For updates on WhatsApp, share your name & city …...For updates on WhatsApp, share your name &...

https://telegram.me/upscprepmate

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.prepmate.mobile&hl=en

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=prepmate

https://prepmate.in/

For updates on WhatsApp, share your name & city on WhatsApp No. 75978-30000

Website: www.prepmate.in Telegram Channel: @upscprepmate

Prepmate Cengage Books Preview: https://prepmate.in/books/ Youtube channel: PrepMateEdutech

Table of Contents

The Indian Express

1. Why a dam in Karnataka bothers Tamil Nadu (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains paper II;

Polity & Governance) ..................................................................................................................... 1

2. What is Witness Protection Scheme? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity &

Governance) ................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Sun Pharma practices: questions, responses (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II;

Polity & Governance) ..................................................................................................................... 3

4. What Upendra Kushwaha’s rebellion means for 2019 (Read only for understanding; Polity

& Governance) ................................................................................................................................ 5

5. J&K resettlement law: who it is for, why it has been challenged in Supreme Court (Relevant

for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance) .......................................................... 6

6. Analysis of State government political affiliations (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper II; Polity & Governance) ..................................................................................................... 8

7. How Governor’s rule and President’s rule set J&K apart from other states (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity and Governance) ................................................................. 9

8. Why KCR wants Concurrent List out: regional issues, national ambitions (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance) ................................................................... 10

9. Surrogacy Bill, then & now (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Science &

Technology) .................................................................................................................................. 12

10. Dam Safety Bill: its objective, the objections (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II;

Polity & Governance) ................................................................................................................... 14

http://www.prepmate.in/


https://prepmate.in/books/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXy_z-FjcG4CcCTYpn2DGhA




11. Sohrabuddin Shaikh ‘fake’ encounter case: All you need to know (Relevant for GS Mains

Paper II; Polity & Governance) ................................................................................................... 16

12. Mandir demand and the law (Read only for understanding; Polity & Governance) ............ 17

13. Interception of phone, computer data: the law, procedures and safeguards (Relevant for

GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance) .............................................................. 19

14. The IT rules for online platforms: what govt proposes to change (Relevant for GS Prelims,

GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance) .................................................................................. 21

15. Why Qatar has left OPEC, and how the decision will impact oil prices, India (Relevant for

GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; IOBR) ........................................................................................ 22

16. Kashmir to Middle East, what drives Norwegian efforts to play peacemaker? (Relevant for

GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; International Organization and Bilateral Relations) ......... 24

17. Irish parliament passes bill to legalise abortion (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper

II; IOBR) ........................................................................................................................................ 26

18. Why Brexit remains problematic as ever (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II;

IOBR) ............................................................................................................................................. 27

19. RBI Governor Urjit Patel has left. Now what? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III;

Economics) ................................................................................................................................... 29

20. Inauguration of Bogibeel Bridge (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Economics)

....................................................................................................................................................... 30

21. Bimal Jalan-headed panel to examine RBI’s economic capital framework (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Economics) .................................................................................. 32

22. New rules for e-commerce: how they affect marketplace players, buyers (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Economics) .................................................................................. 33

23. COP 24 (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Environment) .................................... 35

24. COP24 Summit: Paying for the climate clean-up (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper

III; Environment) ......................................................................................................................... 37








25. What’s in climate change rules (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Environment

& Biodiversity) ............................................................................................................................. 39

26. In death on fence, a reminder: no easy solution to human-elephant conflict (Relevant for

GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Environment & Biodiversity) ................................................ 43

27. Why aircraft carriers are needed (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Science &

Technology) ........................................................................................................................................................... 46

28. What is new National Digital Communications Policy-2018? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS

Mains Paper III; Science & Technology) .................................................................................... 48

29. Why ISRO’s GSAT-7A is considered important? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper

III; Science & Technology) .......................................................................................................... 48

30. Where coal is mined via ‘rat-holes’ (Relevance for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Science

& Technology) .............................................................................................................................. 50

31. Elon Musk’s Boring Company set to facilitate underground travel (Relevant for GS Prelims,

GS Mains Paper III; Science & Technology) .............................................................................. 52

32. Gaganyaan project approved: Manned mission by 2022(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper III; Science & Technology) ............................................................................................... 53

33. The role of the 5 Sikh takhts, and the debate over a proposal for a 6th (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper I; Social Issues) .................................................................................. 54

34. Why Paris is burning (Read only for understanding) .............................................................. 55

35. Ram temple in Ayodhya: What VHP, RSS wanted, what BJP promised (Read for overall

understanding) ............................................................................................................................ 56






1


Prepmate Cengage Books Preview: https://prepmate.in/books/ Youtube channel: PrepMate Edutech

1. Why a dam in Karnataka bothers Tamil Nadu (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

paper II; Polity & Governance)

Last week, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister E K Palaniswami wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to stop the process of a feasibility study for the Mekedatu dam project in Karnataka. The study has been cleared by the Central Water Commission (CWC), which has also asked for a detailed project report. A look at the controversy and how it affects the two states differently: The project

Being set up by the Karnataka government, the project is near Mekedatu, in Ramanagaram district, across the river Cauvery from Tamil Nadu. Its proposed capacity is 48 TMC (thousand million cubic feet). Its primary objective is to supply drinking water to Bengaluru and recharge the groundwater table in the region. In November 2014, the Karnataka government invited expressions of interest in the Rs 6,000-crore project. In its 2015 Budget, it allocated Rs 25 crore for a detailed project report.

Picture credit: The Hindu

Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court. Its main argument is that the project violates the final award of the Cauvery River Water Tribunal, and that the “construction of the two reservoirs would result in impounding of the flows in the intermediate catchment below






2



the Krishnaraja Sagar and Kabini reservoirs, and Billigundulu in the common border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu”. In Karnataka’s defence of the project, Water Resources Minister D K Shivakumar said Tuesday (following the CWC decision): “The project will not come in the way of releasing the stipulated quantum of water to Tamil Nadu, nor will it be used for irrigation purposes. We are ready to hold talks with Tamil Nadu on this. The next course of action will be decided at a meeting called by the Chief Minister on December 6.” Tamil Nadu saw massive protests in 2015, including a state-wide bandh backed by political parties, farmers, transport unions, retailers and traders. The Assembly also adopted a unanimous resolution urging the Centre to stop Karnataka from building the project. Ahead of the 2016 Assembly polls in Tamil Nadu, Captain Vijayakanth of DMDK led a delegation of Opposition leaders to meet the Prime Minister against Karnataka’s decision to allocate Rs 25 crore for a feasibility study. From Karnataka, then Chief Minister Siddaramaiah led an all-party delegation to the Prime Minister seeking the Centre’s cooperation in going ahead. The issue can potentially take centre-stage in the 2019 Lok Sabha campaign. What next

The process cleared by the CWC needs further clearance from the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) too, according to a senior official with CWMA. Experts with the authority said that the CWC clearance is for a report subject to certain conditions, which include the concerns raised by the Tamil Nadu government. “The detailed report has to consider the views of the co-basin states as well,” the official said. (Adapted from the Indian express)

2. What is Witness Protection Scheme? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II;

Polity & Governance)

The Supreme Court Wednesday approved India’s first Witness Protection Scheme, noting that one of the main reasons for witnesses to turn hostile is that they are not provided appropriate protection by the State. A Bench of Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer asked the Centre, states and Union Territories to “enforce” the scheme “in letter and spirit”. The court said, “it shall be the ‘law’ under Article 141/142 of the Constitution, until the enactment of suitable Parliamentary and/or State Legislations on the subject”. What is the Witness Protection Scheme?

The question of witness protection had come up in a PIL that sought protection for witnesses in cases against self-styled Godman Asaram Bapu. The scheme was drawn up by the central government with inputs from 8 states/Union Territories, legal services authorities of five states and open sources including civil society, three high courts as well as from police personnel. The scheme was finalised in consultation with National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).






3



The important features of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 include identifying categories of threat perceptions, preparation of a ‘Threat Analysis Report’ by the head of the police, protective measures like ensuring that the witness and accused do not come face to face during probe, protection of identity, change of identity, relocation of witness, witnesses to be apprised of the scheme, confidentiality and preservation of records, recovery of expenses etc. The programme identifies “three categories of witnesses as per threat perception”: * Category A: Those cases where threat extends to life of witness or family members during investigation, trial or even thereafter. * Category B: Those cases where the threat extends to safety, reputation or property of the witness or family members during the investigation or trial. * Category C: Cases where the threat is moderate and extends to harassment or intimidation of the witness or his family members, reputation or property during the investigation, trial or thereafter. The bench also asked all states and Union Territories to set up vulnerable witness deposition complexes, as required by the Scheme, by the end of 2019. These rooms will be equipped with facilities to prevent the accused and witness coming face to face. The expenses for the programme will be met from a Witness Protection Fund to be established by states and Union Territories. (Adapted from Indian Express)

3. Sun Pharma practices: questions, responses (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper II; Polity & Governance)

In the last week of November, it came to light that Australian brokerage firm Macquarie has issued a note raising questions over the corporate governance norms of Indian drug major Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Later, it was reported that a “potential whistleblower” too had raised such questions. Between November 30 and December 6, Sun’s stock price at the National Stock Exchange fell 14.7%. Issues raised & addressed >Among the issues raised, one was that one of the partners of an audit firm of Sun Pharma — Hiten Chandulal Timbadia of audit firm Valia and Timbadia — had been probed in a stock price rigging case. Sun responded with a press release on December 3, stating: “None of the partners of this audit firm or the firm itself was a party to this investigation.” >Another question was why Sun Pharma employed a small securities firm, Jermyn Capital, to manage a major foreign currency convertible bond transaction in 2004. Sun’s response: “The fact is that JP Morgan Chase was the lead manager and sole book runner and Jermyn Capital was only a co-manager.”






4



>It was asked why Lakshdeep Investments & Finance is not considered a “promoter entity”, when its ownership lies with Sudhir Valia, brother-in-law of Sun Pharma’s main promoter Dilip Shanghvi. Valia owned around 1.4 crore shares in Sun Pharma as of September 2018, according to Bombay Stock Exchange. Sun stated: “Lakshdeep is an investment company of Mr Sudhir Valia. As per the then legal advice we received, we classified the same as a non-promoter entity and disclosures were made accordingly. However, even if it were to be classified as a promoter entity, it does not materially change the current promoter shareholding.” >One question was about Sun lending to four individuals without security. Sun stated: “This is a 20+ year old event which happened and the money involved was a few lakh rupees, which was fully recovered. The company conducts business as per its policy guidelines and in accordance with applicable laws.” >Yet another question was about an insider trading case (settled with SEBI) regarding the Ranbaxy acquisition, which happened in 2014. Sun stated it has not been involved in any insider trading but “there was some minor technical issue relating to a procedural aspect of trading window closure due to intervening holidays”. It added: “SEBI later on ruled that we should have announced a window closure. This case was settled with SEBI with no admission of guilt… and matter was closed.” >Then a question was raised on Sun’s domestic formulations business being routed through a related party, Aditya Medisales Ltd. Sun’s response: “Our domestic formulations sales are undertaken through Aditya Medisales Ltd. (AML) which became a related party in FY18. However, the domestic formulation business transactions with AML have been in existence for the past many years.” Other questions included one on non-related party transactions — which included loans to employees — of around Rs 2,200 crore. Analysts interpret

On December 3, Shanghvi held a conference call with market analysts to allay concerns over these issues. Many analysts appeared unsatisfied with the explanations given. A day after the conference, financial services firm Edelweiss stated in a note: “A few questions still remain unanswered, particularly regarding Aditya Medisales (AML) and the 350 million dollars unsecured loan extended by Sun Pharma. Most other issues were dated, but enough to question the track record of India’s largest Indian pharma (company).” ICICI Securities stated in a note on December 4: “Concerns regarding issues related to transactions with AML (related party distributor) and loans and advances to others (which witnessed a sharp spurt in FY18) are unlikely to settle down easily.” It added that question marks remain over the whistle-blower’s complaint for want of management action plan as the management awaits SEBI correspondence. Also on December 4, Kotak Securities issued a note. About Sun Pharma’s response on the Rs 2200 crore loan, the note said: “The management is unwilling to share information on






5



the eventual beneficiary of the loan as they believe that this information is material and sensitive to the business, with the only clarification being that the loan is for pharma business.” (Adapted from The Indian Express)

4. What Upendra Kushwaha’s rebellion means for 2019 (Read only for

understanding; Polity & Governance)

The RashtriyaLokSamata Party (RLSP) broke away from the NDA on Monday, its president UpendraKushwaha, who resigned as Minister of State for HRD, accusing Prime Minister NarendraModi of reducing the union cabinet to a “rubber stamp”, “betraying” OBCs, and giving Bihar only “jumlas”. On the eve of Parliament’s Winter Session and results of Assembly elections in three major BJP-ruled heartland states, Kushwaha said he was open to joining the opposition alliance of Lalu Prasad’s RJD and the Congress. The RLSP has three MPs in LokSabha and two MLAs in Bihar. What does the move mean for the NDA and for the opposition UPA? What is

Kushwaha himself likely to gain or lose? Why BJP thinks it no longer needs

Kushwaha?

After Nitish Kumar’s JD(U) broke with the NDA in June 2013, the RLSP joined the alliance. Kushwaha had the same social base — OBC Koeris (Kushwahas) and Kurmis, and EBC Dhanuks — as Nitish, and the BJP was happy he would bring these votes in the 2014 LokSabha elections. The RLSP won all 3 seats it contested, but the victories of Kushwaha and Ram Vilas Paswan’s LJP (which won 6 of 7 seats contested) were attributed to the wave in favour of NarendraModi. With Nitish back in the NDA, the BJP believes it can do without Kushwaha. The ambitious RSLP leader wanted more than 3 seats in next year’s elections, while the BJP, which has committed to leaving as many seats for Nitish as it contests itself, felt it could give him 2 at best. Kushwaha’s recent record has not been scintillating — in the 2015 Assembly elections, the RLSP won only 2 of the 23 seats it contested, even though it came second in 19 others, with the margin of defeat ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 votes. It was easy for the BJP to conclude that Kushwaha had failed the “real” test and, with Nitish on its side, to decide it could do without a double dose of “K2” (Koeri-Kurmi) votes. Where Kushwaha could boost RJD, UPA?

The RJD-Congress combine has fallen short by 7-8% votes in both LokSabha and Assembly elections since 2005, when Nitish’s NDA first formed the government in Bihar. Lalu and his son Tejashwi are now open to a broader alliance. They believe that if Kushwaha is able to bring 4-5% votes to the UPA and cut somewhat into Nitish’s votes, he could potentially tilt the balance. The RJD also hopes to gain from an understanding with the Left parties, former Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi, and Sharad Yadav’s Loktantrik Janta Dal, and from anti-






6



incumbency against Nitish and Modi and the waning of the 2014 wave. That the otherwise warring castes, Kushwahas and Yadavs, could vote together was demonstrated in 2015, when the Nitish-Lalu alliance won 178 of 243 Assembly seats. Kushwaha’s strength in caste numbers in Bihar

The impact of Kushwaha’s announcement has been blunted by the fact that one of his MPs (Dr Arun Kumar of Jahanabad) and both his Bihar MLAs have abandoned him, and his other MP, Ram Kumar Sharma of Sitamarhi, seems undecided on joining the UPA. Koeris, however, are 8% of Bihar’s population — much more numerous than Kurmis (3%), the caste to which Nitish belongs — and are spread across many LokSabha and Assembly seats. The RLSP’s internal surveys have identified 90 Assembly segments that have a Koeri population in excess of 35,000, and another 18 segments that have 15,000-plus. There are more than 2.5 lakh Koeris each in 18 of Bihar’s 40 LokSabha constituencies. It is probably too early to write off Kushwaha. RJD and beyond: Kushwaha’s options for the future

Though Kushwaha has talked of three options (joining UPA, going alone, forging a third front with smaller parties like PappuYadav’s Jan Adhikar Party and MukeshSahni’sVikashilInsaan Party), he has long been in talks with the RJD — both directly and through the Congress. The expected merger of SharadYadav’s party with RLSP will likely delay talks with RJD. But equally, the RJD may also be willing to accommodate Kushwaha soon, perhaps at the expense of some other parties. Kushwaha on his part, fancies an outside chance of being Bihar’s Chief Minister, especially if Tejashwi gets embroiled in cases.

(Adapted from The Indian Express)

5. J&K resettlement law: who it is for, why it has been challenged in Supreme Court

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)

What is the law, and why has it been challenged?

On Tuesday, a challenge to an Act popularly known as the “Jammu & Kashmir resettlement law” has been listed for hearing by a Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. What is the law, and why has it been challenged?

The law

The Jammu & Kashmir Grant of Permit for Resettlement in (or Permanent Return to) the State Act, 1982, was passed by the Assembly to “provide for regulation of procedure for grant of permit for resettlement in or permanent return to the State of the permanent residents” and their descendants who had migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947 and May 14, 1954. Mass killing of Muslims in Jammu in 1947 and its ramifications are the main reason why the law was introduced. While there are no official figures, British historian Alex von Tunzelmann writes in Indian Summer that “more or less the entire Muslim population of






7



Jammu, amounting to half a million people, was displaced” by then. In Being the Other, Syed Naqvi quotes The Statesman editor Ian Stephens on the massacre of Muslims in Jammu; Horace Alexander’s 1948 article in in The Spectator puts the number killed at 200,000; a 1948 report in The Times of London states “2,37,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated — unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border — by the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja”. The controversy

The Bill was introduced on March 8, 1980 by National Conference leader Abdul Rahim Rather and became law on October 6, 1982. It pitted the NC government against the then Congress government at the Centre. Both Houses of the state legislature passed the Bill in April 1982 but Governor B K Nehru returned it for reconsideration that September. Amid the Congress’s opposition, the Bill was again passed by both Houses, and this time the Governor gave assent. But then President Giani Zail Singh had already sent a presidential reference to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion regarding the law’s constitutional validity. The case remained pending for almost two decades until November 8, 2001, when a five-member Constitution Bench led by then CJI S P Barocha returned it unanswered. Later, Jammu-based Panthers Party challenged the law in the SC. Rather, who moved the Bill during Sheikh Mohd Abdullah’s tenure, said about the challenge: “How is it unconstitutional? Section 6 of the J&K Constitution has a provision for those who were stuck in areas that became Pakistan in 1947, saying they can return under a resettlement law enacted by the state legislature. The Indian Constitution’s Articles 5 and 7 too permit it. There is a provision that those who migrated to Pakistan can return under a law of the legislature. The only condition was to pass a law, so we did that.” The challenge

Pathers Party founder Bhim Singh, a lawyer, has represented the party challenge in the SC since 2002. Formerly a Congress MLA, he said he was the only party member who voted against the Bill. It was after he met Governor Nehru and apprised him of a security threat the state would face if he cleared the Bill, Singh said, that the Governor sent the Bill to President with a note citing his reasons for refusing to give assent. When the Supreme Court in 2011 refused to intervene on the presidential reference, saying it has already become law, Singh got it challenged through then Panthers Party general secretary Harsh Dev Singh, an MLA. “I told the court that in Pakistan, it is mandatory for everybody to undergo two months’ military training before taking up any job. Through this law, we will be inviting trained Pakistani soldiers,” he said. “Apart from this, those people on return will reclaim property including agricultural land allotted to refugees from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This will lead to law and order problems,” he said. Where parties stand

While NC and PDP support the law, the BJP and Congress oppose it. BJP chief spokesperson in J&K Sunil Sethi said “it will open the floodgates for people coming from across the border and will be a security threat”. “While the Centre too has opposed the Bill in the Supreme






8



Court, the state government was supporting it because you had a state government headed by Kashmir-centric parties and it suited them,’’ he said. The state is now under Governor’s rule. When it was pointed out that the Governor is a nominee of the BJP-led Centre, Sethi said, “The party is not ruling the state. Governor is a constitutional head and he has to take decisions…. take decisions in a pragmatic manner, keeping the security of the state in mind, so the state government should also oppose it.” Within J&K’s major political parties, there is an apprehension that the Governor’s administration would “dilute” the stance of elected state governments that have defended the law in court. They look at a precedent. In the case relating to the challenge to Article 35A of the Constitution, which empowers the J&K legislature to define “permanent residents”, an all-party meeting in Srinagar in September questioned the stance taken by the Governor’s administration before the Supreme Court and sought the replacement of then additional Solicitor General (now Solicitor General) Tushar Mehta who had taken the same line as the Centre while representing the state government in the case. Subsequently, NC and PDP boycotted local body polls in protest. These parties are apprehensive whether the Governor’s administration will again take the Centre’s line. They argue that, as J&K is under direct central rule, the Governor’s administration cannot change the stance of earlier elected governments and must leave such a decision to next elected state government.

(Adapted from The Indian Express)

6. Analysis of State government political affiliations (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS

Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)

Presence of Congress

Returning to power in a large chunk of the Hindi heartland after recent assembly elections, the Congress has considerably increased its sphere of influence, the population it rules surged threefold to 21% of the country’s total. The party’s defeat in Mizoram, where it had its last government in the Northeast, appears as a small footnote in this big story. Presence of BJP

The number of states ruled by the BJP — which has constantly increased its national footprint since the 2014 LokSabha elections — is now down to 16. With defeats in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh, a massive 14% of India’s population has slipped out of its grasp — the first such loss of influence in a single fell swoop since the NDA government came to power at the Centre in 2014.






9



Fall in BJP share

After taking into account the break with Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh in March, and the resignation of the Mehbooba Mufti government in Jammu and Kashmir in June, the population of states ruled by the BJP is just over 49% of the total now, down from close to 70% after the last round of Assembly elections in three Northeastern states. Performance in Assembly elections since 2014

The BJP ruled both Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh from 2003 onward, and Rajasthan since 2013. When the NarendraModi government came to power in 2014, the BJP was in power in just seven states, while the Congress ruled 13. Of the 22 states that went to polls after May 2014, the Congress won just two on its own (Punjab in 2017 and Puducherry in 2016). In Karnataka, it faced losses but managed to put together a government with the JD(S) in May this year. How latest election has changed position?

Going by Census 2011 data, the cumulative population of NDA-ruled states today is 59,81,49,835 (49.39% of India’s population of 121,08,54,977), which is a little more than double the population of states ruled by the Congress and its allies (25,68,07,032).The number for the BJP was over nine times that for the Congress and its allies before the last round of Assembly elections in May. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

7. How Governor’s rule and President’s rule set J&K apart from other states

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity and Governance)






10



The state has been under central rule eight times, and moved from Governor’s rule to President’s rule (after six months) on two of those occasions. When Jammu & Kashmir comes under President’s rule later this month, it will be for the first time since October 9, 1996, when the Farooq Abdullah-led National Conference took over at the end of six years of direct central rule. The state has been under central rule eight times, and moved from Governor’s rule to President’s rule (after six months) on two of those occasions. This will be the third time. Even after the post was abolished, the centrally nominated Governor continued to enjoy powers that his/her counterparts elsewhere did not. Governor’s rule is one of them. In other states, the Centre invokes Article 356 to impose President’s rule; in J&K, under Section 92 of the J&K Constitution, the Governor can rule for six months with a set of powers, the only requirement being the President’s consent. Thereafter, President’s rule is applicable on the State. History

Until March 30, 1965, the state did not have a Governor or Chief Minister; it had a Sadr-e-Riyasat (President of the State) and a Prime Minister. In 1953, months before J&K’s Constituent Assembly ratified the state’s accession to the Indian Union, then J&K Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was removed and arrested. In another blow to the state’s autonomy, New Delhi renamed the positions of Sadr-e-Riyasat to Governor and Prime Minister to Chief Minister while Abdullah was in jail and his party was literally running a campaign for self-determination for J&K under the Plebiscite Front banner. Unlike the Governor, who is the Centre’s nominee, Sadr-e-Riyasat was a constitutional position elected by the J&K legislature and drew his powers from J&K’s own Constitution, signed into law in 1957 by then Sadr-e-Riyasat Dr Karan Singh. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

8. Why KCR wants Concurrent List out: regional issues, national ambitions (Relevant

for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)

K CHANDRASHEKAR RAO, who has won a second stint as Chief Minister of Telangana, has signalled his intent to play a major role in national politics. After his party’s victory, KCR announced that he would form a new non-Congress, non-BJP national consortium of regional parties, and pitched once again for more autonomy to the states, suggesting that the Concurrent List be done away with. As per the Constitution, powers are demarcated as Central, State and Concurrent. While sectors such as defence, aviation, railways and foreign affairs are with the Centre, and those such as municipal administration, transport and health are with the states, the Concurrent List covers subjects in which both the central and state governments have power —






11



education from primary to university, health and family welfare, science and technology, forest and environment etc. In calling for doing away with the Concurrent List, KCR stressed the need for decentralisation and devolution of power. “National parties want to strengthen the Concurrent List so that the Centre has maximum hold over states. In my view, there should be no Concurrent List and state governments should be able to decide what is best for their states,’’ he said. State vs Centre

Some of the areas in which KCR wants a freer hand for states, specifically Telangana: Muslim reservation: Last year, Telangana passed a Bill providing for 12% reservation to Muslims but has been unable to implement it because of a 50% reservation ceiling ordered by the Supreme Court. KCR has said Parliament should pass a law to do away with this cap on reservations, and that the Centre should let the states decide the quantum of reservation. Primary education: KCR says the Centre should let states decide on issues like primary education. He has questioned why the Centre should decide where a primary school should come up in some corner of Telangana just because it gives funds, or how many teachers should be recruited for a school. The Telangana government has been paying salaries to panchayat school teachers and contract workers after the Centre withdrew funding two years ago. Urban development: According to KCR, the Centre should not be the one to decide which town to develop in the state with central funds. “Each state is different. Local leaders would know better which town or city needs development rather than someone sitting in New Delhi,” he said. Supreme Court: KCR has even suggested that every state capital should have a Supreme Court, instead of just one in Delhi. KCR has said that neither the BJP nor the Congress has been unable to deliver the kind of governance that people expect now. “There is a dire need for an alternative political party at the national level. People are desperate for it. I will bring together regional parties from across India which will be an alternative to the Congress and the BJP. I am going to give a new definition to the political scenario in this country,” KCR said. He said he and his ally, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, would start touring the country to identity regional parties that can be approached to form an alliance. “There is an acute political crisis in this country and a surgery is urgently required. A revolution is needed in economic and agriculture sectors. There are 15 crore farmers in this country… A high quality change is required in the politics of this country,’’ KCR said. KCR plans to start meeting leaders of regional parties to build the alternative he is thinking of. “This election is a vindication of our policies and governance. Telangana is a model for






12



the entire country and you will see soon that I will start working towards forming an alternative national party,’’ KCR said. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

9. Surrogacy Bill, then & now (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Science &

Technology)

LokSabha passes 2016 Bill with changes, but without adopting some recommendations of committee that examined it. The key aspects of the Bill in current form, and what has changed and what has not. There have been several reports about the exploitation of surrogate mothers, women who are kept confined in “hostels” during pregnancy and not allowed to meet their families, women who do it repeatedly for a paltry amount thus putting their own bodies at risk. Recently, Lok Sabha passed the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016. Cleared by the Cabinet in 2016, the Bill was subsequently referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee (Health & Family Welfare) before its passage. A look at its journey, the issues raised along the way, and which of these it addresses and which of these it does not: What does the Bill aim to do?

Drafted keeping in mind the “Indian ethos” — words used both by Health Minister J P Nadda in Parliament Wednesday and External Affairs Minister SushmaSwaraj in 2016 when she announced that the Bill had been cleared by the Cabinet — the Bill allows only altruistic surrogacy (by relatives) for married couples. It seeks to put an end to commercial surrogacy — payment to a surrogate mother is punishable by up to five years imprisonment — and also has safeguards built in against sex selection of the baby. The Bill proposes to allow altruistic, ethical surrogacy to intending infertile Indian married couples between the ages of 23-50 (female) and 26-55 (male). It limits the option to only legally married childless couples who have been trying for a child for at least five years. The commissioning couple cannot have a surviving child either biological or adopted, except when they have a child who is mentally or physically challenged or suffers from a life-threatening disorder with no permanent cure. Why was the Bill necessary?

There have been several reports about the exploitation of surrogate mothers, women who are kept confined in “hostels” during pregnancy and not allowed to meet their families, women who do it repeatedly for a paltry amount thus putting their own bodies at risk. The Bill seeks to put an end to that. Ballpark estimations by Indian Council of Medical Research are around 2,000-odd babies per year through commercial surrogacy — when a woman is paid a pre-fixed sum for renting her womb. CII figures say surrogacy is a $2.3 billion industry fed by lack of regulation and poverty. The 228th report of the Law Commission had recommended prohibition of commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is allowed only in Russia, Ukraine and California. The Bill now requires all surrogacy clinics to be






13



registered. Clinics can charge for these services but the surrogate mother cannot be paid. The national and state surrogacy boards will be the regulating authorities.

What maternity benefits would a commissioning mother be entitled to?

The Bill does not take that into account. It deals with the rights and responsibilities of commissioning parents and surrogate mother vis a vis each other and the baby, but does not address entitlements of a commissioning parent from his or her employer. These are covered by labour laws; the law on maternity benefits does not take into account the possibility of a woman becoming a mother without actually giving birth. Is the Bill newly passed different from the one cleared by the Cabinet in 2016?






14



‘The notion that your neighbour is your kin, regardless of faith, is a real thing in South India’ There are changes, including a reduction of punishment. The earlier version provided for a minimum jail term of 10 years for some offences; the present one sets a maximum of 10 years. The present Bill forbids the surrogate mother to use her own gametes (eggs), gives her the option to withdraw before the embryo is implanted, and puts a condition for obtaining a “certificate of essentiality” that the intending couple needs —they must provide a 16-month insurance coverage for the surrogate mother including postpartum complications. The Bill did not make several changes sought by the Standing Committee.

What were these recommendations?

Pointing out that the Supreme Court has recognised live-in relationships, the Standing Committee had recommended that the government “broadbase the eligibility criteria in this regard and widen the ambit of persons who can avail surrogacy services by including live-in couples, divorced women/ widows”. It had countered the “altruistic surrogacy for married couples” argument and recommended that compensation be the norm and the word altruistic should be replaced with compensated. Altruistic surrogacy, it observed, is tantamount to exploitation. “Permitting women to provide reproductive labour for free to another person but preventing them from being paid for their reproductive labour is grossly unfair and arbitrary…altruistic surrogacy is another extreme and entails high expectations from a woman willing to become a surrogate without any compensation or reward but a decision based on noble intentions and kindness,” the report said. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

10. Dam Safety Bill: its objective, the objections (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper II; Polity & Governance)






15



The Bill provides for “surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of specified dams for prevention of dam failure related disasters and to provide for institutional mechanism to ensure their safe functioning”. When the government introduced the Dam Safety Bill, 2018 in LokSabha last week, BJD floor leader BhartruhariMahtab questioned Parliament’s competence to do so. Days later, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister K Palaniswami wrote to the Prime Minister flagging his concerns about the Bill. In June, too, the Tamil Nadu Assembly had passed a resolution demanding the Bill be kept in abeyance till a consensus was arrived at with all states. The Bill provides for “surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of specified dams for prevention of dam failure related disasters and to provide for institutional mechanism to ensure their safe functioning”. Why dam safety

Of India’s 5,254 large dams, some 75% are over 25 years old, and 164 more than 100 years old. There have been 36 dam failures. There has been a lack of a uniform law and an administrative regime for dam safety. While the Central Water Commission (CWC) has made efforts through National Committee on Dam Safety, Central Dam Safety Organisation and State Dam Safety Organisations, these agencies do not have statutory powers and can only make recommendations. The Bill

The Dam Safety Bill was first introduced in LokSabha in 2010. It sought to mandate the Centre, state governments and individual owners of dams to establish a mechanism for safety. It was to be initially applicable only to Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and the Union Territories; the two states had passed resolutions under Article 252(1) of the Constitution requesting Parliament to make a law. The Speaker referred the Bill to a Parliamentary Standing Committee, which submitted its report in 2011. It suggested that provisions be added for punishing the owner in case of dam failure and fixing liability for compensating affected people, and that an independent regulatory authority on safety measures and a national-level early warning system be set up. On June 13, 2018, the Cabinet approved the draft of the Dam Safety Bill, 2018. With most recommendations of the standing committee incorporated, it was introduced in LokSabha on December 12. Regulatory structure

The legislation provides for a National Committee on Dam Safety, to be headed by the CWC chairperson and with members nominated by the Centre; there will be representatives of the Centre and states (through rotation) as well as dam safety experts. The committee will formulate policies and regulations, which are to be implemented by a centrally appointed National Dam Safety Authority, headed by an officer of at least Additional Secretary rank. The authority will also resolve issues between State Dam Safety Organisations (SDSOs) or between a SDSO and any individual dam owner, lay down regulations for dam inspection and for accreditation to construction and designing agencies. The Bill provides for a safety unit in each dam to be set up by individual dam owners.






16



For violation of directives under the Bill, punishment is imprisonment up to one year or a fine, or both; if an offence leads to loss of life, imprisonment may be up to two years. Grounds for opposition

In cases where a dam is owned by one state and located in another, or extends over multiple states, or is owned by a central public sector undertaking, the Bill provides that the National Dam Safety Authority will act as the SDSO. This provision is the primary reason for opposition from Tamil Nadu. How to check RRB ALP, Technician revised results “Tamil Nadu’s Mullaiperiyar, Parambikulam, Thunakkadavu and Peruvaripallam dams are owned, operated and maintained by the Government of Tamil Nadu by virtue of Inter-state Agreements, but are located in a neighbouring state (Kerala),” the Chief Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on December 14. He recalled a 2014 Supreme Court verdict that “upheld the rights of Tamil Nadu” on the Mullaperiyar dam in increasing its height to 142 feet and ultimately 152 feet. “Therefore, to deny Tamil Nadu the right to be the Dam Safety Authority with regard to these four dams and vesting the powers to the National Dam Safety Authority would be tantamount to encroaching on the rights of Tamil Nadu, which is unconstitutional,” he wrote, urging the PM to withdraw the Bill. In Lok Sabha, Minister of State for Water Resources Arjun Meghwal, who tabled the Bill, argued that Article 252 empowered the Centre to legislate for two or more states by consent. The BJD’s Mahtab, however, wanted to discuss the issue further. With the debate failing to progress, Mahtab wrote to the Speaker the next day, pointing out that water is listed as a state subject. “As regulation of the safety of dams has not yet been declared by Parliament to be expedient in public interest, it would be prudent to believe that Parliament has no powers to make law for the state or for that matter by the Union Government at this juncture,” he wrote. The issue, he maintained, needed to be deliberated in the Standing Committee. “Parliament should not do anything that would not stand scrutiny of law.” (Adapted from The Indian Express)

11. Sohrabuddin Shaikh ‘fake’ encounter case: All you need to know (Relevant for GS

Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)

All the 22 accused in the alleged fake encounter killings of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati along with the murder of Shaikh’s wife, Kauser Bi, were acquitted by a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Mumbai. The CBI had charge-sheeted the 22, including 21 serving and retired police personnel from Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh and BJP chief Amit Shah, for abducting Shaikh and killing him in a fake encounter in November 2005. Kauserbi was killed days later and Prajapati in December 2006. The trial in the case had begun in November 2017. Of the 210 witnesses examined, at least 92 had turned hostile during trial.






17



10 things you need to know:

What the court said:

* Observing that the witnesses and evidence gathered in the case were not satisfactory to prove the charges, Special CBI Judge ruled the prosecution has failed to put forth any “documentary and substantive evidence” to suggest or establish the alleged conspiracy. * The court also noted that circumstantial evidence had failed to establish that this was a case of fake encounter. * The court said the CBI had tried its best to prove the case by examining 210 witnesses. The agency, however, cannot help if the witnesses turn hostile and refuse to speak; they cannot be pressured, the court added. * The court also ruled out the allegation that the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati was a conspiracy. What is the Sohrabuddin Shaikh fake encounter case?

* The case dates back to November 23, 2005, when Shaikh, a wanted criminal, his wife Kauser Bi and aide Prajapati were allegedly abducted by Gujarat police from a luxury bus in Maharashtra and taken to Ahmedabad. Prajapati, on the other hand, was sent to Udaipur where he was lodged in the prison there to face trial in cases against him. * On November 26, Shaikh was killed in an alleged fake encounter while the body of his wife was found three days later. The accused alleged that Shaikh was a member of terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and that he was killed in an encounter when he was in Gujarat to “assassinate a big political leader”. However, Shaikh’s brother, Rubabuddin sent a letter to the Chief Justice of India in 2006, claiming that the encounter was staged and sought an inquiry into the case. * In 2006, following the Supreme Court’s directions, the then Gujarat police officer VL Solanki sought to examine Prajapati who was the sole witness to Shaikh’s abduction. Days later, Prajapati was allegedly killed in a staged encounter in Gujarat. Prajapati’s mother, Narmadabai, later filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking an inquiry. * Based on the apex court’s directions, the Gujarat Criminal Investigation Department (CID) launched an investigation into the case in 2007 and claimed that the encounters were faked. It also said that Kauser Bi was murdered and her body was disposed off. * In 2010, the case was handed over to the CBI by the top court. Till then, 38 accused were booked in connection with the case. However, 16 of the 38 were discharged between 2014 and 2017. Today, the remaining 22 accused were acquitted. (Adapted from Indian Express)






18



12. Mandir demand and the law (Read only for understanding; Polity & Governance)

VHP, RSS have demanded legislation to allow building Ram temple in Ayodhya. If the govt attempts this, what steps can it take? Can the Supreme Court then intervene? What the law says, and some precedents Over the last several days, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the RSS, a few prominent BJP leaders and religious figures have been demanding a law that would allow construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. After VHP and RSS leaders raised the demand at a rally in Delhi on December 9, the VHP and others have continued to pitch for such a law. At a time when the Ayodhya title suit hearing is pending resumption in the Supreme Court, a look at the government’s legal options and the possible fallout: Why has there been a clamour for a law to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya?

In September, days before he retired, then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra set the stage for resumption of hearing on the title suit over the site in Ayodhya. Rejecting the plea to refer to a larger Bench its 1994 ruling, in which it observed that “a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open”, the three-judge Bench ruled that it would start hearing appeals in the week starting October 29. Groups that have been demanding construction of a temple perceived this as fast-tracking of the case. However, after Justice Ranjan Gogoi took over as the new CJI, he did not give in to the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea for an early hearing, and ordered the listing of these appeals in the first week of January. This has led to the clamour from various quarters for a law that would allow building a Ram temple in Ayodhya. If the government plans to attempt bringing a law or an ordinance on this, how can it

go about doing so?

The decision will be at the political discretion of the central government. If it does plan to bring a law, it would be as an ordinary Bill that would require a simple majority in both Houses. It remains to be seen whether such a law, if brought, would provide for a temple on the disputed land, or in the vicinity of the demolished mosque. The Supreme Court has, however, already laid down that any move towards abatement of pending suits would be unconstitutional. Following the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Congress-led government had passed the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, allowing it to acquire the land surrounding Babri Masjid, even as the Allahabad High Court was hearing a clutch of petitions on the disputed land. When it was challenged in the Supreme Court, a five-judge Bench upheld the Act but the majority verdict struck down Section 4(3) that provided for abatement of pending suits and legal proceedings without an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Can the Supreme Court intervene in a move that is essentially intended to supersede

ongoing legal proceedings?

The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution lists 100 items on which Parliament has the exclusive right to legislate; additionally, Parliament can legislate on 52 items under the






19



Concurrent List. From a reading of the two lists, Parliament has complete authority to legislate on matters relating to “acquisition and requisitioning of property”. But can Parliament introduce a law to build a temple on disputed land? There is no bar — the Seventh Schedule makes it clear that Parliament can legislate on “any other matter not enumerated” in List II (State List) or List III (Concurrent List). And Parliament can frame a law even if the matter is pending in court. However, the Constitution allows the judiciary to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of all laws. Is there any precedent of such executive or legislative action — by means of an

ordinance or a law — in a matter similar to this one?

There have been instances when the government has introduced ordinances, later ratified by Parliament, on matters that were sub judice. For instance, Parliament passed a Bill in August this year to overturn a Supreme Court order concerning safeguards against arrest under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The ordinance was introduced even as the court was hearing a review petition filed against the order. Another example is the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance, 1993; the Act was effectively rendered inactive in 2010 when the Allahabad High Court delivered its verdict on the title suit dividing 2.77 acres land among three parties. Is this a question of the primacy of legislature over judiciary? One the one hand, the government has wide powers to frame a law including building a temple on disputed land. On the other, the Supreme Court has the power to review whether the law is legal under the Constitution. In a case like this, legislation clearing the way for a temple would favour one party over another in the dispute. The judiciary has asserted earlier that this cannot be resorted to in a case between two parties. One of the clearest such judicial assertions was made by a Constitution Bench on a presidential reference made in 1991 by then President R Venkataraman, over a matter concerning the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. “The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the legislature can change the basis on which a decision is given by the Court and thus change the law in general which will affect a class of persons and events at large. It cannot, however, set aside an individual decision interparties and affect their rights and liabilities alone,” said a five-judge Bench headed by then CJI Ranganath Misra. The Bench had added that “such an act on the part of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power of the State and to functioning as an appellate court or Tribunal” — which is not allowed under the constitutional division of powers. (Adapted from Indian Express)

13. Interception of phone, computer data: the law, procedures and safeguards

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)

A recent Home Ministry order authorising 10 central agencies to monitor and intercept data contained in computer systems throws the spotlight on the laws for such interception, including of data contained in phones:






20



What law covers tapping phones/computers?

Lawful interception of phones and computers can be done by the governments at the Centre and in the states under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. If done illegally, it is punishable under sections 25 & 26 that provide for imprisonment up to three years, with or without a fine.

When is tapping by the government lawful or illegal?

This was laid down by the Supreme Court in 1996 (PUCL vs Union of India). While ruling that the right to have telephone conservation in the privacy of one’s home or office is part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty described in Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court observed that Section 5(2) does not confer unguided and unbridled power on investigating agencies to invade a person’s privacy. The court laid down safeguards: * Tapping of telephones is prohibited without an authorising order from the Home Secretary of the Union government or of the state government concerned. * The order unless is valid for two months; if renewed, it cannot remain in operation beyond six months. * Phone tapping or interception of communications must be limited to the address(es) specified in the order or to address(es) likely to be used by a person specified in the order. * All copies of the intercepted material must be destroyed as soon as their retention is not necessary under Section 5(2). Who oversees if interception is done without misuse of powers?

There is no judicial or parliamentary oversight to review cases of lawful interception. The orders of the competent authority clearing lawful interception, however, are reviewed by a review committee under Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. At the central level, it is headed by the Cabinet Secretary, with the Law Secretary and the Secretary (Telecom) as members. At the state level, it comprises the Chief Secretary, the Law Secretary and another member (other than the Home Secretary) appointed by the state government. Under the SC guidelines, the review committee on its own, within two months of an order, investigates whether its passing is relevant. Rule 419-A provides for the procedure and precautions for handling lawful interception cases to ensure that unauthorised interception does not take place. What are the rules for monitoring of emails and social media content?

This is done invoking the provisions of “public emergency”, “interest of sovereignty” or “integrity of India”. Under Section 69 of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, the central and state governments are empowered to issue directions to intercept, monitor or decrypt, or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted, any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resources. The Ministry of Home Affairs in 2011 issued standard operating procedures (SOPs) for lawful interception, handling, use,






21



sharing, copying, storage and destruction of records to law enforcement agencies. The Department of Telecom has issued SOPs for lawful interception to the telecom service providers. What are these SOPs laid down by the Home Ministry?

It requires setting up of an internal evaluation cell that will examine a monthly statement from law-enforcement agencies on the fifth of succeeding month. These statements are to detail the authorisation orders received for interception, numbers and emails intercepted including period of interception, number of telephones and emails authorised but not intercepted, etc. The SoPs also mention the need for destruction of data and phone-tapping records beyond six months and says for surveillance in remote areas, the competent authority should be informed within 3 days and permission must be obtained in 7 days, failing which the interception will not be valid. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

14. The IT rules for online platforms: what govt proposes to change (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; Polity & Governance)

The Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 are a set of changes in the rules used to operationalise the IT Act in March 2011.In draft amendments to rules governing content, the government proposes to make it mandatory for online platforms to “proactively” ferret content seen as “unlawful”, and break end-to-end encryption (The Indian Express, December 24). A look at what these rules are, and the amendments proposed: What are the Draft Information Technology Rules in the news?

The Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 are a set of changes in the rules used to operationalise the IT Act in March 2011. These rules are on how intermediaries, or various online platforms big and small, are to perform under Section 79. The existing rules provide immunity to these platforms for the content they transmit which is then published by end users, but they have to comply with legal requests for takedown of unlawful content and provide information on users. How are these rules drafted?

The rules in March 2011 were drafted after public consultation. But this time, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) held a closed door, confidential meeting on these rules last week, with members of the Internet Service Providers Association of India, Google, Facebook, WhatsApp, ShareChat and agreed to give them until January 7 to respond. However, after the details of the proposed amendments emerged followed the publication of the report in The Indian Express on December 24, MeitY has since uploaded it on its website and asked for public responses by mid-January. What are the major amendments?

Draft Rule 3(9): This change would require online platforms to become proactive arbiters of “unlawful” content. This is via “technology-based automated tools or appropriate






22



mechanisms”. This runs contrary to what the Shreya Singhal judgment in 2015 said while outlawing Section 66 of the Act. It had noted, “it would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not”. The proposed change shifts the onus and duty of the state to a private party. Draft Rule 3(5): The proposal introduces the requirement of “traceability” which would break end-to-end encryption. The state argues that it wants online platforms to help it trace the source of messages, especially those that provoke violence. But this could endanger the promise of end-to-end encryption offered by some of the larger platforms. The smaller platforms, most of which do not offer end-to-end encryption, could end up being forced to provide metadata. Draft Rule 3(8): The proposal increases the period for which data has to be retained, from 90 to 180 days. It also provides for further retention on the discretion of “government agencies”. Draft Rule 3(4): It inserts a monthly requirement (at the least) to inform users about the legal requirements such as terms and conditions and privacy policy. This, says The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF): “At first blush this may seem as a needed measure, with rampant online abuse and trolling. But consider the change in the environment from a public part to a guarded school yard in which you are constantly reminded that you are under watch and you better behave yourself.” IFF terms this the “nanny clause”. Does the timing of the move make it particularly controversial?

India has seen the maximum number of Internet shutdowns in the world since 2016. Now, there has been a bid to streamline online interactions. In July, Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister for Electronics and Information Technology, told Parliament that the government was planning to bring in new rules to help it battle fake news and social media interactions. Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs, put out a circular, authorising 10 central agencies to access any manner of “computer resource”. This resulted in Opposition parties making the charge that the government was now “snooping” in an election year. These draft rule amendments has also led to allegations that the government is keen on surveillance and censorship. The Centre denies the charge and says it only wants to ensure “unlawful” content does not feed back into social unrest. (Adapted From The Indian Express)

15. Why Qatar has left OPEC, and how the decision will impact oil prices, India

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; IOBR)

Qatar — among the world’s smallest countries by area and the richest in terms of per capita gross national income ($128,000 or Rs 90 lakh, according to World Bank figures) — announced Monday it was walking away from OPEC, a cartel of 15 countries that produce about 45% of the world’s oil and contain over 80% of its “proven” reserves.






23



OPEC was founded in 1960 by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Venezuela. Qatar joined in 1961. Saudi Arabia dominates the cartel, having pumped 11 million barrels per day in October. OPEC has a very big influence on global oil prices, which play a crucial role in determining the economic health of many countries, including India. Why has Qatar left OPEC?

Energy Minister Saad Sherida al-Kaabi said Monday Qatar wanted to focus on its gas industry rather than on oil, in which it was in any case a small player. Qatar’s riches are due to its natural gas reserves, and it is the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). While al-Kaabi denied there were political reasons for leaving OPEC, it is impossible to see its decision as being independent of Doha’s broken diplomatic relationship with Riyadh, which has been relentlessly hostile to it. Al-Kaabi himself alluded to a desire to break free of Saudi control, saying it was pointless “to put efforts and resources and time in an organisation that we are a very small player in, and I don’t have a say in what happens”. He added that “we’re not saying we’re going to get out of the oil business, but it’s controlled by an organisation (OPEC) managed by a country”. He took no names. What is Saudi’s problem with Qatar?

Qatar has long showed an independent mind in foreign policy that does not always align with the priorities of its regional Arab neighbours. This includes having a close economic and diplomatic relationship with Shia Iran, Sunni Saudi’s great regional rival. On June 5, 2017, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain cut ties with Qatar, directed Qatari citizens to leave within 14 days, and forbade their citizens from going to or staying in Qatar. Egypt too severed diplomatic contact with Doha, and all of them shut their airspace to Qatari aircraft, and told foreign airlines to seek permission if flying to and from Qatar. Saudi sealed Qatar’s only land border, and closed its ports to Qatari-flagged ships. Riyadh claimed Qatar had refused to end ties with “terrorists”, after Doha declined to fulfil 13 demands that were presented to it, including cutting diplomatic relations with Tehran and military ties with Turkey, shutting down the TV station Al Jazeera, and aligning with other Arab countries “militarily, politically, socially and economically”. Qatar said the demands amounted to “surrendering our sovereignty”, which it would “never” do. Doha has backed the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, but it is also part of the US-led war on the Islamic State, and has assisted the rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Also, for Saudi to accuse another country of supporting terrorism is a severe case of the kettle calling the pot black, many analysts thought — and interpreted Riyadh’s action as typical of its impetuous Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Over the last year and a half, hopes of reconciliation have dimmed, and Doha has only deepened its cooperation with Iran and Turkey, and with political Islamist organisations. Will Qatar leaving OPEC impact global oil prices?






24



Not quite. Qatar is a tiny player that pumped 609,000 barrels a day in October, only 2% of OPEC’s total output of 32.9 million barrels per day. However, over the last many decades, it has played a role mediating internal rivalries in OPEC and striking production-cut deals with producers like Russia. This is where its absence may hurt OPEC a bit.

And will India be impacted by the departure in any way?

Qatar has limited influence on OPEC’s pricing decisions. From India’s perspective, its position as the world’s top LNG exporter (annual production of 77 million tonnes per year) and an influential player in the global LNG market is more pertinent. Qatar is one of India’s oldest LNG suppliers, with Petronet LNG among the companies that have contracted to buy LNG from Qatar. But LNG pricing is not in OPEC’s domain, so Qatar’s decision is unlikely to impact these trends. (Adapted from the Indian express)

16. Kashmir to Middle East, what drives Norwegian efforts to play peacemaker?

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper II; International Organization and Bilateral

Relations)

Last month, former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik visited Srinagar, met with the separatist leadership there and, after returning, went on to visit Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Indian government has made no comment; the Norwegian Ambassador to India has clarified that it was a personal visit.






25



While the visit has fuelled much speculation about the possibility of a new peace effort, that would be unexpected given that several times, New Delhi has turned down — not always politely — offers of “mediation” in the Kashmir issue. But as a country that gives high national priority to what it calls “peace diplomacy”, Norwegian interest in Kashmir is neither sudden nor surprising. It is rooted in the country’s 25-year history of playing peacemaker across the world, and its vision of itself as one. According to a Norwegian government website, the country has been involved since 1993 in countries as far apart and as different as Afghanistan, Colombia, Guatemala, Myanmar, Nepal, Israel and Palestine, the Philippines, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan. Norway has also provided technical and financial assistance to peace processes in Aceh, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Syria and Uganda. Norway & Kashmir

The presence of a large Kashmiri diaspora in Norway, and in other Scandinavian countries, is also a factor. Norway-based Rawlakot businessman Ali Shanawaz Khan, who heads the Kashmiri-Scandinavian Council, has been lobbying the Stortinget (Norwegian parliament) on the Kashmir issue for two decades. The Stortinget has had a subcommittee on Kashmir since 1999; its Foreign Affairs Committee had been interested in the Kashmir situation since the mid-1990s. From time to time, Norwegian parties have called on their government to mediate between India and Pakistan. In 2009, the party congress of the Christian Democratic Party (CDP), to which Bondevik belongs, asked Norway to make efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue. This was not Bondevik’s first visit to Kashmir either. In March 2017, Bondevik, who was PM during 1997-2000 and 2001-2005 and heads a conflict-resolution outfit called the Oslo Centre, visited PoK, where he met President Sardar Masood Khan and Prime Minister Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan, besides Tariq Fatemi, then Special Adviser to the Pakistan Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs. “Bondevik underscored that the Kashmir issue is a long standing conflict and needs a political solution, taking into account the UN Security Council Resolutions and the will of the Kashmiri people, along both sides of the Line of Control,” a statement by the Pakistan Foreign Office said at the time. In May 2017, CDP leader Knut ArildHareide tabled a motion calling for Norway to help end the “long festering dispute in a peaceful manner”. Replying to the motion, Foreign Minister BorgeBrende called on Pakistan and India to hold a dialogue. Norway itself is quite clear that it does not step in to help resolve a problem unless invited by all parties to the problem. Bondevik told The Indian Express that Pakistan and the government of PoK welcomed his engagement, but he has had no contact with the Indian government. And while he was not representing the Norwegian government, this is how all






26



of Norway’s peacemaking efforts have typically begun — through NGOs, working with local civil society organisations. Around the world

The Norwegian desire to play peacemaker across the world often evokes the question: What’s in it for Norway? Back in 2003, a Sri Lankan politician derisively called Norway, then facilitating peace talks between the government and the LTTE, “a nation of salmon eaters turned international busybodies”. But the host of the Nobel Peace Prize believes its credibility is enhanced by its limited strategic interests, its geographical distance from states in conflict, and its proximity to major western powers. The official evaluation of Norway’s role in Sri Lanka, which ended with a failed ceasefire and bitterness on all sides (Goodhand, J, B Klem and G Sørbø, 2011, Pawns of Peace: Evaluation of Norwegian Peace Efforts in Sri Lanka, 1997-2009), explains Norway’s attraction for peacemaking thus: “The role has been based on the belief that as a small and wealthy nation, with limited geo-strategic interests and no colonial baggage, Norway has a comparative advantage as well as a particular responsibility in this area. The peace-making role also serves Norwegian interests as it appears to open doors with powerful players on the international scene.” In recent years, there has been criticism within Norway of peace diplomacy, especially as there were few positive outcomes. The Oslo Accords did not lead to a two-state settlement in the Middle East as envisaged. In Sri Lanka, the ceasefire Norway mediated broke down, and led to the termination of its role by the Sri Lankan government. Some critics have also argued that Norway promotes its own narrow interest and projects itself as a bigger player than it is on the international stage — the 1993 Oslo Accords and the process that led up to it gave Norway access to the highest levels in the US State Department; the Sri Lankan effort brought it closer to New Delhi. Responding to such criticism, in 2008, Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Store argued that Norway spends more than NOK 800 million per year on peace efforts, not to “promote our reputation and winning international prestige” but for values and interests: “Values, because we — as a rich nation in a peaceful corner of Europe — have a moral responsibility to engage in the cause of peace and development for others. And interests, because ultimately our security is served by less suffering and less instability and more progress in the fight against world poverty”. (Adapted from Indian Express)

17. Irish parliament passes bill to legalise abortion (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS

Mains Paper II; IOBR)

Background of law






27



Ireland’s parliament has passed a landmark legislation to make abortion legal for the first time in the Catholic-majority country, a “historic moment” which came after an Indian dentist died from blood poisoning in 2012 when the doctors refused her repeated requests to abort the foetus. Ireland voted decisively to change the Constitution to repeal the Eighth Amendment in May, with 66.4 per cent voting in favour of new legislation to allow for the termination of pregnancies. The Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill allows for abortion services to be provided “on demand” up to the 12th week of a pregnancy, in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality or where the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger. “The bill that allows for the introduction of abortion services in Ireland has passed all stages of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and will now go to President Michael D Higgins to be signed into law. Need for law

The new development has come following a rising number of distressing stories about women unable to get an abortion in Ireland. Indian dentist Savita Halappanavar

One of the high-profile cases was that of 31-year-old Indian dentist Savita Halappanavar, who died in agony from blood poisoning after doctors refused her repeated requests for an abortion while she was having a miscarriage at a Galway hospital in 2012. About Ireland

Ireland is a Catholic-majority country with about 80 per cent of Irish people describing themselves as Catholic in the last census in 2016 even as the influence of the Church has waned in recent years. Varadkar, a 39-year-old Indian-origin doctor, scripted history in June last year by becoming Ireland’s youngest and the first openly gay prime minister of the Catholic-majority country, as he promised to build “a republic of opportunity”. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

18. Why Brexit remains problematic as ever (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper II; IOBR)

In a referendum on June 23, 2016, British citizens voted narrowly in favour of leaving the EU (52% to 48%). IN A SERIES of developments last week, British Prime Minister Theresa May postponed a Parliament vote on her Brexit deal with the European Union, survived a vote of no-confidence from members of her own Conservative Party, and then hit a stumbling block






28



when EU leaders refused to renegotiate the deal. What are the hurdles in the way of Britain’s proposed exit? Why exit, and when

In a referendum on June 23, 2016, British citizens voted narrowly in favour of leaving the EU (52% to 48%). The exit is due to happen on March 19, 2019. In November 2018, the UK and other EU countries struck a withdrawal agreement on how the exit will take place. Among various aspects, a transition period has been agreed to allow the UK and EU to make a trade deal and to give businesses the time to adjust. That means that if the withdrawal agreement gets the green light, there will be no huge changes between the March 29, 2019 exit and December 31, 2020, a BBC article explained. The agreement covers issues such as how much the UK will have to pay the EU to break the partnership (about £39bn, the BBC reported), and what will happen to UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU as well as EU citizens living in the UK. One issue in the deal that has proved particularly controversial is the return, or avoiding the return, of a physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland when it becomes the frontier between the UK and the EU. Ireland, Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland is part of the UK while the Republic of Ireland, which is not, will remain part of the EU after Brexit. Under EU arrangements, it is currently easy for people and goods to cross the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and there are fears that it will not remain so after Britain leaves. Many also fear that barriers between the north and south could revive the tensions that prevailed during the 30-year conflict that ended in 1998. To address this, the withdrawal agreement includes a “backstop” plan to ensure the border remains as smooth as possible until a trade deal between the UK and the EU is struck. On the other hand, opponents believe that the backstop plan would leave the UK subject to EU regulation even after Brexit, news reports have stated. Recent events

It was amid such concerns that Prime Minister May, anticipating that the Bill on the withdrawal agreement would not pass Parliament, decided to postpone voting on it, which was meant to take place on December 11. This move ended up leading to more criticism, and May faced a vote by her party MPs over whether she should continue to lead her party. After she won 200-117, May travelled to Brussels to ask the EU for changes in the agreement before bringing the deal back to Parliament. This too backfired, with the EU ruling out renegotiation. What next

The UK appears to be stuck with the deal already renegotiated. If May fails to get it past Parliament — she will get three weeks to do so — it is uncertain what happens next. The BBC article looked at a number of possible scenarios, including leaving the EU without a deal, another referendum (this would require new legislation and majority support in Parliament), and even a general election. A Reuters report Sunday quoted ministers as






29



saying that the government is not preparing for a second referendum, and as sticking to the script that the deal could still pass through Parliament with a few changes. While many senior “Leave” supporters reportedly believe no deal would be acceptable if preparations are made, critics disagree. According to an article in the British publication The Week, critics argue that leaving without a deal would have disastrous consequences for businesses, create chaos at the borders, drive up food prices and lead to a shortage of essential goods. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

19. RBI Governor Urjit Patel has left. Now what? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper III; Economics)

Is this the first time that an RBI Governor has resigned in the context of conflict with

the government?

Not quite — even though the earlier situations arose several decades ago. The first Governor, Sir Osborne Smith, who took over on April 1, 1935, left office on June 30, 1937, before completing his term of three and a half years, apparently following differences with the Government’s Member, Finance. Sir Benegal Rama Rau, who served as Governor from July 1, 1949 to January 14, 1957, resigned before the end of his second extended term following serious differences with Finance Minister T TKrishnamachari. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru did not back Rama Rau. How is the Governor’s resignation expected to impact the institutional relationship

between the RBI and the government?

RBI’s operational independence as the lender of last resort, the institution in charge of ensuring the financial stability of the country, and the nation’s debt manager, has long been acknowledged. The Governor has always been seen as much more than just a financial sector regulator — Raghuram Rajan once said there were good reasons why Governors of central banks sat at G-20 meetings along with Finance Ministers. However, there have been signs in recent years that the relationship between the RBI and the government could undergo a fundamental change — to the disadvantage of the Bank. What will be the likely impact on the markets, and on the larger economy?

In the near term, the financial markets are bound to be impacted. Indian markets had closed for the day when the news of Patel’s resignation came, but the Near Deliverable Forward or NDF market, which is the offshore market for the Indian rupee, reacted with the currency. The uncertainty at the RBI and monetary management policies will weigh on the minds of market participants — especially in the bond markets, but also in equities, on foreign investors who have bet on Indian stocks, and on corporate offerings. This would mean a hit






30



on sentiment and possibly higher cost of borrowings in the near term, and difficulties in raising funds from the capital market. When and how will the process of appointment of the new Governor start?

Unlike in the UK, Canada, and some other Western jurisdictions, there is no formal search process to select the RBI Governor. There is no formal call for applications, and the Prime Minister and Finance Minister have traditionally chosen from names on a shortlist. Before the appointment of Governor DuvvuriSubbarao in 2008, Finance Minister P Chidambaram and Chairman of the PMEAC C Rangarajan met some candidates for “interactions”, including Subbarao, who was then Finance Secretary, RBI Deputy Governor Rakesh Mohan, and HDFC Chairman Deepak Parekh. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

20. Inauguration of Bogibeel Bridge (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III;

Economics)

The record length is being widely reported: at 4.94 km, the Bogibeel Bridge is the country’s longest road-cum-rail bridge, and its fourth longest of any kind above water. The bridge was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently. The Prime Minister flagged off an Intercity Express between Tinsukia in Assam and Naharlagun in Arunachal Pradesh. The train will run five days a week. The short journey The Bogibeel Bridge, inside Assam, is 20 km from the border with Arunachal Pradesh. It connects Dibrugarh on the Brahmaputra’s south bank to Dhemaji on the north bank. Within the Northeast, the train journey between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh now reduces from 500 km to 100 km. For the rest of India too, Dibrugarh becomes accessible without travelling via Guwahati.






31



While railway lines run along both banks, a train crossing of the Brahmaputra was possible at only two places so far. Both these rail-cum-road options — in Jogighopa in western Assam and on the outskirts of Guwahati (Saraighat bridge) — are hundreds of kilometres from the Assam-Arunachal border, and both bring trains from the north bank into Guwahati on the south. The Bogibeel Bridge provides an alternative in the east. So far, travellers had to make the loop via Guwahati. For the rest of India too, Dibrugarh becomes accessible without travelling via Guwahati. The train journey from Delhi to Dibrugarh reduces by 3 hours (from 37 hours to 34) and the distance by 170 km. Strategic importance of bridge

1. This boosts the defence forces by facilitating quicker movement of troops and equipment to areas near the India-China border. 2. It also benefits tourists, trade goods and those seeking medical treatment. Dibrugarh, considered a gateway to parts of Arunachal Pradesh, is home to Assam Medical College. For patients on the north bank, the only crossing into Dibrugarh so far was by ferry. That could take up to a couple of hours; a train can cross the new bridge in 5 minutes. The long journey

The bridge has been three decades in the making. The proposal dates back to the Assam Accord of 1985. It was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in 1997, the foundation stone was laid that year by then Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda, and construction was inaugurated in 2002 by then PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Comparison with other bridges

As a railway bridge, the Bogibeel Bridge upstages the 4.62-km Vembanad Bridge between Edappally and Vallarpadam in Kochi, Kerala, as well as the 4.55-km Digha-Sonpur across Ganga in Bihar. The former is a rail bridge across the Vembanad Lake; the latter is rail-cum-road like the Bogibeel Bridge.






32



In a comparison of all bridges across water, the Bogibeel comes in at fourth, after the neighbouring Dhola-Sadiya road bridge (9.15 km), the Patna-Hajipur road bridge (5.75 km), and the Bandra-Worli Sea Link (5.6 km). In October, the Centre announced a plan for construction of a 19-km bridge over the Brahmaputra from Dhubri in Assam to Phulbari in Meghalaya. The proposed time of completion is 10 years. Once that happens, three of India’s five longest bridges would be running across the country’s widest river. (Adapted from Indian Express)

21. Bimal Jalan-headed panel to examine RBI’s economic capital framework

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Economics)

Bimal Jalan panel

The Jalan panel would review the status, need and justification of various provisions, reserves and buffers presently provided for by the RBI. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Centre pushed for resolution of the contentious issue of the RBI’s economic capital framework and transferring a higher surplus to the latter by setting up an expert committee headed by former Governor Bimal Jalan. What will committee do?






33



The Committee on Economic Capital Framework would propose a suitable profits distribution policy taking into account all the likely situations of the RBI, including the situations of holding more provisions than required and the RBI holding less provisions than required. The Jalan panel would review the status, need and justification of various provisions, reserves and buffers presently provided for by the RBI and review global best practices followed by the central banks in making assessment and provisions for risks which central bank balance sheets are subject to, the RBI said in a statement. The Jalan Committee will submit its report within a period of 90 days from the date of its first meeting. Composition of committee

Former RBI Deputy Governor Rakesh Mohan, who is against transferring a higher surplus to the government, is the Vice Chairman of the committee. Economic Affairs Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg will be the nominee of the Finance Ministry while RBI Deputy Governor NS Vishwanathan will represent the central bank. RBI Central Board Members Bharat Doshi and Sudhir Mankad are also members of the Jalan panel. The RBI’s Central Board agreed to set up the panel in its meeting in November. Contentious issue

One of the contentious issues in the conflict between the government and the RBI was the size of the central bank’s reserves which at Rs.9.6 lakh crore was reckoned as excessive by the government. Of the RBI’s total reserves of Rs 9.6 lakh crore, the currency and gold revaluation reserves alone account for Rs 6.9 lakh crore. The other components of the reserves include the contigency fund of Rs 2.31 lakh crore, the asset development fund of Rs 22,811 crore, the investment revaluation account of Rs 13,285 crore and foreign exchange forward contracts valuation account at Rs 3,282 crore. According to analysts, the panel will have to address the question of excess ‘reserves’ which is subjective with varying opinions on optimal levels of ‘reserves’, and the degree of conservatism of the central bank. While the RBI necessarily needs to be conservative, another argument is that a central bank can always print money to provide support in an adverse situation and hence does not require excess ‘reserves’. Different views on RBI reserves

In the Economic Survey 2016-17, former Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian had said that the RBI “is already exceptionally highly capitalised” and its capital transfer to the government can be used for recapitalising the banks and/ or recapitalising a public sector asset rehabilitation agency. However, this proposal was opposed by the then RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

22. New rules for e-commerce: how they affect marketplace players, buyers

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Economics)






34



What are the new rules, and what do they means for companies, vendors and

customers?

The government Wednesday announced new e-commerce rules restricting players from selling the products of companies in which they have a stake, and capping the percentage of inventory that a vendor can sell through a marketplace entity (IT platform of an e-commerce entity) or its group companies. To curb the practice of deep discounts, the government said they cannot directly or indirectly influence the price of goods and services, and also brought in a new set of rules that bar the sale of products exclusively in one marketplace. What are the new rules, and what do they means for companies, vendors and customers? What has changed?

From February 1, 2019, e-commerce companies running marketplace platforms — such as Amazon and Flipkart — cannot sell products through companies, and of companies, in which they hold equity stake. While foreign direct investment is not permitted in the inventory-based model of e-commerce, the clarification put a cap of 25% on the inventory that a marketplace entity or its group companies can buy from a vendor. “Inventory of a vendor will be deemed to be controlled by e-commerce marketplace entity if more than 25% of purchases of such vendor are from the marketplace entity or its group companies,” the statement said. How will Amazon and Flipkart be impacted?

Industry experts say the changes will have a significant impact on the business model of e-commerce majors, as most of them source goods from sellers who are related party entities. “Going forward, the suppliers will not be permitted to sell their products on the platform run by such marketplace entity. This will impact backend operations, as Group entities would have to be removed from the e-commerce value chain. The time has now come to look at franchise channels, rather than equity investments channels, to do business in India,” Rajiv Chugh, National Leader, Policy Advisory &Speciality Services, EY India, said. Advertising Also, e-commerce players like Amazon and Flipkart, who have their private labels, will not be able to sell them on their platforms if they hold equity in the company manufacturing them. However, some experts feel that a degree of leeway may still be available to the companies. “These clarifications will have a major impact on the major e-commerce players since most of them primarily source goods from sellers who are primarily relevant to such e-commerce players. However, the language of the clarification seems to grant leeway, to a certain extent, to entities which are step-down subsidiaries of the entity in which the e-commerce entity or its group companies hold equity. Nonetheless, these clarifications will definitely have major repercussions on the business model of such e-commerce players,” AtulPandey, partner at Khaitan & Co, said. Who are the big marketplace retailers who may be impacted?






35



Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd is the biggest retailer operating on Amazon, while WS Retail was the biggest seller on Flipkart. Cloudtail’s ownership shows a clear link with Amazon. Incorporated in October 2011 as Sparrowhawk Sales and Marketing, its name was changed to Cloudtail India in August 2012. Prione Business Services holds 99.99% stake in Cloudtail. Prione is a joint venture between Amazon Inc. and Infosys co-founder N R Narayana Murthy’s Catamaran Advisors. Catamaran holds 51% stake in Prione, Amazon Asia Pacific Resources owns 48%, and the remaining 1% is owned by Amazon Eurasia Holdings. Another retailer that may be impacted is Appario Retail, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Frontizo Business Services. Frontizo is a joint venture between Amazon India Ltd and Ashok Patni, the co-founder of Patni Computer Systems. Frontizo’s latest filings with the Registrar of Companies shows that Amazon Asia Pacific Holdings owns 48% stake in the company, and Zodiac Wealth Advisors holds 51%. The remaining 1% is with Zaffre LLC, based in Delaware, United States. Under the new rules, Cloudtail and Appario, in which Amazon holds equity stake, may not be able to sell products on Amazon’s e-commerce platform. What else has changed?

The government has said that e-commerce entities will have to maintain a level playing field, and ensure that they do not directly or indirectly influence the sale price of goods and services. The policy mandates that no seller can sell its products exclusively on any marketplace platform, and that all vendors on the e-commerce platform should be provided services in a “fair and non-discriminatory manner”. Services include fulfilment, logistics, warehousing, advertisement, payments, and financing among others. How are consumers and small retailers likely to be impacted?

Consumers may no longer enjoy the deep discounts offered by retailers that have a close association with marketplace entities. The absence of large retailers will, however, bring relief to small retailers selling on these platforms. Traders running traditional brick-and-mortar stores, who now find it difficult to compete with the large e-commerce retailers with deep pockets, could gain. KunalBahl, co-founder of Snapdeal, welcomed the changes. “Marketplaces are meant for genuine, independent sellers, many of whom are MSMEs (Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises). These changes will enable a level playing field for all sellers, helping them leverage the reach of e-commerce,” Bahl posted on Twitter Wednesday. Praveen Khandelwal, secretary general, Confederation of All India traders (CAIT) also welcomed the decision to tighten FDI norms and called for forming a regulatory authority to check flouting of e-commerce rules. Asking the government to come with an e-commerce policy soon, he said that small vendors should get enough chances to participate in the online business. (Adapted from The Indian Express)






36



23. COP 24 (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Environment)

From Sunday, climate negotiators from around the world have gathered in Poland to renew their efforts towards finalising a global action plan to prevent adverse impacts of climate change. The two-week year-end annual meeting, informally called COP24 (short for the 24th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), is being organised this time in Katowice, an important city in southern Poland’s coal belt. It is being held amidst a series of fresh warnings that current measures announced by countries, some already under way and others to be implemented in the coming years, were hugely inadequate for achieving the agreed objective of keeping the rise in global temperatures within 2°C from pre-industrial times. Countries go into the meeting with the realisation that they are under tremendous pressure, more than at any other time, to enhance the scope and ambition of their climate actions. Agenda

The main task on the hands of negotiators gathered in Katowice would be to finalise the “rulebook” for the implementation of the Paris Agreement that was clinched at a similar meeting in 2015, and came into effect the following year after the required number of countries had ratified it. For the last two years, negotiators have been working on formulating the rules, procedures, guidelines, and institutional mechanisms through which the provisions of the Paris Agreement would be implemented. These include such things as agreeing on accounting standards to measure emissions, processes for monitoring, reporting and verification (commonly referred to as MRV in climate negotiation circles) of actions being taken by individual countries, mechanisms to raise financial resources and ensure the flow of funds for climate projects, and institutions to facilitate the diffusion of appropriate technologies to countries and regions that need them. Two years ago, at the COP22 meeting in Marrakech, countries had set themselves a 2018 deadline for the completion of the “rulebook”. Though extra rounds of meetings have been held this year in the run-up to the Katowice summit, the countries are still far away from finalising the “rulebook”. That is because most of the issues to be dealt with and agreed upon, notably those relating to finance, technology, and MRV, are highly contentious, and the negotiators face an uphill task in their attempt to wrap it up in the next two weeks. But as the negotiators dive into the tortuous details of the “rulebook”, most of the attention is expected to be on the responses of countries to increasing demands to step up the ambition of their action plans in view of the gathering scientific evidence that current actions were just not adequate to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. At the same time, there is a growing noise about the need to aim for a 1.5°C target instead of 2°C. Countries would need to do much more to achieve that. A recent special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the pathways to the 1.5° target is an important item on the agenda for discussions in Katowice.






37



The 1.5°C debate

The Paris Agreement, while seeking to “hold” the increase in global average temperature to “well below” 2°C from pre-industrial times, also promises to keep “pursuing efforts” to attain the 1.5° target. This was done to accommodate the concerns of smaller countries, mainly island nations, that face the greatest threat from climate change. At the Paris meeting in 2015, the countries had also called upon the IPCC, a global body of scientists that does periodic reviews of scientific literature to make projections about the Earth’s future climate, to prepare a special report on the feasibility of the 1.5°C target. That report was presented last month. It said that to attain the 1.5°C target, the world needs to bring down its greenhouse gas emissions to about half of its 2010 levels by 2030, and to net zero by about 2050. Net-zero is achieved when total emissions is balanced by the amount of absorption of carbon dioxide through natural sinks like forests, or removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through technological interventions. Right now, the countries are aiming to reduce global emissions only by 20%, from 2010 levels, by the year 2030, and achieve a net-zero emission level by the year 2075. And even these efforts are inadequate, as several recent studies have pointed out. The response of the countries to the IPCC report is expected to be one of the key outcomes of the Katowice conference. This year, countries have been carrying out another stock-taking exercise, named “Talanoa Dialogue” by Fiji, the host and president of last year’s conference, to reflect a traditional form of community conversation in that country. This stock-take was meant to assess where exactly the world stood in its fight against climate change, and what more needed to be done. The inputs from this exercise, 473 in total, will also be up for discussion at the Katowice meeting. More bad news

This week’s Emissions Gap report, released by the UN Environment Program, has said if the countries do not substantially enhance their actions before 2030, the 1.5° target would get out of reach. Calling for “unprecedented and urgent action”, it has reported that total annual global greenhouse gas emissions in 2017, at 53.5 billion tonnes carbon dioxide-equivalent, was 0.7 billion tonnes higher than the previous year. This is the first time in four years that the total emission has shown an increase. The total emissions in 2030 need to be at least 25% below the 2017 level to continue on the 2% pathway, and at least 55% lower if 1.5° target has to be achieved, it said. Last week, the World Meteorological Organization reported that global average surface temperatures in 2018 was all set to be the fourth highest ever recorded. The 20 warmest years have all been in the last 22 years, with the top four being the last four years. The report also said that data for the first 10 months of the year showed that global average temperatures were already nearly 1°C above pre-industrial levels (average of 1850-1990). (Adapted from the Indian express)






38



24. COP24 Summit: Paying for the climate clean-up (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS

Mains Paper III; Environment)

Money has been central to many a fight at the climate negotiations. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the mother agreement of 1992 under which climate talks have been taking place, requires a group of rich and developed countries to, apart from other things, provide financial assistance to developing nations to deal with climate change, because it was the (now) rich world’s emissions over the last 150 years that caused the climate problem in the first place. For many years, the fight was to get the developed countries to commit themselves, in writing, to providing this money. That happened, after a lot of struggle, at the 2015 climate meeting in Paris — even though the $100 billion figure, which the developed countries agreed to “mobilise” for the developing nations every year from 2020, was not mentioned in the Paris Agreement itself, but was part of other decisions taken at the meeting. But the written commitment has not ended the fight, and has not assured developing countries a steady supply of at least $100 billion from 2020. The fight is playing out in various ways — and it is among the most contentious issues at the ongoing meeting in Katowice, where countries are trying to agree on the rules that will govern the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Transparency

Framing the rulebook means agreeing on such things as common standards to measure emissions, processes for monitoring, reporting and verification (‘MRV’ in climate jargon) of the various actions being taken by individual countries, and guidelines and institutions to facilitate diffusion of appropriate technologies to countries and regions that need them. It also means putting in place clear and transparent accounting mechanisms to measure and verify flows of climate finance. How to agree on processes that will ensure transparency, especially on the issues of finance, is a subject of major discussion here, and a significant faultline. Developed and developing nations have been arguing over what can constitute adequate levels of transparency, and how much information about finance flows needs to be mandatorily reported. The Paris Agreement makes it incumbent upon developed countries to communicate every two years, in advance, “indicative quantitative and qualitative information” on the money they would provide to the developing countries. It also makes it mandatory to provide “transparent and consistent information” every two years on money finally delivered. Poor track record

The track record of the developed countries in fulfilling their finance commitments has been disappointing. They have often been accused by developing countries of double-counting, inflating claims, re-packaging existing aid money as climate finance, and ignoring the requirements of adaptation activities. Developing countries insist that climate finance






39



must be “new and additional” and must be provided for mitigation as well as adaptation efforts as mentioned in the Paris Agreement. Developed countries have at various times made optimistic claims about the money that has already started to flow in. A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) claimed in 2015 that nearly $62 billion in climate finance had flown in until the previous year. In response, India had put out a discussion paper saying a more credible figure was just $2.2 billion. Another OECD report, which came out last month, said money flowing from developed to developing countries, just from government sources, had increased from $37.9 billion in 2013 to $54.5 billion in 2017 — 44% over five years. However, the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance has said in a recent report that the total climate finance — not just from government sources — was $33 billion in 2015 and $38 billion in 2016, and that the rate of year-on-year increase had actually declined from 24% in 2015 to 14% in 2016. The report did not provide figures for 2017. Money flows through multilateral institutions like the Green Climate Fund have also stagnated. Even the initial offer of $10 billion has not been fulfilled because of the decision of the US to walk out of the Paris Agreement. The promised replenishments are still to materialise. A recent discussion paper by the Indian government noted that only about 12% of the total pledges to multilateral climate funds had actually materialised into disbursements. Scaling up

While even the promised money is not coming through, developing countries have been pointing out that the $100 billion amount was woefully inadequate to meet climate challenges, and have been asking that this be increased significantly. The $100 billion figure was not reached as a result of any careful analysis of requirements. It came in the form of an ad hoc announcement from then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and seemed intended more to infuse confidence in the system after the near-collapse of the negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. Several estimates after that have variously assessed the requirements to be in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars to trillions of dollars per year. The recent Indian discussion paper notes that just adding up the requirements of countries, as mentioned in their climate action plans submitted to the UN climate body, came to around $4.4 trillion. “… This goal of USD 100 billion is a meagre amount in size in contrast to the actual needs assessed for developing countries in trillions of dollars,” the Indian discussion paper says. What is more, the term “mobilise” means that developed countries actually have to provide only a fraction of the $100 billion from their own resources. Every dollar that they actually provide “mobilises” some money, often more than a dollar, from the host country, either in the form of government collaboration or as private investment. But the entire money is said to have been “mobilised” by the developed countries.






40



New At The Climate Summit: Katowice Commitment

Five Europe-based multinational banks Tuesday pledged to employ cash lying with them to nudge clients away from polluting businesses. The banks, led by Amsterdam-based ING, issued a statement on The Katowice Commitment on the sidelines of the COP24 summit. “We, five international banks with a combined loan book of over €2.4 trillion, believe banks have an important role to play in scaling and accelerating the transition toward a climate-resilient world. From Amsterdam to Abu Dhabi we commit to measure the climate alignment of our lending portfolio, and to explore ways to progressively steer financial flows through our core lending towards the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said an ‘Open letter from global banks to world leaders, heads of government and the international community at COP24’. “We support the aim of “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, which is article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement,” the statement said. “…We commit to developing open-source methods and tools for measuring the alignment of lending portfolios with the goals of the Paris Agreement… We aspire to then lead the implementation of these methodologies and tools to actually align our lending portfolios with these climate goals. This is about more than de-risking. It’s about making a positive impact… Because it’s not where our clients are today, but where they are heading tomorrow.” The Katowice Commitment is “Co-created”, “Impact-driven”, “Engagement-focused”, “Sector-specific”, “Forward-looking”, and “Science-based”. Besides ING, the Commitment was made by the Spanish group BBVA, French groups Societe Generale and BNP Paribas, and London-headquartered Standard Chartered. New At The Climate Summit: Electromobility partnership

Recognising that the transport sector is already responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and in view of the projected challenges from rapid urbanisation around the world, progressive globalisation, and increased movement of people and freight, the Polish presidency of COP24 on Wednesday proposed a policy push towards electromobility and zero-emission transport. Poland and the UK jointly presented Driving Change Together — Katowice Partnership for Electromobility, “one of the concrete dimensions of implementation of the Paris Agreement and fulfilment of the Global Climate Action objectives”. The Declaration has been signed by 40 countries including, besides Poland and the UK, China, Japan, Indonesia, Mexico, France, and Germany. India is not among the signatory countries. Thirteen international and nongovernmental organisations, including the World Bank and The Climate Group, are also among the signatories. The Partnership was established in the main Plenary Hall. The Declaration endorsed several steps to accelerate the transition to low emission vehicles, including “driving demand through consumer initiatives” and “collaborating internationally to promote the deployment of ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) on a global scale”, and to enable the growth of the market by “building a smart infrastructure network, planning for the cities of the future today, embedding zero-emission infrastructure into the






41



fabric of our urban and rural communities”, and “driving up air quality standards in our towns and cities”. It underlined support to “zero-emission R&D, investing to improve and develop new zero emission technologies”, and the promotion of a “sustainable, circular economy to drive down emissions over the long term”. (Adapted from the Indian express)

25. What’s in climate change rules (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III;

Environment & Biodiversity)

Katowice conference finalises rulebook for implementing 2015 Paris Agreement. A look at what was finalised in the effort to restrict rise in global temperature, and where ground remains to be covered. During the weekend, the global fight against climate change reached another milestone when negotiators from 196 countries finalised a rulebook for the 2015 Paris Agreement. The finalisation paves the way for implementation of the Paris Agreement, which is supposed to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol in 2020. The creation of the rulebook at the annual year-ending, two-week climate change conference, this time held in Katowice, Poland, has been hailed as an important step that has breathed life into the Paris Agreement. At the same time, several countries and nongovernmental organisations have said the deal reached in Katowice, though welcome, was not enough. What is in the rulebook?

Broadly, the Paris Agreement, which seeks to keep the global average temperatures “well below” 2°C from pre-industrial times, specifies what steps countries need to take in the fight against climate change. The rulebook prescribes how to do those things, and how each of them would be measured and verified. For example, the Paris Agreement says every country must have a climate action plan, and that this should be periodically updated and submitted to the UN climate body. The rulebook now specifies what actions can be included in the action plan, how and when to submit them. Further, the Paris Agreement asks every member nation to submit information about their greenhouse gas emissions every two years. The rulebook specifies which gases to measure, what methodologies and standards to apply while measuring them, and the kinds of information to be included in their submissions. Again, under the Paris Agreement, developed countries are supposed to provide “climate finance” to developing countries to help them deal with climate change, and submit an account of this. The rulebook says what kinds of financial flows — loans, concessions, grants — can be classified as climate finance, how they should be accounted for, and the kind of information about them needed to be submitted.






42



The rulebook contains various other processes and guidelines needed for implementing the other provisions of the Paris Agreement. In short, it holds the operational details of the Paris Agreement. That is why the Paris Agreement is just 27 pages long while the rulebook is spread over 133 pages, and is not yet complete. The rulebook is a dynamic document, meaning new rules can be added, or existing rules amended. Was Katowice only about the rulebook?

It was primarily about the rulebook. But a few other discussions had also become important, particularly the one around the need to step up climate actions in the light of several studies that pointed out that current level of actions were insufficient to hold the global average temperature within 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the feasibility of attaining a 1.5°C target, which had come out weeks ahead of the Katowice meeting, had added urgency to the discussions. It was expected that the countries would give some indication of their willingness to do more that what they were currently committed to, and would agree to start a process towards that. But that did not happen. Instead, an ugly battle was fought over how to acknowledge the IPCC report, which had been requested by this same conference three years ago, in the final outcome. The absence of any indication towards increasing “ambition” of climate actions was one major disappointment of the Katowice conference, and it was voiced repeatedly by the small island states and the least developing countries, which are expected to face the worst impacts of climate change. It also prompted UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who had played a key role in getting an agreement finalised in Katowice, to say that from now on his focus would be to work towards getting the ambition of climate action increased. Has the rulebook addressed all issues it was meant to look at?

One important element could not be agreed upon and had to be deferred for until next year. This relates to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement which talks about setting up a market mechanism for trading of carbon emissions. An emissions trading system already exists under the Kyoto Protocol, though it has become ineffective over the last few years and is meant to end with the end of Kyoto Protocol in 2020. A carbon market allows countries, or industries, to earn carbon credits for the emission reductions they make in excess of what is required of them. These carbon credits can be traded to the highest bidder in exchange of money. The buyers of carbon credits can show the emission reductions as their own and use them to meet their own reduction targets. In the last few years, as several countries walked out of the Kyoto Protocol, and no country was feeling compelled to meet its 2020 emission reduction targets, there has been virtually no demand for carbon credits. As a result, developing countries like China, India and Brazil have accumulated huge amounts of unused carbon credits. Together, China and Brazil are estimated to account for about 70% of global unused carbon credits. When the rulebook was being discussed in Katowice, these countries argued that their unused carbon credits






43



should be considered valid in the new market mechanism that was being created, something that the developed countries opposed strongly. The battle was fought by Brazil, while countries like India and China offered silent support. The developed countries questioned the authenticity of the unused carbon credits, pointing to weak verification mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol that allowed dubious projects to claim carbon credits. The developed countries also argued that some of the proposals being put forward by Brazil for the carbon markets would lead to double-counting of emission reductions. The battle held up negotiations in Katowice for two days and a night. With no side willing to concede ground, there was no option but to defer the discussion over carbon markets to next year, while allowing for the rest of the rulebook to be finalised. The confrontation has been put off for the time being, but will reemerge as soon as the discussions are taken up again next year. The fact that no side was ready for a compromise, and preferred to reengage at some other time, is an indication of the importance that countries are attaching to the new emission trading system, and their high stakes in that market. The reemergence of carbon market could be the next big thing to watch out for in the climate space. Hits & Misses: Takeaways From COP24

Article 4: Pledges

Article 4 of the 2015 Paris Agreement mandates nationally determined contributions (NDCs) by countries. The rules agreed upon in Katowice seek to address what should be in these pledges. The rulebook says, “The Conference… reaffirms and underscores that… support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement…” and “decides that… parties shall provide the information necessary for clarity, transparency and understanding… as applicable to their nationally determined contributions…” Article 6: Carbon markets

Article 6 covers voluntary carbon markets. Countries earn carbon credits for any emission reductions in excess of requirement; these credits can then be traded for money. The Katowice talks were unable to reach agreement on a new market mechanism. Brazil, which — like India and China — had already amassed carbon credits under an earlier mechanism, wanted these accounted for; developed countries objected. The COP24 statement on Article 6 stated: “Draft decision texts on these matters in the proposal by the president were considered, but… parties could not reach consensus thereon.” Article 9: Climate finance

Developed countries are supposed to provide climate finance to developing countries to help deal with climate change, and submit an account of this. The rulebook spells out what kinds of financial flows can be classified as climate finance, how they should be accounted for, and the kind of information about them needed to be submitted. Interpreting the rules,






44



an article on the portal Carbon Brief said the language is relatively permissive, with countries allowed to report the full value of loans as climate finance, rather than the “grant-equivalent” portion; they can voluntarily report grant-equivalent values. IPCC report: 1.5°C

While the Paris Agreement seeks to restrict within 2°C the rise in average global temperatures since pre-industrial times, a special report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) addresses the feasibility of attaining a 1.5°C target. The IPCC report divided countries. Noting that the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait refused to “welcome” the report, Carbon Brief stated: “The wording was somewhat fudged in the final COP decision text. It did not ‘welcome’ the report, but did welcome its ‘timely completion’ and ‘invited’ countries to make use of the report in subsequent discussions…” (Adapted from Indian Express)

26. In death on fence, a reminder: no easy solution to human-elephant conflict

(Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Environment & Biodiversity)

The elephant that died had been on its way back to the forests after raiding the cropland adjacent to the tiger reserves’s Veeranahosalli range. Last week, an elephant died while trying to scale an iron fence in Nagarhole, Karnataka. When the fence was meant to separate elephants from human habitation, the tusker’s death underlined the difficulties in finding a win-win solution to human-elephant conflict where territories overlap. Elephants are the most persecuted wildlife in India. They are large, need a lot of resources and move long distances to forage. The space they traditionally used is now crowded by people. Unwelcome on their erstwhile turf, elephants kill more people than any other wildlife. The herbivore does not come after people but raids their crop. The farmer’s narrow choice between life and livelihood leads to violent resistance. The elephant that died had been on its way back to the forests after raiding the cropland adjacent to the tiger reserves’s Veeranahosalli range. In 2015, it was at Veeranahosalli where Karnataka launched its ambitious rail fence project to mitigate human-elephant conflict. Costly oversight

While local foresters always kept a gate open for such retreating elephants, villagers possibly rushed the tusker. But the elephant could climb atop the fence only because its height was not raised even after an alarm was sounded last year. In 2014, the state forest department decided to construct 10-foot-high permanent barriers with used railway tracks between farmland and elephant forests. In April 2017, however, sequential images of a large bull crossing a rail fence made headlines and the forest






45



department acknowledged the necessity to build higher fences and also increase the height of the existing segments with a solar barrier on top. It turns out that they forgot the oldest stretch. The Veeranahosalli segment of the rail fence was the pilot project, said Karnataka chief wildlife warden C Jayaram, where a 10-km stretch remained lower than the stretches constructed subsequently. Right of passage

Elephant movements can be classified as daily and seasonal. Following rainfall patterns, they can move daily following a specific route in a seasonal migration. They may also move daily out of forest cover to raid adjacent cropland in the night and return before the sunrise. Last August, when the Supreme Court ordered removal of 39 resorts to free an elephant corridor in the Nilgiri Hills, it was protecting the 22-km-long wildlife passageway that allows elephant movement between the Western (June-September monsoon) and the Eastern (October-January monsoon) Ghats. Besides buildings, linear and other physical infrastructure is increasingly blocking or cutting across such corridors all over the country. Of 100-odd identified elephant corridors in India, at least 70 are left with a width of 1 km or less. Loss of these passages will isolate populations and reduce their genetic viability. Daily local raids, on the other hand, is a question of immediate survival on both sides. Elephants must eat and farmers must save their crop. It is rarely a forest famine that drives forest elephants to raid farmland; manmade food is more nutritious (and perhaps tastier) and thus allows a herd to cut down on foraging time and save energy. Since cutting access to farmland is unlikely to starve forest elephants, the strategy has been to build barriers such as solar fences and elephant-proof trenches. But elephants find their way around these high-maintenance obstacles. They fill trenches with mud and use logs to avoid touching powered wires. In the absence of any effective deterrence, farmers use a range of ad hoc means — from relatively harmless bursting of crackers to extreme practices such as throwing fire torches or burning tyres on the animals. They also electrocute and poison elephants. Therefore, sturdy rail fences were proposed as a lasting solution.

Fencing shortcomings

It helped that the gaps between the rails allowed movement of other wildlife and even let people access forest produce. But the fence was not designed in a way that discouraged misadventures such as climbing over, squeezing through or sliding beneath that could endanger an elephant.






46



Besides, the fences are being put up in high-rainfall areas and, like other barriers, may need substantial maintenance as earth sinks. But unlike construction, maintenance is more about rigour than funds which makes it a thankless job. A rail fence cannot work with elephants on both sides. That is what happened the night the tusker died. As long as the fencing project is implemented piecemeal, elephants will use the unfenced stretches to venture out only to find themselves fenced out. Worse, drawing any elephant line in areas with scattered herds will only aggravate conflict. It may be less complicated to plan for places where elephants live in entirely non-forested areas and depend solely on private resources. But building an extended fence to ensure no spillover takes place in the future and simultaneously relocating all the animals from private land will be exorbitant. A fight over who would control the funds is apparently why such a project is yet to take off in Karnataka’s Hassan district. What alternative?

Many activists and conservationists harp on letting the elephant be. The proposition is wishful. It will take a lot more than removing spikes (elephants are smart enough to avoid those anyway) or banning flame throwing to ensure a less violent coexistence. It will require people to surrender space to elephants. Compensating the farmer at market rates for crop loss may reduce his desperation but a lack of resistance will invite more elephants to cropland and keep expanding the conflict zone. Allowing the elephant a free run has immense economic (and safety) implications and authorities are unlikely to even consider those. In such a scenario, conservation’s best bet is perhaps to free up the elephant’s seasonal corridors and minimise human-elephant interface through non-violent means. To that effect, robust and effective barriers demand serious studies in efficacy and fine-tuning, not the stigma of an elephant-killer. (Adapted from Indian Express)

27. Why aircraft carriers are needed (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III;

Science & Technology)

A week ago, at his annual Navy Day press conference, Admiral Sunil Lanba said Navy Headquarters was working on a second Indigenous Aircraft Carrier or IAC-2, which would give India a fleet of three aircraft carriers. His statement was unexpected because the government has deferred the decision on the proposal for IAC-2, which it reckons will be unaffordable to build and operate. The Navy Chief did not reveal the estimated cost of IAC-2, but it is expected to be around Rs 1.6 lakh crore. The Navy has reportedly budgeted for funds for IAC-2 in its financial plans from 2024 onwards. Present status






47



India currently has only one aircraft carrier, INS Vikramaditya, the erstwhile Russian Admiral Gorshkov and inducted into service in 2013. The country’s first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-1) — to be formally named INS Vikrant — is being built in Cochin Shipyard. The 40,000-tonne warship has been delayed — the Ministry of Defence approved it in 2003, construction began in 2005, and it was supposed to be ready this year, but it is now expected to be out for sea trials only by 2020. Need for carriers

The ability of a country to project military force away from its shores is largely dependent on the components used for force projection, key among which are aircraft carriers. The Indian Navy has reached a minimum essential requirement of two operational aircraft carriers to carry out its mandated tasks in the country’s Areas of Interest, and to meet its overall maritime security requirements. Given that one of the carriers is in refit or maintenance, the Maritime Capability Perspective Plan of the Navy envisages a force level of three aircraft carriers, to ensure development of a capability to operate two Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs) at any given time. CBGs are large task formations centred around a carrier, and provide unmatched flexibility, reach and sustainability. These are primary assets for the projection of power, and provide credible deterrence through visibility. All the world’s advanced navies — those of the US, UK, Russia, Italy, France — operate aircraft carriers. Shore-based aircraft have limited reach in India’s vast maritime area of interest, and can provide limited air defence to the fleet only when operating close to the coast, a rarity in naval concepts of operations. In the maritime strike role too, shore-based aircraft have limited range with inherent time delays, considering the distance to targets at sea. The surety of support from a shore-based fighter is intrinsically linked to the unpredictable factor of weather. But the biggest concern for India is the aggressive effort by China to gain a foothold in the Indian Ocean Region. China currently operates two carriers, and is likely to have four by 2028 — with the eventual aim of 10 by 2050. This would be a quantum leap for the People’s Liberation Army Navy, which plans forays deep into the Indian Ocean Region by 2020. Design for third carrier

The concept design of the third aircraft carrier is still on the drawing board, and its specifications are fluid. The Navy Chief said the project would start in the next three years, which is ambitious. This is especially because the Indian Naval concept of operations requires a Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR, a system of launching and recovering aircraft) carrier, which is capable of operating aircraft with higher payloads. Such a would typically displace about 65,000 tonnes, Admiral Lanba confirmed.






48



Until now, steam, generated preferably by a nuclear plant, has been considered the optimum propulsion for a ship this size. But with advancement in technology, the Navy thinks an all-electric propulsion will provide a more economical and efficient solution. For launch and recovery of aircraft, electromagnetic aircraft launch system and advanced arresting gear have replaced the older systems, and will be more suitable for a new project that is likely to remain in service for the next four decades. Affordability vs requirement

It would appear that India simply cannot afford a third aircraft carrier even if it is desirable for power projection and in order to ensure maritime security in the Indian Ocean Region. However, an aircraft carrier is a dynamic capability that can be deployed over the entire area of maritime interest for as long as four decades, and is, therefore, one of the most optimum utilisations of resources spent on such an acquisition. The decision to spend public money to build and operate a third aircraft carrier will be taken by the government, which will consider all aspects. But given the time it will take to construct IAC-2, and the speed and determination of the Chinese naval progress, this decision will have to be made soon. Service record

INS Vikramaditya: 45,400 tonnes, modified Kiev-class carrier, formerly Admiral Gorshkov. In service since 2013 INS Vikrant: 19,500 tonnes, Majestic-class carrier, formerly the HMS Hercules. In service from 1961 to 1997. Used as a museum until 2012, and scrapped in 2014-15 INS Viraat: 28,700 tonnes, Centaur-class carrier, formerly HMS Hermes. In service from 1987 to 2016. Decommissioned on March 6, 2017 INS Vikrant (IAC-1): 44,000 tonnes, Vikrant-class carrier. Under construction at Cochin Shipyard, sea trials scheduled in 2020 (Adapted from Indian Express)

28. What is new National Digital Communications Policy-2018? (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Science & Technology)

The new telecom policy has been formulated, in place of the existing National Telecom Policy-2012 and aims to facilitate India's effective participation in the global digital economy. The policy aims to ensure digital sovereignty and the objectives are to be achieved by 2022. Under the new telecom policy, the government aims to provide universal broadband connectivity at 50 Mbps to every citizen. It has kept a target of providing 1 Gbps connectivity to all Gram Panchayats by 2020 and 10 Gbps by 2022. Here are the key features of the policy:






49



• Provide universal broadband connectivity at 50 Mbps to every citizen. • Provide 1 Gbps connectivity to all Gram Panchayats by 2020 and 10 Gbps by 2022. • Ensure connectivity to all uncovered areas. • Attract investments of USD 100 billion in the Digital Communications Sector. • Train one million manpower for building New Age Skill. • Expand IoT ecosystem to 5 billion connected devices. • Establish a comprehensive data protection regime for digital communications that safeguards the privacy, autonomy and choice of individuals. • Facilitate India’s effective participation in the global digital economy. • Enforce accountability through appropriate institutional mechanisms to assure citizens of safe and secure digital communications infrastructure and services. One of its objectives is to ensure connectivity to all uncovered areas and attract investments of $100 billion in the Digital Communications Sector. Besides this, one million manpower will be trained for building New Age Skill. It also aims at expanding IoT ecosystem to 5 billion connected devices. The IoT is the network of physical devices, vehicles, home appliances, and other items embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and connectivity. This enables these things to connect, collect and exchange data, creating opportunities for more direct integration of the physical world into computer-based systems. IoT results in efficiency improvements, economic benefits, and reduced human exertions. Another target of the policy is to establish a comprehensive data protection regime for digital communications that safeguards the privacy, autonomy and choice of individuals. In this way, it will enforce accountability through appropriate institutional mechanisms to assure citizens of safe and secure digital communications infrastructure and services. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

29. Why ISRO’s GSAT-7A is considered important? (Relevant for GS Prelims, GS Mains

Paper III; Science & Technology)

At 2,250 kg, GSAT-7A is the heaviest satellite launched by GSLV-Mk-II since it began using the indigenous cryogenic engine after carrying out early development flights with Russian cryogenic engines. Given its recent track record in launching satellites on its fourth-generation rockets, Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicles (GSLV), the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) was continuing a trend Wednesday when GSLV-F11 launched a communication satellite, GSAT-7A. Heavier and heavier

The standout factor with Wednesday’s launch and 12 other successful flights carried out so far by ISRO’s GSLV-Mk-II rocket —including six successive flights since 2014 with an indigenous cryogenic fuel upper stage — is that the rocket was pushing the limits of its capabilities in launching satellites of the two-tonne class for the seventh time. At 2,250 kg,






50



GSAT-7A is the heaviest satellite launched by GSLV-Mk-II since it began using the indigenous cryogenic engine after carrying out early development flights with Russian cryogenic engines. “The cryogenic stage of this vehicle has been modified to increase the thrust rate,’’ ISRO chairman K Sivan said after the copybook launch. GSAT-7A is an advanced communication satellite with a Gregorian Antenna and other new technologies, the ISRO chairman said. The satellite operating in the Ku band will service communication needs for network-centric operations of the IAF and the military. “GSAT-7A is the 39th Indian communication satellite of ISRO to provide services to users in Ku-band over the Indian region. Most of the functional requirements of the communication payloads and the other systems have been derived from ISRO’s earlier geostationary INSAT/GSAT satellites,” ISRO said. GSAT-7A was built on a standard 2,000-kg satellite bus used over the years by ISRO. GSLV-F11 lifted off at 04:10 pm and about 19 minutes later, “injected GSAT-7A into a Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) of 170.8 km × 39127 km — very close to the intended orbit”, ISRO said. The GSLV programme

GSLV-Mk-II is ISRO’s fourth generation rocket with three stages. The first stage has four liquid strap-ons and a solid rocket motor, the second has a high thrust engine using liquid fuel, the third is the cryogenic upper stage. The indigenous cryogenic engine was tested successfully for the first time on January 5, 2014; a launch had failed on April 15, 2010. The cryogenic stage uses liquid hydrogen as fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidiser. Compared to solid and earth-storable liquid propellant stages, it is a highly efficient rocket stage that provides more thrust for every kg of propellant it burns. ISRO initially used seven cryogenic engines sold by Russia for the early phase of its GSLV programme that began in 2001. GSLV launches with Russian engines have had mixed success, with only two flights performing well. ISRO is developing a more powerful, fifth-generation GSLV-Mk-III rocket to launch satellites in the 4-6-tonne category. GSLV-Mk-III had a successful development flight last month when it launched the 3,423-kg GSAT-29 communication satellite. GSLV-Mk-III is the designated launch vehicle for India’s second moon mission next year and the first human space flight scheduled for 2022. (Adapted from Indian Express)

30. Where coal is mined via ‘rat-holes’ (Relevance for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper III;

Science & Technology)

Despite a ban, rat-hole mining remains a prevalent practice in Meghalaya, where a mine has collapsed and 15 workers are feared dead. What makes this method unsafe, and why is it widely followed?






51



Last Week, the collapse of a coal mine in Meghalaya’s East Jaintia Hills, trapping at least 15 workers who were still missing until Wednesday and are feared dead, has thrown the spotlight on a procedure known as “rat-hole mining”. Although banned, it remains the prevalent procedure for coal mining in Meghalaya. A look at how rat-hole mining is carried out, and why it is dangerous: What is rat-hole mining? It involves digging of very small tunnels, usually only 3-4 feet high, which workers (often children) enter and extract coal. O P Singh, professor of environmental studies at North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) in Shillong, told The Indian Express that rat-hole mining is broadly of two types. “In side-cutting procedure, narrow tunnels are dug on the hill slopes and workers go inside until they find the coal seam. The coal seam in hills of Meghalaya is very thin, less than 2 m in most cases,” he said. In the other type of rat-hole mining, called box-cutting, a rectangular opening is made, varying from 10 to 100 sq m, and through that is dug a vertical pit, 100 to 400 feet deep. Once the coal seam is found, rat-hole-sized tunnels are dug horizontally through which workers can extract the coal. When was it banned, and why?

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) banned it in 2014, and retained the ban in 2015, on grounds of it being unscientific and unsafe for workers. The state government has appealed the order in the Supreme Court. Ecology: In their petition to the NGT, Assam’s All Dimasa Students’ Union and the Dima Hasao District Committee complained that rat-hole mining in Meghalaya had caused the water in the Kopili river (it flows through Meghalaya and Assam) to turn acidic. The NGT order quoted a report by Prof Singh: “Entire roadsides in and around mining areas are used for piling of coal which is a major source of air, water and soil pollution. Off road movement of trucks and other vehicles in the area causes further damage to the ecology of the area.” Risk to lives: The NGT observed, “It is also informed that there are umpteen number of cases where by virtue of rat-hole mining, during the rainy season, water flooded into the mining areas resulting in death of many… individuals including employees/workers.” Following the state’s appeal, civil society groups this month submitted a ‘Citizens’ Report’ to Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae Colin Gonsalves: “A worker carries with him a pickaxe, a shovel and a wheelbarrow. As the cave is dark he carries a torch… If water has seeped into the cave, the worker can enter only after the water is pumped out. Workers usually enter the cave early in the morning and keep on working till they are tired, or if they are hungry or when they feel that they have earned enough money for the day.” To what extent is the practice followed?

According to available government data, when the NGT ban was ordered, Meghalayas’s annual coal production was nearly 6 million tonnes. Almost all of it is said to have come through rat-hole mining. Prof Singh explained that no other method would be economically viable in Meghalaya, where the coal seam is extremely thin. Removal of rocks from the hilly terrain and putting up pillars inside the mine to prevent collapse would be costlier. “In






52



Jharkhand, for example, the coal layer is extremely thick. You can do open-cast mining. But in Meghalaya this is the locally developed technique and the most commonly used one,” he said. The NGT order noted that the counsel for the petitioners had explained how “rat-hole mining operations have been in practice in Jaintia Hills… for many years without being regulated by any law and extraction of coal has been made by unscrupulous elements in a most illegal and unscientific manner”. When is mining illegal?

The NGT order bans not only rat-hole mining but all “unscientific and illegal mining”. The state has in place the Meghalaya Mines and Mineral Policy, 2012, while clearances and permissions are required under central laws including the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act. When the Meghalaya police arrested the main accused in the mine collapse case, he was charged under sections including MMRD Act section 21(1), which deals with penalties for mining without permission. Highlighting the extent of illegal mining, the Citizens’ Report to the SC-appointed amicus curiae said: “The 6th Schedule of the Constitution intends to protect the community’s ownership over its land and the community’s autonomy and consent over its nature of use. Coal mining currently underway in Meghalaya was a corruption of this Constitutional Provision wherein private individuals having private interests in earning monetary benefits from minerals vested under the land are engaging in coal mining and are attempting to legitimize this act by claiming immunity through tribal autonomy over land ownership, whereas the truth is that the land belongs to the community and not even to the individual…” Has the NGT ban not helped check this? Following the mine collapse, Chief Minister Conrad Sangma said in a video that illegal mining does happen, and promised appropriate action. Agnes Kharshiing, a leading campaigner on issues including illegal mining, and her colleague Amita Sangma were attacked in East Jaintia Hills last month while trying to locate an illegal mine. “Activists speaking out have been threatened or attacked… Political elites are part of the nexus and this mafia is very powerful and dangerous,” activist Angela Rangad, member of the group Thma U Rangli Juki, told The Indian Express. In its 2015 order, the NGT observed, “It is indisputable that orders of the Tribunal have been violated without exception… The State Government has failed to check illegal mining effectively and has also not framed the mining policy, mining plan and the guidelines as directed under the orders of the Tribunal.” But does Meghalaya not have a policy?

The NGT finds the 2012 policy inadequate. The policy does not address rat-hole mining and instead states: “Small and traditional system of mining by local people in their own land shall not be unnecessarily disturbed.” In its 2015 order, the NGT observed: “The State of






53



Meghalaya has promulgated a mining policy of 2012, which does not deal with rat-hole mining, but on the contrary, deprecates it. (Adapted from Indian Express)

31. Elon Musk’s Boring Company set to facilitate underground travel (Relevant for GS

Prelims, GS Mains Paper III; Science & Technology)

The Boring Company, Elon Musk’s underground transit venture, planned unveiling of its first tunnel, two years after the billionaire entrepreneur complained about Los Angeles traffic and vowed to “just start digging” as a remedy. What is the solution given by Musk?

Musk has advertised his 2-mile (3.2 km) tunnel as the first step toward developing a high-speed subterranean network for whisking vehicles and pedestrians below the congested streets of the second-largest city in the United States.

The tunnel, an initial proof-of-concept, has been excavated along a path that runs not through Los Angeles but beneath the tiny adjacent municipality of Hawthorne, where Musk’s Boring Company and his SpaceX rocket firm are both headquartered. How the vehicles would move?






54



Boring’s website describes a system of passenger- and automobile-carrying “skates” that can zip through the tunnels by way of electric power once they are lowered underground from street level. Musk, best known as head of the Tesla Inc electric car manufacturer and energy company, launched his foray into public transit after complaining in December 2016 that L.A.’s traffic was “driving me nuts,” promising then to “build a boring machine and just start digging.” In May, the company gave the world a preview of the first tunnel, posting a fast-forward video of the interior shot by a camera traveling the length of the cylindrical passageway, which measures about 12 feet (3.7 m) in diameter. (Adapted from Indian Express)

32. Gaganyaan project approved: Manned mission by 2022(Relevant for GS Prelims,

GS Mains Paper III; Science & Technology)

The Union Cabinet has approved the Gaganyaan project to send a three-member crew to space for at least seven days. The proposed mission is expected to cost around Rs 10,000 crore. The Gaganyaan project was first announced by PrimeMinister NarendraModi in his Independence Day speech this year. He had said the mission would be undertaken by 2022. While the first human space flight demonstration is targeted to be completed within 40 months from the date of sanction, two unmanned flights will be carried out before that. Technological requirements

Over the years, the Indian Space Research Organisation had been building up its technological capabilities and preparing itself for the mission. In the last few years, it has developed and tested a number of technologies that are critical to a human space flight. These include a re-entry and recovery technology for spacecraft, the cryogenic engine so essential to power rockets that can carry 5 to 6 tonnes payload into space, and the life support system within the spacecraft. Several more tests still need to be carried out. But a human test flight just seems to be the next logical progression for ISRO, which has done successful missions to the moon and Mars, and has another mission to the moon planned for early next year along with an exploratory mission to the sun. (Adapted from The Indian Express)

33. The role of the 5 Sikh takhts, and the debate over a proposal for a 6th (Relevant

for GS Prelims, GS Mains Paper I; Social Issues)

A proposal for a sixth Sikh takht at Guru Nanak Dev’s birth place in Nankana Sahib in Pakistan has sparked a debate in the Sikh community, and among historians and scholars. A look at the significance of takhts, and both sides of the debate: Who made the proposal?






55



It was mooted by the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) Delhi president and former chief of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Paramjit Singh Sarna, at a gathering at Nankana Sahib in Pakistan during the birth anniversary celebration of Guru Nanak Dev. What are Sikh takhts?

Takht is a Persian word that means imperial throne. At present Sikhs recognise five places as takhts. Three are in Punjab —Akal Takht (Amritsar); Takht Keshgarh Sahib (Anandpur Sahib); Takht Damdama Sahib (Talwandi Sabo) — and the other two are Takht Patna Sahib (Bihar) and Takht Hazur Sahib (Nanded, Maharashtra). Akal Takht

Akal Takht (Throne of the Timeless One) is the oldest of the takhts, and considered supreme among the five. It was set up in 1606 by Guru Hargobind, whose succession as the sixth Guru after the execution of his father, Guru Arjan Dev, is considered a turning point in Sikh history. Other Takhts

The other four takhts are linked to Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru. It was at Keshgarh Sahib that Guru Gobind Singh raised Khalsa, the initiated Sikh warriors, in 1699. Patna Sahib is his birthplace, and he spent several months in Damdama Sahib and his final days in Hazur Sahib, where he was cremated in 1708. Damdama Sahib was the last and the most recent one to be recognised as a takht, through a resolution of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) in November 1966, a couple of months after the Reorginsation of States under which Punjab became a separate state. What is the role of takhts?

Takhts are known to issue hukumnamas from time to time on issues that concern the community. Akal Takht is supreme because it is the oldest and was created by a Sikh guru himself, say Sikh historians and scholars. Any edict or order concerning the entire community is issued only from Akal Takht. Also, it is from Akal Takht that Sikhs found to be violating the Sikh doctrine and code of conduct are awarded religious punishment (declared tankhaiya) and even excommunicated, depending on the degree of violation and failure of adherence to directives of the highest temporal seat of Sikhs. Scholars say the first hukamnama was issued by Guru Hargobind from Akal Takht. A seal believed to have been used by Guru Gobind Singh for his edicts is preserved at Damdama Sahib. Today, the Akal Takht jathedar issues edicts for the community, usually reading them out from the balcony of the Akal Takht building, after deliberations with the chiefs of the other four takhts. Who appoints the jathedars of takhts?

The three takhts in Punjab are directly controlled by the SGPC, which appoints the jathedars for these. The SGPC is dominated by Shrimoni Akali Dal (SAD). It is widely understood that SAD puts the final seal on the appointment of these three jathedars, who






56



are seen as being at the mercy of the party. The two takhts outside Punjab have their own trusts and boards. There is no fixed tenure. Have there been earlier controversies about adding another takht?

The location of the proposed new takht in Pakistan has led to questions being raised about its independence, as gurdwaras across the border are not controlled by the community as is the practice in India, but by a department of the government called Evacuee Trust Board. (Adapted from the Indian express)

34. Why Paris is burning (Read only for understanding)

France’s Prime Minister Edouard Philippe met with the opposition Monday as the country hunted desperately for a way to tackle the worst street riots seen in Paris since the student protests of May 1968. What’s happening in France?

On November 17, nearly 300,000 people in smaller towns and rural areas across the country participated in an extraordinary demonstration led by drivers wearing high-visibility vests, to protest rising living costs and, especially, higher taxes on automobile fuels that President Macron had announced earlier this year. On Monday, the gilets jaunes — “yellow vests” — blocked several highways mainly in southern France, and access to a major fuel depot near Marseille. Three people have so far died in the protests across France, and more than 260 have been wounded; 400 have been arrested. So, who are the yellow vests?

Supporters of the movement are mostly ordinary people belonging to the middle and working classes, but include some elements identified as “radical” and “fringe” as well. They are of all ages and come from across the country, mostly from outside the big cities. Their movement began spontaneously — and even after three weeks, the yellow vests have no clear leaders beyond eight semi-official spokespeople who have been giving media statements. The absence of identifiable leaders has made the government’s task of dealing with them even more difficult. The movement continues to rely mostly on social media to organise. (Adapted from the Indian express)

35. Ram temple in Ayodhya: What VHP, RSS wanted, what BJP promised (Read for

overall understanding)

From the beginning of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the RSS and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) have held the view that building a Ram temple in Ayodhya is a matter of faith and not one for courts.






57



AMID A campaign by the VHP, the RSS and others demanding legislation to enable construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, a look at the demands made by these groups over the years, and the promises by the BJP: First demands

From the beginning of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the RSS and the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) have held the view that building a Ram temple in Ayodhya is a matter of faith and not one for courts. In 1986, the RSS PratinidhiSabha passed a resolution urging the government “to hand over the Janmabhoomi site and adjacent land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust for the purpose of developing the hallowed spot in a befitting manner”. In another resolution in 1987, it referred to the renovation of Somnath temple and said, “The ancient but dilapidated Ram Janmabhoomi temple too needs to be restored to its old glory.” In 1989, a meeting of the RSS KendriyaKaryakariMandal passed a resolution reminding then PM Rajiv Gandhi of his comment that he was instrumental in withdrawal of a case in Calcutta High Court by observing that courts do not have jurisdiction on the holy Quran. It said the same government was making Ram Janmabhoomi debatable in courts and called this a “discriminatory policy”. BJP: Initial years

The BJP first came out in the open in 1989, with a resolution at its national executive meeting in Palampur (Himachal Pradesh): “People’s faith must be respected and Ram Janmabhoomi should be handed over to Hindus. It should be resolved through mutual dialogue between the two communities or, if this was not possible, through an enabling legislation. Litigation is in no way a solution for this matter.” In 1990, when the BJP was supporting the V P Singh-headed government from outside, the VHP was preparing to start construction of a Ram temple from February but postponed it on the PM’s request. At a meeting in Hardwar in June, the VHP announced October 30 as a “non-negotiable” date. Meanwhile, BJP’s L K Advani launched a Ram RathYatra from Somnath on September 25 before the Bihar government arrested him in Bhagalpur on October 23, leading to the BJP withdrawing support to the V P Singh government. In its 1991 manifesto, the BJP said, “The party is committed to build(ing) Shri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan by relocating superimposed Babri structure with due respect.” It was in December 1992 that the structure was demolished. BJP: Vajpayee regime

In its 1996 manifesto, the BJP said, “After coming to power the BJP will remove all obstacles in the way of construction of a great temple of Shri Ram in Ayodhya…” Its 1996 government under A B Vajpayee lasted 13 days. Heading a coalition (NDA) in 1998 and 1999, the BJP chose to keep controversial issues on the backburner. In 2001, when the VHP restarted a movement in Ayodhya, it got no support from the BJP-led governments at the Centre and in UP. In 2003, the BJP National Executive passed a resolution in Raipur: “Even






58



though the common agenda of the NDA makes no mention of a legislative initiative to resolve the Ayodhya issue, the BJP is of the view that this alternative too should be explored. This is what our party had stated in its Palampur resolution. In the present Parliament, the legislative approach would be fruitful if our allies in the NDA as well as the parties in the Opposition, especially the Congress, extend their support.” In 2004, the ruling NDA went for early elections with its National Agenda for Governance, which said, “The NDA believes that an early and amicable resolution of the Ayodhya issue will strengthen national integration. We continue to hold that the judiciary’s verdict in this matter should be accepted by all. At the same time, efforts should be intensified for dialogue and a negotiated settlement in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill.” BJP: After Vajpayee

In its 2009 manifesto, the BJP (then out of power) said, “There is an overwhelming desire of the people in India and abroad to have a grand temple at the birthplace of Sri Ram in Ayodhya. The BJP will explore all possibilities, including negotiations and judicial proceedings, to facilitate the construction…” In its manifesto for the 2014 elections, the BJP said: “The BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of the Constitution to facilitate the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.” (Adapted from The Indian Express)





For updates on WhatsApp, share your name & city …...For updates on WhatsApp, share your name &...

Documents

Transcript of For updates on WhatsApp, share your name & city …...For updates on WhatsApp, share your name &...