Where’s the ban, asks Kerala HC
Dismisses writ plea against Centre’s order restricting sale of cattle at markets
•Observing that there was absolutely no ban on slaughtering of cattle under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules, 2017 notified by the Centre, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed as withdrawn a public interest writ petition challenging the validity of the rules.
•When the petition came up for hearing, the Bench headed by Chief Justice Navniti Prasad Singh orally observed that the rules did not ban slaughtering of cattle. It only prohibited the sale of cattle at animal markets. The rules “don’t go beyond that.” There was no restriction on selling cattle from home or other places. The Bench added that one could sell and slaughter cattle and eat their meat.
•When counsel pointed out that Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution was affected by the rules, the court asked him “who is stopping you from selling beef.” There was ‘nothing’ in the notification which banned the sale of beef.
‘Read the rules’
•The court orally observed that the people were becoming tense because they had not chosen to read the rules. The court said the petitioner did not seem to want the people to read the rules. “If you are a public-spirited person, take the rules to the people,” the court said.
•When the petitioner T.G. Sunil, State general secretary of the Youth Congress, submitted that the order was an infringement on the right to food, the Bench asked how the right to eat was affected by restricting the sale of cattle. The Bench also reminded the petitioner that a total ban on cow slaughter had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Surprise over ruling
•The court also expressed its surprise over the Madras High Court verdict staying the rules. Faced with the oral observation of the Bench, counsel for the petitioner withdrew the petition with the permission of the court.
•The petitioner had contended that as the preservation, protection of animals, prevention of animal diseases, and veterinary training and practice came under the State list, only the State had the power to make any regulations on cattle.
Russia a natural ally: Modi
Multilateral issues will dominate talks with Vladmir Putin in St. Petersburg
•Enhancing bilateral trade, nuclear and technology cooperation will be at the top of the agenda, but multilateral issues will hold centre stage during his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin at St. Petersburg, Prime Minister Narendra Modi indicated in an article published ahead of his visit on Wednesday.
•“There is [a] loosening of the traditional power balance in the world,” Mr. Modi wrote in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta . “New centres of influence and new engines of growth are emerging,” he said adding that India and Russia were “natural partners” in fighting terrorism, and promoting a multipolar international system.
•The PM’s words are significant as they come amid a visible strain in India-Russia ties that have further strained since his last meeting with President Putin in Goa, on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in October 2016, and rising discomfort over Russia’s growing alliance with China and ties with Pakistan. The BRICS meeting came against the backdrop of the Uri attacks, as well as Russia’s decision to go ahead with military exercises with Pakistan despite the Modi government’s publicly stated policy of “isolating” Pakistan.
Not forthcoming
•At the BRICS meet, as well as in December 2016 at the Heart of Asia conference on Afghanistan, MEA officials conceded, Russia was not as forthcoming in support of their formulations on “cross-border” terror as India expected. What emerged in subsequent weeks was that President Putin now had a new interest in regional strategy, one that drew China and Pakistan into a closer huddle over the future of Afghanistan, and saw Moscow reaching out to its decades-old enemy, the Taliban.
•India’s other worry has been over Russia folding into Chinese President Xi’s prestige project, the Belt and Road Initiative (B&RI) on the back of the Chinese investment in the $400 billion Russia-China Power of Siberia gas pipeline that is expected to be operational by 2019-2020. India’s strident objections to the B&RI and the China Pakistan Economic Corridor on sovereignty issues led to it boycotting the B&R Forum in Beijing in May, whereas President Putin met with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Xi Jinping in the first such meeting of its kind instead. The grouping is particularly problematic for India, given that it will enter the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation with Pakistan next week, when Mr. Modi travels to Kazakhstan.
•In previous decades, New Delhi may have expected Moscow, and President Putin to champion India’s cause, leaning on China to engage on India’s concerns. But the reality of the past few years is that India has been unable to effect such support from Russia on any of its issues with China, including on the Nuclear Suppliers Group and designating Masood Azhar at the UNSC.
Vision statement
•During the summit on June 1, PM Modi and President Putin are expected to spell out a “joint vision statement” aimed at re-energising the relationship on the bilateral, and also the multilateral sphere. In an editorial this week, Mr. Putin called the two countries “equal partners in international affairs”, suggesting that a free trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and India, as well as developing the International North South Transport Corridor would be a part of it.
•The two sides are also expected to announce, or at least finalise, the MoU for the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project units 5&6. “We have had discussions with many countries, but Russia has emerged as the only country with which we have successfully collaborated in the atomic power sector,” said Indian Ambassador Pankaj Saran.
‘Preventive detention no quick fix’
If the power is misused or abused, it will stand vitiated, says Supreme Court
•Preventive detention of a person by a State after branding him a ‘goonda’ merely because the normal legal process is ineffective and time-consuming in ‘curbing the evil he spreads’ is illegal, the Supreme Court has held.
•The judgment by a Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Navin Sinha dealt with the case of a seed manufacturer in Telangana who was taken into preventive detention by the authorities on the allegation that he is selling spurious chilli seeds to poor farmers.
Liberty of citizen
•The judgment, authored by Justice Sinha, held that detention of a person was a serious matter affecting the liberty of the citizen.
•“Preventive detention cannot be resorted to when sufficient remedies are available under the general laws of the land for any omission or commission under such laws,” the Supreme Court observed.
•“The order of preventive detention, though based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, is nonetheless a serious matter, affecting the life and liberty of the citizen under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The power being statutory in nature, its exercise has to be within the limitations of the statute, and must be exercised for the purpose the power is conferred,” Justice Sinha wrote.
Abuse of power
•“If the power is misused, or abused for collateral purposes, and is based on grounds beyond the statute, takes into consideration extraneous or irrelevant materials, it will stand vitiated as being in colourable exercise of power,” the court observed.
•In this particular case, the petitioner, V. Shantha, moved the Supreme Court against the detention of her husband under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.
•The court found faulty the State government’s reasoning that though the person was already in custody in two other similar cases, there was a probability that he might get bail.
•The preventive detention order was passed to prevent him from coming out of prison.
•The court found this reasoning flawed as the detenu had not even applied for bail.
‘Extreme measure’
•The court further dismissed the State’s version that the order of preventive detention was passed as his illegal activities were causing danger to poor and small farmers and their safety and financial well-being. The State had reasoned that the order was passed as an extreme measure to help insulate society from his evil deeds.
Strategic Partnership model takes effect
To enable participation of private Indian firms in ‘Make in India’ in defence manufacturing
•The much-awaited and long-delayed Strategic Partnership (SP) policy, intended to promote Indian private sector participation in defence manufacturing, formally came into effect on Wednesday. The Defence Ministry notified the policy as the final chapter under the Defence Procurement Procedure.
•“The SP model is being implemented to enable participation of private Indian firms in ‘Make in India’ in defence. The SP is expected to play the role of a system integrator by building an extensive ecosystem comprising development partners, specialised vendors and suppliers…,” says the policy that was uploaded on the Defence Ministry website.
•Various selection and evaluation criteria have been stipulated for short-listing the SP.
•The policy acknowledges that the Indian private sector currently has “limited experience in defence manufacturing and even lesser in respect of final integration” of complex defence systems and sub-systems.
•In view of this, the policy states, “besides any experience in defence manufacturing, potential SPs will be identified primarily based on their experience and competence in integration of multi-disciplinary functional system of systems, engineering and manufacturing.”
•In a bid to avoid cancellation of deals in case of a single vendor situation, the policy states that “even if only one Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) submits a proposal in any given segment, the process of technical evaluation will be completed”.
Naval projects
•Speaking on the next steps in the procurement process, now that the policy was in place, the Chief of the Naval Staff, Sunil Lanba, said both the projects were top priority for the Navy.
•“As per the model, we all have to get the Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) on what we want to get the Strategic Partners build, so that the SP in each segment can be identified. We are hopeful that we will be able to move the process within six months,” he said.
•Of the four segments under SP, two are for the Navy: submarines and utility helicopters. The others are single-engine fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force and armoured vehicles for the Army.
•Both the Navy deals have been held up from some time due to delay in finalising the SP policy.
India, Spain call for ‘zero tolerance’ to terrorism
‘States backing terror should be subjected to global laws’
•India and Spain on Wednesday stressed that there should be “zero tolerance” to terrorism and called on the international community to end “selective or partial” approaches in combating the menace which posed the gravest threat to international peace and stability.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the first Indian PM to visit Spain since 1992, met the European country’s top leaders and they stressed that states and entities which encourage, support, finance terrorism, provide sanctuary to terrorists and glorify terrorism should be subjected to international laws, including restrictive measures.
•Mr. Modi held wide-ranging talks with Spanish President Mariano Rajoy at the Moncloa Palace and invited Spanish firms to invest in India which offered “many opportunities” for them in various fields.
•After the talks, the two sides signed seven agreements, including pacts on transfer of sentenced persons and visa waiver for holders of diplomatic passports.
Five MoUs
•Five MoUs were signed between the two countries on cooperation in organ transplantation, cybersecurity, renewable energy, civil aviation and one between India’s Foreign Service Institute and Diplomatic Academy of Spain.
•The two sides also issued a joint statement in which the two leaders welcomed the recent positive developments in bilateral trade and investment partnership, buoyed by the positive economic outlook and called for stronger ties between the businesses of the two nations.
•Spain is the 12th largest investor in India and the seventh largest trading partner in the EU. There are more than 200 Spanish companies in India that are actively involved in road construction, railways, wind power, defence and smart cities.
Cow slaughter and the Constitution
The government’s new set of rules on cattle sale is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny
•Over the last few days, the Central government’s new Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Market) Rules have run into strong headwinds. These rules, which effectively prohibit the sale of cows and buffaloes for slaughter at animal markets, and are therefore perceived as imposing an indirect beef ban, have been the subject of protests in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and have drawn strong condemnation from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. With the Madras High Court on Tuesday staying the rules for four weeks, the battle has swiftly moved to the court as well. And with this, apart from the political turmoil, legal and constitutional fault lines have also been reopened, causing much uncertainty about what the outcome will be.
In the Constituent Assembly
•This dispute has a history, which goes back to the founding of the Republic. During the framing of the Constitution, the subject of cow slaughter was one of the most fraught and contentious topics of debate. Seth Govind Das, a member of the Constituent Assembly, framed it as a “civilisational [problem] from the time of Lord Krishna”, and called for the prohibition of cow slaughter to be made part of the Constitution’s chapter on fundamental rights, on a par with the prohibition of untouchability. In this, he was supported by other members of the Constituent Assembly, such as Shibban Lal Saksena, Thakur Das Bhargava, Ramnarayan Singh, Ram Sahai, Raghu Vira, R.V. Dhulekar and Chaudhari Ranbir Singh. Proponents of a cow slaughter ban advanced a mix of cultural and economic arguments, invoking the “sentiments of thirty crores of population” on the one hand, and the indispensability of cattle in an agrarian economy on the other.
•There was one small, snag, however: fundamental rights were meant to inhere in human beings, not animals. After much debate, the Constitution’s Drafting Committee agreed upon a compromise: prohibition of cow slaughter would find a place in the Constitution, but not as an enforceable fundamental right. It would be included as a “Directive Principle of State Policy”, which was meant to guide the state in policymaking, but could not be enforced in any court. Furthermore, in its final form, this Directive Principle (Article 48 of the Constitution) carefully excluded the question of religious sentiments. Nor did it require the state to ban cow slaughter outright. Instead, under the heading “Organisation of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry”, Article 48 says the state shall “organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
•Members of the Constituent Assembly found these incremental compromises both unprincipled and unsatisfactory. Shibban Lal Saksena objected to such “back door” tactics, and asked why the Drafting Committee was “ashamed of providing for [the prohibition of cow slaughter] frankly and boldly in so many plain words”.
•Z.H. Lari, one of the Muslim representatives in the Assembly, stated that his community would not stand in the way of the majority’s desire, but nonetheless asked that the majority “express itself clearly and definitely”, so that Muslims could know exactly what the position was on cow slaughter. However, clear and definite expression on the issue of cow slaughter was one thing that the Assembly was unwilling to commit to. Article 48, a provision that was grafted out of a compromise that left nobody satisfied, came into being with the rest of the Constitution, on January 26, 1950.
In the Supreme Court
•The fundamental disingenuousness that underlay Article 48 was to be repeated, many times over, in constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court. Right from 1958, the Supreme Court was asked to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of cattle slaughter bans passed by various States. Petitioners before the court argued that a prohibition of cow slaughter violated their rights to trade and business, and also their right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the laws, but it did so by focussing its reasoning entirely on — apparent — economic considerations. Detailed analyses of agricultural output and milch yields give these judgments a strained, almost unreal quality. Much like the Drafting Committee, it was as if the court was unwilling to admit — and to uphold — the possibility of non-economic considerations behind such laws, as though this would shatter the thin facade of secularism to which the Constitution remained (ostensibly) committed.
A possible answer
•The disingenuousness that marked the Constituent Assembly debates, that was written into final text of Article 48, and that has been inscribed into 50 years of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, has found its latest avatar in the present rules. This time, the Central government has invoked a Supreme Court order on cattle smuggling across the Nepal border, as well as a 1960 law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as its justification.
•However, the Supreme Court’s order makes no mention of cattle slaughter, and a reading of the Act demonstrates clearly that it does not contemplate prohibiting animal slaughter per se. Not only does it specifically exempt slaughter of animals for food, it also provides for advice on the design of slaughterhouses, so that “unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible.”
•Now, under our legal and constitutional system, an executive notification cannot even go beyond the specific terms and ambit of the parent law from which it derives its authority. The government’s new rules, however, go even further: by prohibiting the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets, they contravene the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act by specifically forbidding what that Act permits. There is a strong argument, therefore, that the rules are invalid.
•Furthermore, if indeed the purpose of the rules was to prevent cruelty to animals, then why is their scope limited only to cattle — and to camels? It is true that the government is always at liberty, for reasons of administrative convenience or otherwise, to choose and categorise the subjects to whom its actions will apply; but while under-inclusiveness is not generally a ground for a court to invalidate executive action, in the present case, there seems no rational basis for limiting the reach of an anti-cruelty regulation to only some animals. At the very least, in law, this casts serious doubts about the government’s motivation and justification for its rules.
•One might wonder why the Central government chose to take such a momentous step armed with such a flimsy defence. The only possible answer seems to be that had it gone with the traditional, economic justification for an (effective) ban on cow slaughter, it would have run up against an insurmountable constitutional difficulty: under our constitutional scheme, “agriculture” and “the preservation of stock” fall within the exclusive legislative competence of the States. This is the reason why, historically, different cow slaughter laws have been passed by different States. It is to get around this that the Central government has invoked the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a subject on which both the Centre and States can make laws.
•What this has resulted in is a badly drafted set of rules, which is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. It is also, however, an opportunity for citizens — and courts — to think once again whether the prescription of food choices is consistent with a Constitution that promises economic and social liberty to all.
This time for Africa
Sustained India-Japan cooperation in Africa can match China's substantial outreach
•India-Africa engagement is getting stronger with the active involvement of political and business leaders of both sides. This was reflected in deliberations at the annual meeting of the African Development Bank (AfDB) recently. The AfDB’s decision to hold its meeting here in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, demonstrated its confidence in recent achievements and future prospects of the Indian economy. It also confirmed Africa’s growing interest in connecting more extensively with India Inc. AfDB president Akinwumi Adesina called India “a developing beacon for the rest of the world”, adding that the time was right for India and Africa to forge “winning partnerships”.
•This conference came against the backdrop of the historic third India-Africa Forum Summit in October 2015 when all 54 African nations had sent their representatives, 41 of them at the level of head of state or government. African governments have also been appreciative of Indian leaders’ unprecedented readiness to visit Africa. In the past two years, the President, the Vice President and the Prime Minister have visited 16 African countries in the east, west, north and south. “After assuming office in 2014, I have made Africa a top priority for India’s foreign and economic policy,” Mr. Modi said at the AfDB meet.
A growth corridor
•What attracted the attention of media, diplomatic and strategic communities was the release by Mr. Modi of a vision document on the “Asia Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC)”. This study was jointly produced by three research institutions of India and Japan — Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi; the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), Jakarta, and the Institute of Developing Economies Japan External Trade Organisation (IDE-JETRO), Japan — in consultation with other Asian and African think tanks. It envisages closer engagement between India and Africa for “sustainable and innovative development”, and will be anchored to four pillars: development and cooperation projects; quality infrastructure and institutional connectivity; enhancing capacities and skills; and people-to-people partnership. The AAGC will accord priority to development projects in health and pharmaceuticals, agriculture and agro-processing, disaster management, and skill enhancement. It will have special focus on the following geographies: Africa, India and South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania. This study indicates a preference for turning the 21st century into an Asian-African century, and not just an Asian century.
•The idea of a growth corridor linking Asia and Africa stemmed from discussions between Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Mr. Modi in November 2016, in light of talks between the two governments in earlier years. Convinced of the rising importance of the Indo-Pacific region as “the key driver for prosperity of the world”, the two leaders decided “to seek synergy” between India’s Act East Policy and Japan’s “Expanded Partnership for Quality Infrastructure”. This synergy would be reflected in better regional integration, improved connectivity and industrial networks. The strategy encompasses India-Japan collaboration for accelerating development in Africa together with other like-minded countries such as the United States, Germany, France and probably the United Arab Emirates and Singapore.
Differences in approach
•The very mention of the AAGC excited many observers. A few in the media asked experts whether this would be India’s answer to China’s One Belt One Road. The honest answer is in the negative as the approaches of India and China towards Africa are essentially different. China concentrates on infrastructure and cheque-book diplomacy, whereas India promotes a broader spectrum of cooperation projects and programmes focussed on the development of Africa’s human resources. China goes solo, while India is desirous of working with other willing nations to assist Africa as per the latter’s priorities. Besides, while committed to a voluntary partnership with Africa, India is not “prescriptive”, as Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley explained. This enlightened approach offers “limitless possibilities” for India-Africa cooperation.
•Nevertheless, it should be reckoned that India and Japan do not have the luxury of time in view of China’s rapidly expanding footprint in Africa. An urgent need exists for them to increase the scope of their development projects, create synergy among themselves, engage proactively with other willing partners, and thus turn the concept of the AAGC into a viable reality.
•The authors of the vision document plan to produce within a year “an AAGC Vision Study” based on a geographical simulation model which will estimate the economic impact of various trade and transportation facilitation measures. The three institutions will then recommend the way forward to deepening the Asia-Africa partnership.
•If New Delhi and Tokyo are anxious to make a difference, the most important task for them is to immediately initiate a few joint pilot projects involving the companies of India, Japan and a few African countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia and Mozambique in identified areas such as health care, agriculture and blue economy. Unless results become visible in the short term, questions may arise about the credibility of their joint approach. China’s substantial success needs to be matched by sustained India-Japan cooperation in Africa.
India is no longer the fastest-growing economy
Slowdown brings GDP down to 6.1% in fourth quarter
•India lost its fastest-growing major economy tag in the fourth quarter of 2016-17, with GDP growth coming in at 6.1% compared with China’s 6.9% in the same period.
•Data from the Ministry of Statistics on Wednesday showed GDP grew 7.1% in the financial year 2016-17, slower than the 8% registered in 2015-16. The GDP numbers were based on the new 2011-12 base year recently adopted for data including the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) and Wholesale Price Index (WPI). Gross value added (GVA) growth was 6.6% for 2016-17 and 5.6% in the fourth quarter, compared with 7.9% in 2015-16 and 8.7% in Q4 of that year.
•The “numbers show a clear slowdown in GVA,” DK Srivastava, Chief Economic Adviser at EY India, said. “That is, post-demonetisation there has been a slowdown,” he said. “The GDP growth rate is slightly higher (than GVA growth) because of a more than proportionate increase in indirect tax net of subsidies.”
Plan for Indian SEZs in Bangladesh hits bump
Firms cite inadequate infrastructure, power supply
•The plan to step up India’s investments in Bangladesh by setting up three mega Special Economic Zones (SEZ) exclusively for Indian companies in the latter’s territory, has hit a major hurdle.
•Citing “constraints, including inadequate infrastructure and lack of uninterrupted power supply” at Mongla, Bheramara and Mirsarai – the sites in Bangladesh for the proposed Indian SEZs, representatives of India Inc. told the Centre at a meeting on Monday that it will not be commercially viable to set up SEZs in the locations.
•For better connectivity and business prospects, they sought alternative sites close to the Chittagong Port and the capital city of Dhaka — similar to those been allocated by Bangladesh for Chinese SEZs, official sources told The Hindu.
Clarity sought
•Expressing reluctance in taking forward the proposal, India Inc. also referred to “ambiguity and uncertainty regarding incentives offered by the Bangladesh Government to develop the SEZs,” the sources said.
•To lure investments into its SEZs, Bangladesh had offered incentives, including exemption from income tax, VAT, customs duty and stamp duty, removal of ceiling on FDI, full repatriation of capital and dividend, no curbs on issuance of work permits as well as resident visas and citizenship for investments over a certain limit.
•India Inc. wanted greater clarity on some of the incentives as well as an assurance that they will be continued even if there was a regime change in Bangladesh.
•The meeting – aimed at finalising the list of Indian companies interested in developing SEZs in Bangladesh – was attended by officials, including from the Ministries of External Affairs and Commerce as well as representatives from industry bodies including the FICCI, the CII, Federation of Indian Export Organisations and the Export Promotion Council for Export oriented units and SEZs.
•India and Bangladesh had inked a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in June 2015 — during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Bangladesh — for cooperation on establishing Indian SEZs in Bangladesh.
•The plan was to develop Indian SEZs at Mirsarai (1,005 acres), Bheramara (about 480 acres) and Mongla (200 acres). The construction of these SEZs and Indian investment in the zones were to be facilitated through concessional Line of Credit extended by India to Bangladesh.
•The Centre had promised to address the concerns of India Inc. by taking them up with the Bangladesh Government in June-end or early July and asked Indian companies not to reject Bangladesh’s offer of land and other incentives to build Indian SEZs there.
India’s plea
•The government officials said the proposed sites are close to a port (Mongla) and not far from the Petrapole-Benapole Integrated Check Post.
•Besides, they said, India was considering a supply of about 5,000 MW (including 1,320 MW Rampal power plant that was not far from these sites) of power to Bangladesh. In the meantime, the Centre had asked consultancy firm PwC – that had carried out a preliminary study on the topic — to incorporate the suggestions of India Inc. in its report and give a clearer assessment of the potential gains for Indian companies from the incentives, including tax benefits, offered by Bangladesh for setting up SEZs.
INS Kalvari to join Navy by July
It is the first of the six French Scorpene submarines being built in India
•The first of the six Scorpene submarines, being built in India under technology transfer from France, is likely to join the Navy by July or August, the Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sunil Lanba, said here on Wednesday.
•“ Kalvari is going through the final phase of trials, and we are hopeful that in July-August, we will take delivery,” he told presspersons on the sidelines of a seminar, “Building India’s future Navy: technology imperatives”, organised by the Navy and the FICCI.
•Kalvari is named after a deep-sea tiger shark.
•Six Scorpene submarines are being built under Project-75 by Mazagon Docks Ltd. with technology transfer from DCNS, a French naval shipbuilder.
Trial for Khanderi
•The second Scorpene submarine Khanderi — named after an island fort of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji — was launched in the sea in January and will begin sea trials on June 1. “ Khanderi will go into sea on Thursday and, if weather permits, will carry out its first dive,” a defence source said. The Navy hopes to complete the trials by year-end.
•Asked about Sri Lanka’s decision to deny a Chinese submarine permission to dock at Colombo, Admiral Lanba said: “We have no dialogue on this with the Sri Lankans. It was a decision they have taken on their own.” It coincided with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to that country. Chinese submarines on anti-piracy patrols had in the past docked in Sri Lanka, causing concerns in New Delhi.
•As for the construction of the first indigenous aircraft-carrier Vikrant , Admiral Lanba said the Navy hoped it would start trials in 2019 and “we take delivery in 2020”.
Genetic secrets of ancient Egypt unwrapped
Scientists study DNA from mummies found at a burial site
•DNA from mummies found at a site once known for its cult to the Egyptian god of the afterlife is unwrapping intriguing insight into the people of ancient Egypt, including a surprise discovery that they had scant genetic ties to sub-Saharan Africa.
•Scientists on Tuesday said they examined genome data from 90 mummies from the Abusir el-Malek archaeological site, located about 115 km south of Cairo, in the most sophisticated genetic study of ancient Egyptians ever conducted.
•The DNA was extracted from the teeth and bones of mummies from a burial ground associated with the god Osiris. The oldest were from about 1,388 BC during the New Kingdom, a high point in ancient Egyptian influence and culture. The most recent were from about 426 AD, centuries after Egypt had become a Roman Empire province.
•“There has been much discussion about the genetic ancestry of ancient Egyptians,” said archeogeneticist Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, who led the study published in the journal Nature Communications.
•“Are modern Egyptians direct descendants of ancient Egyptians? Was there genetic continuity in Egypt through time? Did foreign invaders change the genetic make-up: for example, did Egyptians become more ‘European’ after Alexander the Great conquered Egypt?” Mr. Krause added. “Ancient DNA can address those questions.”
Little kinship
•The genomes showed that, unlike modern Egyptians, ancient Egyptians had little to no genetic kinship with sub-Saharan populations, some of which like ancient Ethiopia were known to have had significant interactions with Egypt.
•The closest genetic ties were to the peoples of the ancient Near East, spanning parts of Iraq and Turkey as well as Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
•Mummification was used to preserve the bodies of the dead for the afterlife. The mummies in the study were of middle-class people, not royalty.
