our ‘TV soldiers’ should stop for a moment and imagine the trail of damage and destruction a war would leave behind, going by the violence in a small-scale clash that resulted in so many deaths. These armchair soldiers should offer advice to the government only after considering the martyrs in the recent clashes as their own.
It would be wise to bear in mind that the ramifications of the war is not limited to the loss of lives of Indian soldiers but is bound to impact other aspects as well. Thousands of people of Chinese and Nepal origin are employed in India and attempts are being made to spread hatred against them. These people, who have no political affiliation with the Chinese government’s politics, have come to our country in search of livelihood. The hatred that we spew on them will result in infliction of cruelty on ourselves. Similar to how people from Nepal and China seek livelihood here, Indians have also built their lives in Nepal and China. The head of Patanjali, Balakrishna, is from Nepal and the roots of Patanjali can be traced to Nepal. Also, thousands of Indians have settled in China with hundreds of Indian students studying and living in China. If we express our intolerance towards the Chinese, Indians in China would be at the receiving end of such intolerance by the Chinese.
As we have seen in the past in such disputes with China, there is a public outcry to ban Chinese goods and the All India Traders’ Union has already submitted a memorandum to the government in this regard. BJP leaders have even asked the government to reduce imports from China. Union minister Ramdas Atavale has, in fact, asked the government to ban Chinese food. But this is not the first time that such a demand has been made. Whenever China has entered into a dispute with India, right-wing organizations have launched protests asking for such a ban. The Sangh Parivar has always been intolerant towards China owing to ideological differences.
When the Narendra Modi-led government took office, it was expected that at the behest of the RSS restrictions against China would be increased, Chinese goods would be boycotted, and emphasis would be laid on the production of goods locally. Instead, surprisingly, the Modi government opened the doors of the country to the world. From small and petty businesses to defence deals, everything was opened up.
At the same time, several profit-making local industries have been shut under the Modi regime. The credit for the total decimation of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) must also go to the Modi government with the controversial Rafeal deal contributing to the downfall of this public sector giant. Besides, several profit-making PSUs were handed over to the private sector on a platter. The slogan, ‘Make in India’, remained just that. While demonetization destroyed several small and medium-sized industries, the lockdown imposed due to the coronavirus was the second attack on the swadeshi dreams. It’s almost a crude joke that India that is in tatters economically should talk about ‘Atma Nirbhartha.’ At least, the Modi government should have kept China out of India’s economy in the last six years. Instead of doing that, the Modi government handed over several deals to the Chinese including, ironically, the contract of constructing the Rs 3,000 crore Vallabhbhai Patel Unity statue that was given to a Chinese company.
The writing on the wall is clear: The politics of emotions is different and is limited to electoral politics and border-related issues become relevant only in such situations. Industrialists and traders have no borders and treat every country the same. For the same reason, several BJP leaders are investing in major industries in Pakistan. Several BJP leaders are in the forefront of beef exports. The construction of the multi-crore Delhi-Meerut underpass project has been contracted out to a Chinese company. All these show that big industrialists neither have any religion nor are confined to any country.
Damaging a television set or destroying ten mobile sets do not mean that Chinese products can be rejected. Without changing its economic policy in its entirety, India cannot reject Chinese goods. Besides, China is not dependent on India alone and depends on India only for three per cent of its exports. India, on the other hand, relies heavily on Chinese imports as Indian industries accrue several benefits, including transportation costs, more than exports. According to an estimate, while our exports to China is to the tune of 16.7 billion dollars, our imports are to the extent of a whopping 70.3 billion dollars. Chinese companies have invested in several Indian startups including PayTM. Before rejecting any foreign items, we must focus on strengthening our foundations and encourage local manufacturing and production.
We need to ask ourselves about the alternatives that are before us if we reject foreign goods, especially Chinese goods. Atavale, who protested against Corona with the ‘Go Corona Go’ slogan, is now issuing ‘Go China Go’ statements! How can we attach any importance to the statements of Atavale who failed to understand ‘social distancing’ imposed against his own community?
The policies of the Modi government have made it impossible to completely ban Chinese goods. At the same time, the country does not have the financial might to purchase goods at a higher price from other countries. It is impossible to resolve the Ladakh border issue by merely banning Chinese goods. At the most, it could only lead to war mongering.
In the present situation, it is the responsibility of political parties and the media to show restraint and not precipitate the situation further. The all-party meeting convened on Friday should hold an honest discussion on the issue. It is easy for the opposition parties to ask the government to respond to China ‘in their own language’ through the use of force, knowing full well that the actual situation is not so simple. Instead of using the border dispute to embarrass the government, the opposition parties should guide the government appropriately. At the same time, the Modi government should not hesitate to accept the suggestions of seasoned politicians of the opposition parties.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
