top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Festive Surge

India’s bazaars have glittered this Diwali with the unmistakable glow of consumer confidence. The country’s festive sales crossed a staggering Rs. 6 lakh crore with goods alone accounting for Rs. 5.4 lakh crore and services contributing Rs. 65,000 crore. More remarkable still, the bulk of this spending flowed through India’s traditional markets rather than e-commerce platforms. After years of economic caution and digital dominance, Indians are once again shopping in person and buying local....

Festive Surge

India’s bazaars have glittered this Diwali with the unmistakable glow of consumer confidence. The country’s festive sales crossed a staggering Rs. 6 lakh crore with goods alone accounting for Rs. 5.4 lakh crore and services contributing Rs. 65,000 crore. More remarkable still, the bulk of this spending flowed through India’s traditional markets rather than e-commerce platforms. After years of economic caution and digital dominance, Indians are once again shopping in person and buying local. This reversal owes much to policy. The recent rationalisation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) which trimmed rates across categories from garments to home furnishings, has given consumption a timely push. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s September rate cuts, combined with income tax relief and easing interest rates, have strengthened household budgets just as inflation softened. The middle class, long squeezed between rising costs and stagnant wages, has found reason to spend again. Retailers report that shoppers filled their bags with everything from lab-grown diamonds and casual wear to consumer durables and décor, blurring the line between necessity and indulgence. The effect has been broad-based. According to Crisil Ratings, 40 organised apparel retailers, who together generate roughly a third of the sector’s revenue, could see growth of 13–14 percent this financial year, aided by a 200-basis-point bump from GST cuts alone. Small traders too have flourished. The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) estimates that 85 percent of total festive trade came from non-corporate and traditional markets, a robust comeback for brick-and-mortar retail that had been under siege from online rivals. This surge signals a subtle but significant cultural shift. The “Vocal for Local” and “Swadeshi Diwali” campaigns struck a patriotic chord, with consumers reportedly preferring Indian-made products to imported ones. Demand for Chinese goods fell sharply, while sales of Indian-manufactured products rose by a quarter over last year. For the first time in years, “buying Indian” has become both an act of economic participation and of national pride. The sectoral spread of this boom underlines its breadth. Groceries and fast-moving consumer goods accounted for 12 percent of the total, gold and jewellery 10 percent, and electronics 8 percent. Even traditionally modest categories like home furnishings, décor and confectionery recorded double-digit growth. In the smaller towns that anchor India’s consumption story, traders say stable prices and improved affordability kept registers ringing late into the festive weekend. Yet, much of this buoyancy rests on a fragile equilibrium. Inflation remains contained, and interest rates have been eased, but both could tighten again. Sustaining this spurt will require continued fiscal prudence and regulatory clarity, especially as digital commerce continues to expand its reach. Yet for now, the signs are auspicious. After years of subdued demand and inflationary unease, India’s shoppers appear to have rediscovered their appetite for consumption and their faith in domestic enterprise. The result is not only a record-breaking Diwali, but a reaffirmation of the local marketplace as the heartbeat of India’s economy.

The ICC Roars, but Can It Bite?

Updated: Nov 29, 2024

Benjamin Netanyahu

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu


Last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas leader, Ibrahim Al-Masri. At first glance, the charges - alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict - might appear as a bold attempt to enforce justice. But scratch beneath the surface, and the ICC’s action highlights its glaring limitations, internal contradictions and the enduring scepticism surrounding its authority.


For a court designed as the world’s last resort for prosecuting the gravest atrocities, the ICC remains remarkably ineffectual. It has no police force, relying on its 124 member states to arrest suspects - a tall order when those accused are heads of state or key players in geopolitically sensitive conflicts. Netanyahu, whose government has consistently rejected the court’s jurisdiction, labelled the ICC a “biased and discriminatory political body.” The Hamas leadership dismissed the charges as well.


The ICC’s predicament is emblematic of a broader historical pattern: international institutions that promise justice and order but lack the teeth to enforce it. The League of Nations, the ICC’s conceptual ancestor, was established to prevent conflicts like the First World War from recurring. Yet its impotence became evident when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Germany annexed Austria in 1938. Lacking enforcement mechanisms and the support of key powers like the United States, the League’s lofty ideals crumbled under the weight of realpolitik, paving the way for the Second World War. The ICC, while more modern in structure, risks a similar fate of marginalization in a world where power often trumps principle.


Its current challenges are reminiscent of other fraught attempts at international justice. The ad hoc tribunals established for the Balkan Wars of the 1990s offer a cautionary tale. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) eventually secured convictions for war crimes, including those against Serbian leaders like Slobodan Milošević. But the process was painfully slow, fraught with political interference, and dependent on Western military and diplomatic backing. Even then, many accused evaded justice for years, and the tribunal’s legacy remains contested in the Balkans.


More troubling is the ICC’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, whose own credibility is under scrutiny. Khan, who sought the arrest warrants, faces allegations of sexual misconduct that external investigators are currently examining. His ethical cloud undermines the ICC’s moral high ground, raising questions about whether the court can hold others accountable while its chief prosecutor battles serious allegations.


The United States, Israel’s staunch ally, swiftly condemned the ICC’s decision. President Joe Biden deemed the move “outrageous,” while a White House spokesperson criticized “troubling process errors” in the court’s handling of the case. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, said to be close to President-elect Donald Trump, dismissed the ICC as a “dangerous joke,” calling for sanctions against what he termed “irresponsible” actions by the tribunal.


The ICC’s global standing further complicates matters. Major powers, including the United States, Russia, China, and India are not signatories to the Rome Statute, effectively shielding themselves and their allies from ICC jurisdiction. This leaves the court reliant on smaller states for legitimacy, often focusing its prosecutorial energies on Africa and less geopolitically contentious regions. The decision to issue warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders might appear even-handed, but it cannot obscure the fact that geopolitical reality often trumps justice.


Israel’s rejection of the ICC’s jurisdiction stems from a technicality. While the ICC claims territorial jurisdiction over Palestine, Israel does not recognize Palestine as a state, creating a legal grey area. Yet Pre-Trial Chamber I dismissed Israel’s challenge, asserting its authority to investigate alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory. This legal back-and-forth has done little to resolve the fundamental issue: without Israel’s cooperation or that of its allies, the ICC’s warrants are toothless.


Recall that in 2009 and 2010, the ICC issued arrest warrants against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Despite these warrants, al-Bashir travelled freely to several ICC member states, including South Africa and Chad, without facing arrest. It finally took a domestic uprising in Sudan to oust him in 2019, highlighting the ICC’s inability to enforce its mandates. In 2005, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, and several of his commanders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, nearly two decades later, Kony remains at large, evading capture despite international awareness of his atrocities – an instance which glaringly underscores the ICC’s enforcement limitations.


Symbolically, the ICC’s warrants draw attention to the devastating human toll of the Gaza conflict. Yet symbolism without enforcement risks irrelevance.


The ICC’s creation in 2002 was heralded as a milestone for global justice. Yet two decades later, it remains a beleaguered institution, hamstrung by political realities and internal failings. The decision to issue warrants against both Israeli and Hamas leaders might appear even-handed, but it cannot obscure the fact that geopolitical reality often trumps justice.

Comments

bottom of page