INDIA

75th Anniversary of Constitution and Ambedkar’s Warning

S N Sahu | 27 Nov 2024

Comprehensive cultivation of constitutional morality is needed to defend the Constitution and save it from those trying to tear it apart.

While celebrating the 75th anniversary of the adoption and enactment of the Constitution of India on November 26, it is of seminal significance to be mindful of the concerns expressed by B R Ambedkar to make the Constitution more intensely relevant for Indian society marked by persistent social and economic inequalities. He, in tune with the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly, was a powerful protagonist of a secular India, primarily to avert what he called the Hindu Raj which he said would be a calamity for the country.

Ambedkar’s Warning on War on Muslims

It is rather atrocious that Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wielding power and governing the country by securing the mandate of the people, are spreading hatred in the name of religion and unleashing anger and acrimony against the minorities, especially Muslims.

Had Ambedkar been alive, he would have been aghast to see the ill- treatment meted out to Muslims, especially in the BJP-ruled states, as well as the incendiary speeches delivered by Hindutva leaders, calling for committing genocide against them and robbing their social and economic entitlements.  All such tragic happenings are occurring without a murmur of protest from high constitutional functionaries hailing from BJP.  

Such incidents taking place when the 75th anniversary of the Constitution is being celebrated, are a grim reminder of Ambedkar’s  warning in the Constituent Assembly on December 17, 1946, that the way some people talked about Hindu-Muslim issues with bitterness and rancour that time, gave an impression that they were waging a war against Muslims.

Ambedkar had sternly cautioned that “…if there is anybody who has in his mind the project of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem by force, which is another name of solving it by war… in order that the Muslims may be subjugated”, he feared “[t]his country would be involved in perpetually conquering, them”. He, therefore, urged people in power to exercise it with wisdom.  Those words resonate in India today, which is in the grip of polarisation in the name of religion.

Attack on the Sambhal Mosque

On the eve of the 75th anniversary of the Constitution, toxicity was spewed in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal to provoke Muslims who protested against slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ in front of the Jama Masjid that was being surveyed on the orders of the court. It was a mosque built several centuries back and its status as an Islamic shrine is protected by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The Act prohibits conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947. Five of the protesting Muslims lost their lives allegedly by police firing.  

 SC Ruling Against Bulldozer Justice

In most BJP-ruled states, demolition of houses of persons, specifically of Muslims, accused of some offences has shaken judicial conscience so much that the Supreme Court, in its judgement on November 10, 2024, a good 16 days before the 75th anniversary of the Constitution, described the so-called ‘bulldozer justice’ rendered by demolishing the houses of the accused as unknown to the civilised societies and held it to be “lawless, ruthless state of affairs.”

The top court noted that the “bulldozer demolitions carried out by state authorities subverted the authority of courts as it essentially took up an adjudicatory role to determine the guilt of an accused person and punish them…In that way, it denigrated the separation of powers”.

Justice B R Gavai of the apex court, who was part of the bench which delivered the judgement, noted that “bulldozer demolitions violated natural justice, the citizen’s right to shelter and inflicted collective punishment on the family of the accused”.

Such bulldozing of houses of persons merely accused of offences meant bulldozing the Constitution, which is the repository of the rights and liberties of people.

Institutional Collapse of ECI

Time and again, questions are being raised about the impartiality and neutrality of the Election Commission of India (ECI) while conducting elections. Recall that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Rajiv Kumar, accused of following in the footsteps of the Modi regime, supported the anonymity of donors paying huge amounts under the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) to political parties in violation of the Supreme Court judgement that declared the EBS as unconstitutional. 

Read Also: People Making ‘Save Constitution’ an Electoral Issue Bodes Well for Country

Such a conduct by the CEC has created an impression that he is kowtowing to the executive in violation of the constitutionally prescribed independence it is mandated to uphold. The way CEC Kumar is behaving proves the apprehensions of Ambedkar, expressed in the Constituent Assembly on June 16, 1949, that in the absence of any provision in the Constitution to prevent the appointing of either a fool or a knave as Election Commissioner, it would be likely that the ECI would come under the thumb of the executive.

Tragically, the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners have come under the thumb of the executive. Such institutional collapse represented by ECI’s compromised functioning has endangered the Constitution beyond measure. This was also manifested in the observations of the Supreme Court in November 2022, when its  five-judge Bench, headed by Justice K.M. Joseph, while hearing pleas challenging the constitutionality of the present appointment process of the CEC and other election commissioners, contended that the appointments were being done as per the whims of the executive.

The bench had then said: "The country needs election commissioners who would not shirk from even taking on the Prime Minister if required, and not just weak-kneed yes-men."

Constitutional Morality

It is sad that on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Constitution, the country’s ECI is far from the vision articulated by the apex court. It has shown no guts in holding Prime Minister Modi accountable for his recurrent Islamophobic speeches while appealing to people to vote for his party, BJP.  This certainly does not augur well for the future of our democracy and Constitution.

Read Also: Over 17,400 Citizens Write to EC, Seek Action Against PM Modi for Hate Speech

Ambedkar in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, had underlined the necessity of comprehensive cultivation of constitutional morality at every level for the successful working of the Constitution.

Safeguarding the independence of the institutions set up by the Constitution is part of the long-drawn process of continuously cultivating constitutional morality. That the people, during the conduct of the 18th general elections, came forward to save the Constitution from the onslaught of the Modi regime, raises hope that they will further save it and defend it from the powers that be, who are bent upon tearing it apart.

S N Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K R Narayanan. The views are personal.

https://plawiuk.blogspo.com/search?q=DALIT

 INDIA

Defining Socialism: Equality of Opportunities is Pivotal

Prabhat Patnaik | 30 Nov 2024

• 
  
• 
  

The CJI’s observations on socialism are welcome, but a welfare state in the era of neoliberalism and rising privatisation sounds contradictory.

Hearing a petition on November 22 to remove the term “socialism” from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) made two significant observations: first, the term “socialism” in the Preamble of the Constitution is used not in any doctrinaire sense but refers rather to a welfare state that ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens.

Second, “socialism” in this sense is part of the basic structure of the Constitution; it is not just an add-on to the Preamble but rather something that permeates the very essence of what we want the Indian republic to be.

The CJI refrained from giving “socialism” an institutional character. All over the world, the term “socialism” has been taken to mean social ownership of the means of production, at least of the key means of production. But the CJI, defining “socialism” in terms of outcome rather than the institution of ownership, suggested that private enterprise was not incompatible with “socialism”; what really mattered was the creation of a welfare state ensuring equality of opportunity for all citizens.

The institutional definition of socialism, in terms of the ownership of the means of production, is pervasively used because social ownership is considered a necessary condition for ensuring a welfare state with equality of opportunity. The CJI, however, suggested that this outcome could be obtained even without the institution of social ownership.

To be sure, socialism is not concerned only with creating a welfare state with equality of opportunity; its objective is more far-reaching, namely to create a new community by transcending the state of fragmentation into atomised individuals that capitalism brings to a society. 

But the new community must also be characterised by a welfare state with equality of opportunity; the point is whether such a welfare state with equality of opportunity can be achieved even without social ownership of the means of production.

We believe that it cannot; but we shall not, apart from citing some obvious instances of contradiction between private enterprise and equality of opportunity, enter into this debate here. Rather, we would urge the Supreme Court to adhere to the CJI’s commitment to equality of opportunity and examine what a society characterised by equality of opportunity would have to look like.

This becomes important because nobody can possibly argue that the current Indian society, with its increasing concentration of wealth on the one hand, and growing unemployment and nutritional poverty on the other, is moving in the direction of ensuring equality of opportunity; but then the question arises: what are the markers of such a move toward equality of opportunity?

Clearly there can be no equality of opportunity in a world where there is unemployment, or what Karl Marx had called a reserve army of labour. The incomes of the unemployed are much lower than those of the employed, even if the former get an unemployed allowance. The children of the unemployed, therefore, would suffer from deprivations of various kinds that would make equality of opportunity between them and the children of others an impossibility.

Quite apart from the economic inequality arising from unemployment, there is also the stigma of unemployment, the loss of self-worth on the part of the unemployed, which necessarily makes for a traumatised childhood for the progeny of the unemployed. Such trauma can be eliminated, which is a must for equality of opportunity, only if unemployment itself is eliminated.

One way of overcoming the economic deprivation arising from unemployment would be to have the unemployed earning the same wage rate as the employed, that is, making the unemployment allowance equal to the wage-rate. But this is not possible in an economy with private enterprise.

The existence of unemployment acts as a disciplining device on the workers, not just under capitalism, but in any economy where there is a significant private sector. Because of this, the unemployed earning the same wage as the employed, or, put differently, the unemployment allowance being the same as the wage rate, would be unacceptable in such an economy, for it would then remove this disciplining device. The “sack” would lose all its punitive force, as would be the case too if there is actual full employment.

The first contradiction between equality of opportunity on the one hand, and private enterprise on the other, arises, therefore, on the question of unemployment. But whether the CJI would agree with it or not, he must recognise at least that the existence of unemployment is a barrier to equality of opportunity.

The second obvious requirement of equality of opportunity is the total elimination of, or at least a very substantial reduction in, the scope for inheriting wealth. A billionaire’s son and a worker’s son can hardly be said to have equality of opportunity if the former inherits his father’s billions.

In fact, even bourgeois economics which attributes capitalists’ profits, and hence wealth, to their having some special quality that others lack, cannot defend inheritance, for it goes against this very argument of “wealth-because-of-some-special-quality”.

This is why most capitalist countries have high inheritance taxation, the rate in Japan being 55%, and in other major countries around 40%. In India, amazingly, there is no inheritance taxation, which flies in the face of equality of opportunity.

The third requirement of equality of opportunity is that, quite apart from inheritance being proscribed, wealth differences themselves should be minimised. Wealth brings power, including political and social power, and a society where power is unevenly distributed, can hardly be said to provide equal opportunity to all. Hence, quite apart from the fact that wealth should not be allowed to get passed on to children, the effects of wealth in the form of providing an undue advantage to children during the parent’s life-time, must be prevented, for which wealth differences must be minimised. And exactly the same holds for income differences, which should also be minimised if equality of opportunity is to be ensured.

The fourth obvious requirement is that economic inequality must not be allowed to impinge on the educational qualification or the level of skill acquisition of the progeny. This, in turn, requires that the access to education and skill acquisition must be equalised for all, through a public education system that provides training of the highest quality, either free or at an extremely nominal price affordable by all.

Far from the privatisation that has been occurring in the sphere of education in our country and elsewhere under neoliberalism, which makes a mockery of equality of opportunity by excluding vast numbers of students from its ambit, there should be a universalisation of high-quality and fully-affordable public education.

In fact, even when there is such a public education system, as long as expensive private institutions exist there may be a false prestige associated with them that subverts equality of opportunity by favouring recruitment from such institutions. This has to be countered by ensuring that private institutions, if they exist, charge no higher fees than public ones. They can in short only be charitable institutions.

The fifth requirement relates to healthcare, where exactly the same considerations apply. The provision of universal high-quality healthcare, through a National Health Service under the aegis of the government, that is entirely free or demands a nominal price affordable by all, is an essential condition for equality of opportunity.

These are some absolutely obvious and yet minimal requirements for ensuring equality of opportunity. The fact that post-war social democracy, which bult up a welfare state in the advanced capitalist countries, and used Keynesian demand management to keep unemployment down to a minimum (around 2% in Britain in the early 1960s), neither succeeded in achieving genuine equality of opportunity, nor could prove to be a durable achievement (it collapsed because of the inflationary crisis of the late 1960s and the early 1970s) is significant: it shows the impossibility of achieving equality of opportunity in a society that continues to be divided along class lines.

The inflationary crisis that consumed the welfare state was a result of the high employment rate and also of the loss of that complete control over primary commodity producers in distant lands which had been provided earlier under colonialism to the metropolis. These developments intensified class conflict and inflation was the result.

It is only in a society where class antagonisms do not exist because the means of production are socially owned, that there can be genuine equality of opportunity.

But let us not argue on this issue. Let the Supreme Court remain committed to the provision of a welfare state with equality of opportunity. Any steps in that direction, even though short of socialism, should be welcome to all socialists.

Prabhat Patnaik is Professor Emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views are personal.

PSUs: Open Market Entities or Public Good?

Soumya Thakur | 21 Nov 2024

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

To view public sector undertakings at par with private enterprises subject to competition laws goes against the grain of their purpose in a socialist democracy.

The central premise of public sector undertakings (PSUs) in India, such as the Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL), is rooted in socialist ideology— a vision where the State, through ownership and operation of critical industries, guarantees equitable access to resources and fosters national development.

In such a system, these enterprises are not mere market participants but crucial agents of social welfare and economic justice. Yet, the introduction and application of competition law— most notably, the Competition Act of 2002— gives rise to an essential question, does the regulation of PSUs through competition law undermine their socialist foundation, or can it serve as a necessary check on State power?

Public sector undertakings and the socialist framework

In a socialist economy, the State occupies a central role, controlling industries not for profit maximisation but for social welfare. PSUs were created in this image, to counter the inherent inequalities of the market and ensure that critical resources remain in public hands.

Their purpose is not to compete with private firms but to shield essential sectors— such as steel, coal, or oil— from the volatility of the free market and the pressures of private profit.

In a socialist economy, the State occupies a central role, controlling industries not for profit maximisation but for social welfare.

The State's ownership of key industries in a socialist framework serves specific purposes: addressing market failures, correcting historical regional disparities, and providing employment.

The role of the State here is not a passive one; it actively directs economic growth toward these larger social goals. And yet, the objectives of socialism stand in an inherent tension with the core principles of competition law, which emphasises market efficiency, consumer choice and the dismantling of monopolies.

Competition law’s framework

India’s Competition Act, 2002, was borne out of the broader shift towards liberalisation. It seeks to create a level-playing field by preventing monopolistic behavior, protecting consumer interests and fostering competition.

The Act does not distinguish between private and public enterprises in its enforcement, subjecting PSUs such as SAIL to the same scrutiny as private players. This raises a critical question: should PSUs, whose very existence stems from a desire to avoid market imperatives, be treated as market actors under competition law?

At first glance, the logic seems paradoxical. These entities were created to achieve goals that often require non-competitive behavior— whether it is price controls, employment generation or ensuring universal access to resources.

To subject PSUs to competition law, then, might seem to impose free-market principles on institutions designed to operate outside of those very principles.

The socialist critique of competition law’s application to PSUs

The socialist critique of applying competition law to PSUs begins with a basic premise: public sector enterprises are not just another market participant, but instruments of State policy, created to address market failures and fulfill objectives far beyond market efficiency.

Treating PSUs like private enterprises undermines their ability to act as agents of social justice and economic equality.

The State's ownership of key industries in a socialist framework serves specific purposes: addressing market failures, correcting historical regional disparities, and providing employment.

State monopolies and public interest

A socialist defence of PSUs hinges on the idea that State monopolies are not problematic, as the State— unlike a private firm— is supposed to act in the public interest.

PSUs are intended to deliver essential services, often in sectors where introducing competition would lead to unequal outcomes. For example, SAIL’s role in providing affordable steel domestically could be compromised if competition law forces it to act like a private firm, maximising profit over public service.

Efficiency versus social goals

While competition law prioritises efficiency, it is important to recognise that this goal can conflict with the socialist commitment to equity and national development.

For instance, a PSU might engage in price regulation or employment practices that appear inefficient in a competitive market but serve critical social objectives. Competition law, in targeting such behaviors, risks undermining the purpose of PSUs themselves.

Accountability or overreach?

However, the application of competition law could also be seen as introducing accountability. PSUs, shielded from market pressures, can become inefficient or complacent monopolies that fail to serve the public interest.

In this sense, competition law could prevent PSUs from becoming exploitative or inefficient, but is it justifiable to impose private sector standards of accountability on institutions designed with entirely different mandates?

Finding a balance: Public welfare and market regulation

The Supreme Court’s decision in Competition Commission of India versus Steel Authority of India Ltd (CCI versus SAIL) lays bare the sharp tensions between neoliberal market principles and the socialist foundations of public sector undertakings (PSUs) in India.

Treating PSUs like private enterprises undermines their ability to act as agents of social justice and economic equality.

In CCI versus SAIL, the court unequivocally held that PSUs are not immune from the scrutiny of competition law, ruling that they must adhere to the same regulatory framework as private enterprises and that market fairness, defined by principles of competition law, supersedes the public nature of an enterprise.

This decision, however, calls for a critical interrogation from a socialist standpoint, which fundamentally challenges the market-driven assumptions embedded in the ruling.

Legal details of CCI versus SAIL

In CCI versus SAIL (2010), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated an inquiry against SAIL, alleging that it had abused its dominant position in the market by supplying steel to Indian Railways.

The case revolved around Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act of 2002, which prohibit anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of dominance, respectively. The issue was whether SAIL, as a PSU tasked with fulfilling a public interest mandate, should be subjected to the same competition laws as private entities.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that PSUs are not exempt from competition law, emphasising that the objective of competition law is to protect consumer welfare and prevent monopolistic practices, irrespective of whether the entity is publicly or privately owned.

The court’s decision hinged on the idea that even State-owned enterprises could abuse their dominant positions to the detriment of consumers and market fairness, thereby justifying their regulation under the Competition Act.

The decision further clarified the procedural aspects of CCI investigations, holding that the CCI was not required to issue a formal show-cause notice before initiating an inquiry under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.

This marked a significant shift in the way competition law applies to PSUs, reinforcing the idea that public enterprises must be held accountable to market principles in the same way as private firms.

In CCI versus SAIL, the court unequivocally held that PSUs are not immune from the scrutiny of competition law.

A socialist critique: A neoliberal blindspot

At first glance, the ruling seems grounded in sound legal reasoning— competition law exists to prevent the abuse of dominance and State monopolies, much like private ones, could potentially harm consumer interests.

But a socialist critique exposes a deeper, more fundamental flaw in this logic: the assumption that PSUs and private enterprises operate within the same normative framework.

The court's decision, in effect, ignores the fact that PSUs such as SAIL are not merely market actors but instruments of State policy, designed to achieve broader social objectives, including equity, regional development and access to essential goods.

By subjecting PSUs to the same competition laws as private entities, the court risks undermining these very objectives.

The mechanisms of accountability for public enterprises should be distinct from those applied to private enterprises, reflecting the fundamentally different roles they play in the economy.

Erosion of social mandates

PSUs, by their nature, are meant to pursue public welfare, often at the expense of market efficiency. SAIL, for instance, may prioritise ensuring the domestic availability of affordable steel for infrastructure projects over maximising profits.

This is not a market failure but a conscious policy decision aimed at national development. The court’s failure to distinguish between the motivations behind public and private enterprises reveals a neoliberal bias that assumes market efficiency is the only legitimate standard.

But efficiency is not always aligned with the public good. In sectors like steel, energy, or railways, the objective might be ensuring equitable access or employment generation, even if these goals result in practices that appear anti-competitive by market standards.

False equivalence between public and private monopolies

The court’s assertion that State monopolies can be just as harmful as private ones is misleading. It equates the predatory practices of private monopolies— driven by profit maximisation— with the operations of PSUs, which are supposed to operate in the public interest.

The logic underpinning competition law is that monopolistic behaviour is detrimental because it is motivated by profit-driven exploitation. PSUs, however, exist precisely to avoid such exploitation.

Their monopolistic position, far from being inherently harmful, is often essential to their role in safeguarding public welfare, especially in sectors critical to national infrastructure. The decision to subject PSUs to competition law, without acknowledging this difference, fundamentally distorts the purpose of State ownership.

Dilution of State power in critical sectors

The ruling also reflects an ongoing trend of diluting State control over key sectors under the guise of market fairness. In a socialist framework, the State’s role is to intervene where market forces fail to ensure equity, access and employment.

By treating PSUs like private enterprises, the court inadvertently strengthens the neoliberal project of shrinking the State’s role in the economy. This is particularly dangerous in sectors such as steel or energy, where State intervention has historically played a critical role in ensuring that national resources are used for the broader public good, rather than being subjected to the whims of market forces.

The path forward: Socialist regulation, not market competition

The critique of CCI versus SAIL does not imply that PSUs should operate without accountability. Indeed, socialist governance also demands that public enterprises remain efficient and responsive to public needs.

However, the mechanisms of accountability should be distinct from those applied to private enterprises, reflecting the fundamentally different roles they play in the economy.

Rather than subjecting PSUs to the free-market principles enshrined in competition law, a socialist framework might advocate for a different form of regulation— one that ensures transparency, efficiency and public accountability, but does not force PSUs to compete in a market they were never designed to inhabit.

This could involve the creation of a separate regulatory framework that recognises the unique social mandates of PSUs, focusing on public welfare rather than consumer choice or market efficiency.

Such a framework could impose stricter oversight on PSUs to ensure that they remain focused on their public service objectives, while also preventing the inefficiencies and complacencies that often plague State-owned enterprises. But this regulation must be rooted in the socialist ideals that justify State ownership in the first place, not in the market-driven logic of competition law.

Conclusion: Competition law as a tool of neoliberalism

The Supreme Court’s decision in CCI versus SAIL reflects a deeper ideological shift in India’s economic governance— a shift that prioritises market competition over the socialist foundations of public sector enterprises.

From a socialist perspective, this is a dangerous erosion of the State’s ability to protect public welfare through ownership and control of key industries. By applying competition law to PSUs, the court not only ignores the unique role of public enterprises but also accelerates the neoliberal dismantling of State intervention in the economy.

The path forward lies in a more nuanced approach to regulation— one that recognises the distinct social objectives of PSUs and holds them accountable, not to market principles, but to the public good. In doing so, we might reclaim the role of the State as a protector of equity and justice, rather than a mere market participant.

Courtesy: The Leaflet

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Gautam Adani breaks silence on US indictment to say his group is committed to compliance

Reuters 

 November 30, 2024 

Adani Group founder Gautam Adani responded for the first time on Saturday to allegations by US authorities that he was part of a $265 million bribery scheme, saying that his ports-to-power conglomerate was committed to world class regulatory compliance.

The indictment is the second major crisis to hit Adani in just two years, sending shockwaves across India and beyond. One Indian state is reviewing a power deal with the group, France’s TotalEnergies decided to pause its investments and political rows over Adani have disrupted India’s parliament.

“Less than two weeks back, we faced a set of allegations from the US about compliance practices at Adani Green Energy. This is not the first time we have faced such challenges,” Adani said in a live-streamed speech at an awards ceremony.

“What I can tell you is that every attack makes us stronger and every obstacle becomes a stepping stone for a more resilient Adani Group,” Adani said in the northern Indian city of Jaipur.

Adani Group has denied the US allegations, describing them as “baseless” and vowing to seek “all possible legal recourse”.

“In today’s world, negativity spreads faster than facts, and as we work through the legal process, I want to re-confirm our absolute commitment to world-class regulatory compliance,” Adani said in his speech, without giving further details.

Adani Group’s finance chief on Friday rejected the allegations, while the Indian government said it has not received any US request regarding the case.

At one point, Adani Group’s listed companies saw as much as $34 billion wiped off their combined market value, but the stocks have recovered ground as some partners and investors have rallied behind the conglomerate.

Fitch Prepares to Downgrade Adani Bonds Amid Bribery Scandal

By Irina Slav - Nov 26, 2024


Fitch Ratings has put some of Adani Group’s bonds on watch in preparation for a potential downgrade amid a bribery scandal that shook one of India’s largest industrial conglomerates.

Last week, U.S. prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched probes into the company on allegations Gautam Adani’s renewable energy arm had been giving bribes to local Indian government officials to secure solar power purchase contracts.

“As alleged, the defendants orchestrated an elaborate scheme to bribe Indian government officials to secure contracts worth billions of dollars and Gautam S. Adani, Sagar R. Adani, and Vneet S. Jaain lied about the bribery scheme as they sought to raise capital from U.S. and international investors,” stated Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Since then, Kenya has canceled deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars with Adani’s companies and TotalEnergies has suspended any new investments in joint energy projects with Adani Group.

Now, Fitch is downgrading the company’s debt. Indeed, the ratings on senior unsecured dollar bonds issued by four Adani subsidiaries were downgraded to negative from stable because of the U.S. indictment, Reuters reported today.

The Fitch move follows a similar one by S&P Global Ratings, which on Friday downgraded three Adani Group companies, flipping its outlook for them to negative from stable.

According to the allegations made against the Indian billionaire, his nephew and several others, they had spent $265 million on bribes for local government officials to secure commitments for purchasing solar power from Adani Green Energy. The commitments would have generated estimated profits of about $2 billion over the next two decades.

Further allegations said that Adani and the rest of the group secured some $3 billion in funding from investors and bondholders for the advancement of their solar power plans without disclosing the bribery scheme.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

TURKIYE'S  MERCENARIES

Syrian army confirms rebels enter Aleppo, says dozens of soldiers killed

Reuters 

 November 30, 2024

Syrian opposition fighter takes a picture with his mobile phone as he stands at Saadallah al-Jabiri Square, after rebels opposed to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad said they had reached the heart of Aleppo, Syria on November 30. — Reuters

The Syrian military said on Saturday that rebels had entered large parts of Aleppo city during an offensive in which dozens of soldiers were killed, forcing the army to redeploy — the biggest challenge to President Bashar al-Assad in years.

The surprise attack led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has jolted the frontlines of the Syrian civil war that have largely been frozen since 2020, reviving fighting in a corner of the fractured country near the Turkish border.

The army said it was preparing a counteroffensive to restore state authority. Acknowledging the rebel advance, the Syrian army command said insurgents had entered large parts of Aleppo, which had been under full state control since government forces backed by Russia and Iran drove rebels out eight years ago.

Images from Aleppo showed a group of rebel fighters gathered in the city’s Saadallah al-Jabiri Square after entering the city overnight, a billboard of Assad looming behind them.

Syrian opposition fighters gather at Saadallah al-Jabiri Square after rebels opposed to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad said they had reached the heart of Aleppo, Syria on November 30. — Reuters

“I am the son of Aleppo and was displaced from it eight years ago, in 2016. Thank God we just returned. It is an indescribable feeling,” said Ali Jumbaa, a rebel fighter, television footage showed.

The Syrian military command said militants had attacked in large numbers and from multiple directions, prompting “our armed forces to carry out a redeployment operation aimed at strengthening the defence lines in order to absorb the attack, preserve the lives of civilians and soldiers, and prepare for a counterattack”.

The army said that the rebels had entered large parts of Aleppo but army bombardment had stopped them from establishing fixed positions. It promised to “expel them and restore the control of the state … over the entire city and its countryside”.

Two rebel sources said the insurgents had also captured the city of Maraat al Numan in Idlib province, bringing all of that province under their control, in what would be another significant blow to Assad.

The fighting revives the long-simmering Syrian conflict as the wider region is roiled by Israel’s invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, where a truce between Israel and the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah took effect on Wednesday.

The attack was launched from insurgent-held areas of northwestern Syria that remain outside Assad’s grasp.

Two Syrian military sources said that Russian and Syrian warplanes targeted insurgents in an Aleppo suburb today.

Speaking on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow regarded the rebel attack as a violation of Syria’s sovereignty. “We are in favour of the Syrian authorities bringing order to the area and restoring constitutional order as soon as possible,” he said.

The Syrian Civil Defence, a rescue service operating in opposition-held parts of Syria, said in a post on X that the Syrian government and Russian aircraft carried out airstrikes on residential neighbourhoods, a gas station and a school in rebel-held Idlib, killing four civilians and wounding six others.

The two Syrian military sources said Russia has promised Damascus extra military aid that would start arriving in the next 72 hours. Authorities closed Aleppo airport and roads to the city, the two military sources and a third army source said.

The Syrian army has been told to follow “safe withdrawal” orders from the main areas of the city that the rebels had entered, the three military sources said.
Iran’s Role in the Region

The rebels, including factions backed by Turkiye, said on Friday their fighters were sweeping through various Aleppo neighbourhoods.

Mustafa Abdul Jaber, a commander in the Jaish al-Izza rebel brigade, said their speedy advance had been helped by a lack of Iran-backed manpower to support the government in the broader Aleppo province.

Iran’s allies in the region have suffered a series of blows at the hands of Israel as Israel’s invasion of Gaza has expanded through the Middle East.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, in a phone call with his Syrian counterpart on Friday, accused the United States and Israel of being behind the insurgent attack.

The opposition fighters have said the campaign was in response to stepped-up strikes in recent weeks against civilians by the Russian and Syrian air forces on areas of Idlib province, and to preempt any attacks by the Syrian army.

Opposition sources in touch with Turkish intelligence said Turkiye, which supports the rebels, had given a green light to the offensive. Turkish officials were not immediately available to comment on Saturday.

Turkiye’s foreign ministry said on Friday that the clashes between rebels and government forces had resulted in an undesirable escalation of tensions.

In a statement, spokesperson Oncu Keceli said that avoiding greater instability in the region was Turkiye’s priority, adding that Ankara had warned that recent attacks on Idlib undermined the spirit and implementation of de-escalation agreements.

More than 130 killed as Syrian rebels seize territory from army in Aleppo province

TikTok to ban beauty filters for users under 18 over mental health concerns

The social media platform also announced it was tightening systems to block users under the age of 13

.
Images Staff
29 Nov, 2024

DAWN

Popular social media platform TikTok will soon impose restrictions on teenagers using beauty filters that alter their appearance in an attempt to address concerns about how these filters impact mental health.

According to The Guardian, users under the age of 18 will, in the coming weeks, be blocked from artificially making their eyes bigger, plumping their lips, and smoothing or changing their skin tone.

The restrictions will apply to filters — such as “Bold Glamour” — that alter people’s features in a way that makeup cannot. However, comic filters, such as those that add bunny ears or dog noses, will remain unaffected, the publication reported.

The move comes after widespread concern that beauty filters place pressure on young users, especially girls, to adhere to unachievable standards of beauty. Failing to look like a filtered version of yourself also often has a negative impact on teenagers’ mental health.

A press release by TikTok stated that they commissioned a report from UK-based not-for-profit organisation Internet Matters to examine the role of online platforms in shaping teens’ identity and relationships.

“The final report, ‘Unfiltered: The Role of Authenticity, Belonging and Connection’, […] identified new insights about teens’ use of effects and the impact this has on their sense of self. A clear distinction was drawn between effects designed to be obvious and funny (eg animal ear effects) and effects designed to alter your appearance. Specifically, teens and parents raised concerns about ‘appearance’ effects, including that those viewing the content might not realise it had been altered.”

Additionally, the platform will provide more information about how an effect might change a user’s appearance if applied. “This is in addition to already proactively letting users know when certain effects have been used on content.”

TikTok will also refresh resources for people developing filters to enhance awareness and understanding of some of the unintended outcomes that certain filters may pose.

“By fostering a culture of authenticity, respect and support, we can create a digital world where everyone feels empowered to be their true self.”

TikTok also announced it was tightening its systems to block users under 13 from the platform. Before the end of the year, it will launch a trial of new automated systems that use machine learning to detect people cheating its age restrictions, The Guardian reported.

The platform said every month, it removes six million accounts globally because the minimum age requirement was not met.

It detailed that it was exploring how new machine learning technology could better efforts to prevent people under 13 from being on the platform.

“This technology will help detect accounts that may belong to someone under 13 so that a specially trained moderator can review the account and remove it if they believe someone doesn’t meet our minimum age.”

However, people will be able to make an appeal if they think TikTok has made a mistake.