The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Human Rights

  • The DNA Bill And State Capacity

    The DNA Bill And State Capacity

    Aristotle suggested that transmission of heredity was essentially the transmission of information. And this information was used to build an organism from scratch inside the female womb. Although the science is primitive, he was right in how information is transmitted from parents to their offspring. Modern genetics is built on studying such information, which has been coded into each cell as DNA. Scientists can now sequence the DNA and extract valuable information about each individual and the human species. They have been able to use such information to understand humans better; for example, the identification of BRCA mutation responsible for cancer has nudged great strides in cancer biology. Another important application which has varied implications in society is the use of DNA in forensics. Although already in use since its discovery in 1995, the exponential rise in the significance of information extracted using DNA Profiling warrants regulation.

    All major nations which use DNA Profiling have legislation in place to regulate the use of the technology. However, in India, the technology is unregulated even though successive governments have worked on such legislation since 2003.

    DNA Technology Bill

    All major nations which use DNA Profiling have legislation in place to regulate the use of the technology. However, in India, the technology is unregulated even though successive governments have worked on such legislation since 2003. If global examples are not enough, the 2017 Puttaswamy judgement has made such legislation necessary. The judgement asserted that privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and that the right to privacy includes protection over the physical body. Therefore, for the State to collect or store DNA data, a legislative mechanism principled on necessity and proportionality is requisite.

    DNA testing is being done on a very limited scale in India. About 30-40 DNA experts are working in 15-18 laboratories. They can process only about 2-3% of the total need, and even such limited testing is unregulated and unmonitored. According to the NCRB data for 2018, although 85% of rape accused have been charge-sheeted, the conviction rate for rape is just 27.2%. This technology, however, has an excellent record of increasing conviction rates; for example, a 2006 UK parliamentary report suggested that detection of crime increased from a mere 26% to a healthy 40% after they loaded DNA samples into a national database. Apart from crime detection, the technology will also help in the identification of over six million missing persons in India. Thus, legislation facilitating DNA technology to help expedite justice is long overdue.

    The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Bill 2019 is the latest form of the DNA bill and is at the parliamentary committee stage for further deliberations. The bill talks of a national DNA data bank and a DNA regulatory board to store DNA data and regulate DNA technology used in criminal and civil cases. The bill in its current form has raised many concerns including privacy issues concerning the use of DNA data, the ‘perfunctory consent’ clause which makes it hard for an individual to deny permission to collect his/her data, ethical issues in collecting and storing DNA data in DNA banks, the fear of caste-based criminal profiling because of the endogamous nature of Indian society and so on. But the biggest concern is one of state capacity, which in a way umbrellas other concerns.

    The bill in its current form has raised many concerns including privacy issues concerning the use of DNA data, the ‘perfunctory consent’ clause which makes it hard for an individual to deny permission to collect his/her data, ethical issues in collecting and storing DNA data in DNA banks, the fear of caste-based criminal profiling because of the endogamous nature of Indian society and so on.

    Problems with State Capacity

    In young nations like India, the State, although large and bloated, is not highly efficient. This may cause even government interventions with noble intentions to backfire. Therefore, it is necessary to identify places where a lack of state capacity could cause worry for the legislation to work effectively.

    We could sum three basic concerns up from the DNA Technology bill concerning state capacity. First, the high cost of technology and the lack of basic technical training regarding data collection in a crime scene. Second, the backlog burden in the Justice system. And finally, the lack of clarity in the bill as to what is being collected and stored.

    The India Justice Report 2019 published by Tata Trusts reveal important information on the Justice system in India. Over the last five years, only 6.4% of the police force has been provided in-service training. For advanced technology like DNA fingerprinting, frontline police should have basic training and knowledge of the technology. It starts with how to read and deal with the crime scene. And without awareness, the technology cannot be exploited desirably. To go from training 6.4% to at least half the police force will be a herculean task which should be contemplated before implementing the legislation. The DNA bill gives the responsibility of developing training modules to the DNA Regulatory Board, which will be set up. But it does not provide a realistic road map to reach the desired level of training to better use the technology.

    The report also suggests that on average, per capita police spending in 2017 was Rs 820. No big or medium-sized state has spent more than Rupees 1160 per person, and Bihar has spent as low as Rupees 498. Only one state has made 100% use of the modernization funds allocated for capital expenditure and technology up-gradation. But DNA fingerprinting technology is a costly affair. Each test could cost as much as Rupees 10,000. Even if only high-profile cases use DNA tests, a robust database of DNA has to be present for effective identification from the three indices mentioned in the bill. And such collection and storage of DNA samples could become another strain in the public exchequer. The bill also mandates the use of DNA testing for criminal as well as civil cases, which could again flood the system.

    Second, DNA technology could increase the backlog burden of the already burdened system. In the US, with relatively strong state capacity, DNA backlogs are in the thousands. The National Institute of Justice (USA) reports that the current backlog of rape and homicide cases is 350,000. It also estimates that there are ‘between 500,000 to 1 million convicted offenders’ samples that are owed but not yet collected’. The FBI has a backlog of approximately 18,000 convicted offender samples. Therefore, in India with an already strained Justice system, DNA backlogs could cause worry. Also, because of the significance of DNA information, backlogs could also invoke privacy concerns.

    Finally, there is a lack of clarity. This concern, however, is not one of lack of state capacity but one of potential overreach by the State.

    The lack of strong data protection legislation in place couples such concern. As the parliamentary committee suggests, the bill can also be termed ‘premature’ regarding data protection.

    Non-coding DNA is used for identification. The bill, however, does not restrict DNA Profiling to only use non-coding DNA which cannot be used for determining personal and medical characteristics. Given that the bill mandates data from all criminal and civil cases to be stored in the National data bank, concerns of privacy impingement cannot be hushed away. The lack of strong data protection legislation in place couples such concern. As the parliamentary committee suggests, the bill can also be termed ‘premature’ regarding data protection.

    Although the bill is creating a strict code of ethics regarding collection, storage and accessibility of DNA information, it is ambiguous on the removal of data. Clause 31(3) says that DNA data will be removed if a person requested in writing to the DNA bank, given that such a person is ‘neither an offender nor a suspect or an under-trial’ and whose DNA information has entered the bank ‘through crime scene index or missing persons’ index’. But it is not clear on what will happen if they do not remove such data. It is important to answer these questions due to the significance of DNA information and the fact that the bill does not restrict banks to store only non-coding DNA. Also, these questions could raise concerns about state capacity in safeguarding important data of its citizens.

    Conclusion

    To address these concerns, building state capacity is the key. A staggered implementation of DNA technology could help in building capacity and credibility for the technology. For example, if the bill provides a roadmap of implementation- say, starting with addressing the identification of missing persons and further developing capacity for criminal and civil investigation, the allocation of resources could be streamlined. This limited implementation could also help in addressing additional issues that could arise during implementation. These details cannot be let out to be decided by a regulatory body because of the importance of DNA data and the breach of fundamental rights in collecting and storing it.

    It is said that one has to cross the river by feeling the stones. The stable rule of law and a robust data protection regime which will make sure the technology is used judicially are basic requisites for technology with societal implications. Even though DNA profiling has huge potential to expedite justice, implementation of such complex technology has to be step by step. The Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology has been scrutinizing the bill rigorously, contemplating the varied problems that might befall the implementation of the bill. But it remains to be seen if the government will heed to such advice and not dismiss them altogether; that is if it will feel the stones or deep dive into the river without contemplating the consequences.

     
    Image Credit: DNA Helix Material – Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

  • Poverty, Inequality, and Marginalisation as Forms of Structural Violence in Pre-Conflict Syria

    Poverty, Inequality, and Marginalisation as Forms of Structural Violence in Pre-Conflict Syria

    The injustice and inequality built into the structural institutions of the Syrian society can be referred to, what has been called as the ‘structural violence’, by the well-known Norwegian sociologist, Johan Galtung.  

    The ongoing civil war in Syria that has resulted in large-scale loss of lives, and forced displacement of millions across the region, is being seen as one of the bloodiest conflicts of this century. While countries continue to witness the horrors of visible atrocities and war crimes, the underlying layers of structural and cultural violence continue to buttress the egregious brutality which is often more direct, and physical.

     

    Although the war is often seen as a result of the outburst of pro-democracy protests in 2011, a close examination of the country’s socio-economic structures would enable one to get a detailed insight into the underlying layers of frustration caused due to large-scale poverty, inequality, and marginalisation. One would also find that the relatively peaceful structure, which existed before the protests of 2011, was held intact largely due to the existence of single-party dominance, where one actor (Hafez al-Assad, and later Bashar al-Assad) held all power and authority, while those existing in lower ranks of society continued to lack resources, as well as opportunities to challenge the dominant power.

    The Syrian economic crisis has existed long before the commencement of the civil war.

    The injustice and inequality built into the structural institutions of the Syrian society can be referred to, what has been called as the ‘structural violence’, by the well-known Norwegian sociologist, Johan Galtung.  The violence, here, is reflective of a position “higher up or lower down in a hierarchy of exploitation-repression-alienation”, where the parties involved are determined either to keep the hierarchy intact or to completely obliterate it. In the case of Syria, the deprivation of the most basic and non-negotiable needs, which threatened the citizens’ need for survival, has been the primary cause for aggression to come into existence. The factors that, thus, led to the conflict in Syria can be seen rooted in years of repression, poverty, and lack of representative institutions, which manifested in the form of protests, or the Arab Spring of 2011.

    The Syrian economic crisis has existed long before the commencement of the civil war. Since the beginning of the economic crisis, Syria’s institutional structures have failed to meet the rising needs and rights of its population. In the 1980s, the country was trapped in a downward spiral of a fiscal crisis, as a result of large-scale drought, and due to both, domestic and external factors. The crisis led to high food deficit, and an increase in the cost of living, leading to a rise in patronage networks which provided small circles of elites with profitable businesses. These networks became increasingly popular in real estate and land management, leaving out large sectors of Syria underdeveloped.

    While the country witnessed a decreasing overall debt and a noticeable rise in the GDP in the 2000s, large sections of the population were excluded from benefitting from these growth rates due to differences in wage rates and declining job opportunities. Increasing inequality was reflected in a paper published by the UNDP, which claimed that 65.6% of all labour in Syria belonged to the informal sector in 2010, with Aleppo and Idlib ranking first with over 75% of their workforce belonging to the informal sector. Further, the four years of drought between 2006 and 2011, and the consequent failed economic policies led to a significant decline in the agricultural sector’s output, forcing 2 million to 3 million Syrians into abject poverty.

    Additionally, the oil revenues fell from more than 14% of GDP in the early 2000s to about 4% in 2010 due to depleting reserves. According to a report, overall poverty in Syria in 2007 impacted 33.6% of the population, of which 12.3% were estimated to be living under extreme poverty. Noting the degree of inequality in Syria in 1997, the report found out that the lower 20% of the population had a share of only 8% in expenditure, while the richest 20% of the population share about 41% of the expenditure. The degree of inequality further decreased in 2004. Moreover, the widely disputed region of North-Eastern Syria witnessed highest levels of inequality in 2007, in addition to deprivation of living standards, and worst levels of illiteracy, and access to safe water, just four years before the outbreak of the civil war. The unequal access to resources was also starkly reflected in the housing situation of the country before the war, where over 40% of the population lived under informal housing conditions, – through squatting, or on lands obtained without legal contracts.

    In addition to the economic crisis, Syrians have been the victims of decades-long political repression, in the form of restrictions on freedom of expression, torture, and enforced disappearances. The political institutions have historically been unstable, with three military coups taking place in 1949 alone, followed by one more in 1954, in addition to the Ba’athist-led coups of 1963 and 1966. The Syrian security forces (Mukhabarat) are known to have detained citizens without proper warrants even before 2010, many of whom have reportedly been tortured in prisons. In their attempts to keep the hierarchy of power relations intact, the centralised institutions are known to clamp down on any public demonstrations, with frequent arrests and employment of state violence.

    The conflict which started with citizens demanding their basic needs and rights has been sustained over the years by the involvement of foreign states, and increased state brutality which has been responded to by an increasingly similar, if not equal, force by the rebellion groups.

    Years of conflict have exacerbated the economic crisis, pushing both the state and its citizens, into chaos, with more than 80 per cent of the Syrian population living below the poverty line, with an unemployment rate of at least 55 per cent in 2018. With most of the business networks now being controlled by the selected few elites, the population at large continues to suffer the brunt of both structural, and direct violence.

    The conflict which started with citizens demanding their basic needs and rights has been sustained over the years by the involvement of foreign states, and increased state brutality which has been responded to by an increasingly similar, if not equal, force by the rebellion groups. The country, now, witnesses itself entangled in a cycle of conflict, where the war has led to steep economic deterioration, political repression, and physical violence, which in turn has led to further widespread cataclysm.

    Image Credit: Photo – Aleppo-Syria destruction in 2019 and  Syria Map – Adobe Stock

  • India Meets Myanmar at a Bustling Bazaar in Chennai

    India Meets Myanmar at a Bustling Bazaar in Chennai

    Category : Heritage, Culture & Civilisation

    Title : India Meets Myanmar at a Bustling Bazaar in Chennai

    Author : Yamuna Matheswaran 12-03-2020

    Refugee/Migrant issues have plagued countries both in their domestic governance and international relations. While nations gain immensely from migrants’ contribution, governments and politicians do not hesitate to throw them out when their utility is more relevant or they become the scapegoat of their politics. Indians have migrated to various lands in search of employment, trade, and better prospects as entrepreneurs. Tamils have travelled to Burma and many other countries through trade over millenniums. In recent times Tamils and other Indian migration happened during the British Raj. Indians in Burma – primarily Tamils hailing from Tamil Nadu, but also Bengalis, Telugus, and other groups – worked as farmers, civil servants, traders, moneylenders, day labourers, and security personnel. Their world came crashing down in 1962 when military dictator Ne Win seized power and stripped ethnic minorities of their businesses, land, and claims to citizenship leading to an exodus of refugees to India, mostly Tamils. Yamuna Matheswaran revisits the Burmese refugees in Chennai and its issues 50 years down the line.


    Read More

  • An unmitigated disaster

    An unmitigated disaster

    Category : Democracy & Governance/Governance, Law & Order

    Title : An Unmitigated Disaster

    Author : Deepak Sinha 04.03.2020

    The ill-conceived CAA act and the fears induced by it and the issues of National Population Register have led to nation-wide protests. The resultant police actions at various places culminated in the Delhi violence and police inaction that has given rise to world-wide condemnation. That it coincided with US President Trump’s visit should be even more worrisome for the government. Deepak Sinha analyses the issue in his Op-Ed.

    Read More