PM IAS EDITORIAL ANALYSIS – DEC 19

Editorial 1: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act – why it fails Assam

Context

The Supreme Court, in October 2024, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, through a 4:1 majority verdict. This provision, introduced post-Assam Accord (1985), grants Indian citizenship to migrants from former East Pakistan (Bangladesh) who arrived in Assam before March 25, 1971. However, the ruling raises significant constitutional concerns, particularly regarding its impact on Assam’s indigenous population.

Key Aspects of the Judgment

Article 14 and Rational Basis

• Selective Impact: The judgment justified treating Assam distinctly due to its unique demographic and cultural challenges arising from migration, despite smaller border length (263 km) compared to states like West Bengal (2,216.7 km).
• Population Dynamics: Forty lakh migrants in Assam were deemed to have a disproportionately higher impact due to the state’s smaller population and land area.

Contradiction with Article 29

• Article 29 (Cultural Rights): The Court ruled that the influx did not significantly affect Assamese language, script, or culture.
• Inconsistent Reasoning: Despite acknowledging Assam’s cultural vulnerability under Article 14, the Court concluded that migrants did not hinder the ability of Assamese communities to conserve their cultural identity, reflecting a contradiction in reasoning.

Historical Background

• Assam Accord (1985): Section 6A was enacted to address local concerns of cultural preservation, economic strain, and political imbalance due to migration.
  • Citizenship Cut-Offs:
    • Before January 1, 1966: Migrants declared Indian citizens.
    • January 1, 1966 – March 25, 1971: Citizenship granted after 10 years of residence.
    • Post-March 25, 1971: Migrants declared illegal and subject to deportation.

Constitutional Concerns

Article 29 Violations

• The Court overlooked evidence of cultural erosion in Assam, including:
  • Demographic Shifts: Research shows a decline in Assamese-speaking population from 69.3% (1951) to 48.38% (2011), while Bengali-speaking population increased from 21.2% to 28.91% over the same period.
  • Cultural Displacement: Migration-led acculturation altered family values, social affiliations, and linguistic identities.

Temporal Unreasonableness

• Prolonged Application: Section 6A, originally designed for a specific timeframe, remains in force after 40 years, rendering it outdated and ineffective in addressing contemporary migration challenges.
• Manifest Arbitrariness: The indefinite application of the provision reflects a lack of temporal limitations, violating constitutional principles of reasonableness.

Faulty Mechanisms and Administrative Burden

Burden on State: Section 6A(3) requires the state to initiate proceedings to identify illegal immigrants without a mechanism for voluntary self-identification.

• Inefficient Tribunals:
  • The Foreigners’ Tribunals face severe backlogs and inefficiencies, with many cases involving individuals falsely claiming protection under Section 6A.
  • The absence of deadlines for referrals perpetuates administrative confusion and delays.

Implications for Assam

Erosion of Linguistic and Cultural Identity

Unchecked migration, facilitated by Section 6A, has contributed to significant demographic shifts, undermining Assamese cultural and linguistic heritage, contrary to Article 29’s intent.

Administrative Challenges

The prolonged operation of an outdated law has led to inefficiencies in governance and weakened the state’s ability to effectively address migration issues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment upholding Section 6A appears to prioritize the legal validation of the provision over addressing critical constitutional and cultural concerns. The failure to recognize the provision’s temporal unreasonableness and its impact on Assamese identity perpetuates arbitrary policies. A balanced approach is needed to safeguard Assam’s indigenous culture while ensuring constitutional fairness in addressing migration issues.

Editorial#2 Strengthening the roots of an agri-carbon market

Context

The emergence of carbon markets provides an opportunity to transform Indian agriculture by incentivizing sustainable practices and addressing climate change. However, the current carbon credit projects listed under non-governmental entities in India require a critical evaluation to ensure inclusivity, efficiency, and long-term viability.

Introduction

Carbon markets serve as a vital tool for mitigating climate change, leveraging mechanisms like carbon pricing. These markets operate in two forms:

1. Compliance Markets:
   • Regulated by governments or international bodies, such as the United Nations.
   • Imposes emissions caps on companies, requiring them to either:
     • Purchase carbon credits from projects mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (e.g., agroforestry or sustainable agriculture).
     • Pay carbon taxes for exceeding emissions limits.
2. Voluntary Markets:
   • Operate without formal regulation.
   • Organisations trade carbon credits through mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism, Verra, and Gold Standard.

Together, these markets aim to reduce GHG emissions and support global climate objectives while offering economic opportunities to stakeholders.

Carbon Markets: Current Developments

• At COP29 (November 2024), a centralized UN carbon market received approval, marking a significant step toward global climate cooperation.
• India announced plans in 2023 to establish its compliance and voluntary carbon markets.
• The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), in collaboration with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and state universities, listed five agricultural carbon credit projects under Verra.

Key principles for success:

1. Additionality: Emission reductions must result solely from carbon credit projects, requiring farmers to adopt new sustainable practices.
2. Permanence: Ensuring long-term durability of carbon storage benefits, such as maintaining soil carbon through reduced tillage practices.

Challenges in Scaling India’s Agricultural Carbon Market

1. Credibility of Carbon Credits:
   • Existing carbon credit projects under entities like Verra need scrutiny to ensure environmental benefits are achieved.
   • Unreliable credits could erode buyer confidence, halt purchases, and deprive farmers of additional income.
2. Trust and Participation:
   • High-quality carbon credits are crucial for building trust and ensuring sustained farmer participation in India’s carbon markets.

Current Status of Agricultural Carbon Projects in India

• Over 50 agricultural carbon farming projects targeting 1.6 million hectares have been listed in the Verra registry over four years.
• These projects aim to generate approximately 4.7 million carbon credits annually, equivalent to offsetting the emissions from 11 billion miles driven by gasoline-powered vehicles.
• However, none of these projects have been registered, and no carbon credits have been issued to date, leaving farmers without compensation for their carbon reduction efforts.

Insights from Carbon Farming in India

A study published in Climate Policy titled “Carbon farming in India: Are the existing projects inclusive, additional, and permanent?” analyzed seven projects in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh based on:

1. Socio-Economic Inclusiveness:
   • Marginalized communities and small farmers were underrepresented.
   • Women constituted only 4% of participants.
   • Land ownership disparities:
     • Among carbon farmers:
       • 63% of the land belonged to non-marginalized castes.
       • Only 13% was owned by Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) farmers.
     • Among non-carbon farmers:
       • 46% of the land was owned by non-marginalized castes.
       • 17% by SC/ST farmers.
2. Additionality:
   • Some sustainable practices, such as zero tillage, intercropping, reduced chemical fertilizer use, and tree planting, were newly adopted, meeting the additionality criterion.
   • These practices have shown potential for significant GHG emissions reduction.
3. Permanence:
   • Ensuring long-term adoption of sustainable practices remains a challenge, as reversion to conventional methods risks undoing the carbon storage benefits.

Way Forward

1. Inclusivity in Carbon Markets:
   • Target marginalized groups, small farmers, and women for participation.
   • Design equitable mechanisms to ensure benefits reach underrepresented communities.
2. Enhancing Credibility:
   • Establish stringent verification mechanisms to ensure high-quality carbon credits.
   • Foster transparency and accountability in carbon farming projects.
3. Policy Support:
   • Strengthen institutional support through NABARD, ICAR, and state universities.
   • Facilitate easier registration and issuance of carbon credits.
4. Capacity Building and Awareness:
   • Train farmers on sustainable practices.
   • Create awareness about the economic and environmental benefits of carbon farming.

Conclusion

India’s agricultural carbon market holds immense potential to align sustainable farming with climate goals, offering farmers a pathway to economic empowerment. However, addressing challenges of inclusivity, credibility, and permanence is essential to strengthen the foundations of this nascent market. By fostering trust, equitable participation, and robust mechanisms, India can position itself as a leader in leveraging carbon markets for sustainable development.