THE HINDU – CURRENT NOTE 17 February
Set up mechanism to delete sex determination ads: SC
The Supreme
Court on Thursday ordered three Internet giants — Google, Microsoft and Yahoo —
to immediately set up their own in-house expert bodies to keep tabs on and
delete online pre-natal sex determination advertisements.
The court said
the intent of the order was to make these search engines “responsive to Indian
law.”
Section 22 of
the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act of 1994 prohibits advertisements relating to pre-natal
determination of sex and imposes punishment. However, ads continue to appear
online, rendering the law toothless.
“Since 2001,
this court has expressed its concern with regard to reduction of sex ratio in
this country. It has gone to the extent of stating that when there is decrease
in sex ratio, it is a disaster signal to the mankind,” a Bench of Justices
Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi referred to the scant regard for the anti-female
foeticide law.
Now, the Supreme
Court has made the search engines themselves liable for preventing illegal sex
determination ads from appearing online. This step is in addition to the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s move to set up a nodal agency to
receive complaints on violation of Section 22 of the 1994 Act.
In-house experts
The court
ordered that the search engines “shall appoint their ‘In-House Expert Body’
which shall take steps to see that if any words or any key words that can be
shown on the Internet which has the potentiality to go counter to Section 22 of
the 1994 Act, should be deleted forthwith.”
The court
observed that the in-house expert body “shall on its own understanding” delete
anything that violates the letter and spirit of language of Section 22 of the
1994 Act. In case of doubt, they are free to approach the Ministry’s nodal
agency and be guided by the latter.
“The whole
problem is that they [search engines] do not have respect for the law of the
country,” Justice Misra orally remarked. However, the companies countered the
accusation, saying they had always complied with the local laws.
India, Afghanistan take a hard line on Taliban at Moscow conference
India and
Afghanistan took a hard line at the six-nation talks in Moscow on Wednesday,
opposing the dominant view from Russia, China and Pakistan to involve the
Taliban in reconciliation efforts.
Briefing the
media about the outcome of the talks that were held between senior officials of
all the countries, that also included Iran, External Affairs spokesperson Vikas
Swarup said that denying “safe havens or sanctuaries to any terrorist group or
individual in countries of our region,” was essential to stabilising the
situation in Afghanistan.
Reconciliation
efforts must be driven by the Afghanistan government and could only be
facilitated by “friends and well wishers of Afghanistan,” he said, indicating
that the previous round of QCG (Quadrilateral Cooperation Group) hosted by
Pakistan was not acceptable.
‘Key challenge’
Without naming
Pakistan, Afghanistan’s representative at the talks, M. Ashraf Haidari, who is
the Director General of Policy and Strategy in the MFA, said that it was
necessary to “effect a change in the behaviour of certain state actors” in
order to end the violence that has reached record levels in the last year.
Referring to
Pakistan’s stand on “good/bad Taliban” echoed by officials in Moscow, and the
talks between China and Taliban officials last year, he said: “The key
challenge to the process remains a policy selectivity by some to distinguish
between good and bad terrorists, even though terrorism is a common threat that
confronts the whole region, where if one of us doesn’t stand firm against it,
others’ counter-terrorism efforts will not bear the results we all seek.”
Another point of
contention that emerged was over the composition of the talks hosted by Russia.
Afghanistan made a strong pitch for the United States to be included as one of
its most important partners. It said it was a necessary part of all processes
to “end war and usher in sustainable peace in Afghanistan”.
With U.S. troop
levels down to their lowest of about 8,400 at the end of President Obama’s
tenure, Afghanistan’s government has been hoping President Trump will increase
assistance to the country.
However, in its
final statement at the end of the conference, the Russian government said it
proposed to extend the conference to Central Asian states, and didn’t mention
the United States.
Two-state solution remains ‘only way’ for Israel-Palestine peace, insists UN
Envoy for peace
urges leaders of both sides to ‘carefully contemplate the future’
The two-state
solution remains “the only way” to meet the aspirations of the Palestinians and
Israelis, the UN envoy for the West Asia peace process told the Security
Council on Thursday.
The council met
to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a day after President Donald Trump
stepped back from the U.S. commitment to a two-state solution as part of a
final peace deal.
Absence of clear
strategy
“The two-state
solution remains the only way to achieve the legitimate national aspirations of
both peoples,” Nickolay Mladenov told the council. “Some may hold the illusion
that the conflict can be ‘managed’ indefinitely,” Mr. Mladenov said. “That the
absence of a clear strategy to advance peace is a strategy in itself.”
The envoy urged
Israeli and Palestinian leaders to “carefully contemplate the future”, which he
warned could be one “built on perpetual conflict, rising extremism and
occupation”.
Mr. Trump
announced on Wednesday that the U.S. would not insist on a two-state solution to
the conflict, in a break from Washington’s decades-old policy and from the
international consensus on the peace process.
“I’m looking at
two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very
happy with the one that both parties like,” Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Trump’s
comments have triggered sharp responses from Muslim countries and
organisations. Arab League chief Ahmed Abul Gheit said on Thursday resolving
the conflict would require a two-state solution.
Mr. Gheit
affirmed that the conflict “requires a comprehensive and just peace based on a
two-state solution with an independent Palestinian state”, a statement said
after he met UN chief Antonio Guterres in Cairo.
Palestinian
Liberation Organisation secretary-general Saeb Erekat said the PLO remained
committed to two states and would oppose any system that discriminated against
Palestinians.
Hassan
Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, says
the remarks made by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump mark the end
of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Should elections be state-funded?
State funding is
a possible solution but it alone will not do away with the black
money-electoral politics nexus
I am in favour
of state funding of elections. When we think of politics and money we tend to
focus on how to control black money in politics which in turn finds expression
in fixing expenditure limits on candidates and political parties. I think we
need to shift our focus to how to infuse white money in politics.
And instead of
being obsessed with a ceiling on expenditure incurred by candidates and
political parties, we should spend our energy on seeking a floor-level fund for
everyone who is a serious contender in the electoral arena, if we want to
ensure a level playing field.
Black money
dominates politics as there is an acute lack of white money in the field.
We all love to
lament dirty money in politics, but few of us bother to put a small bit of our
legally earned money in politics. Since we have failed to develop healthy
traditions of political funding, we need to think of some shortcuts.
State funding of
elections is part of a possible solution, though state funding by itself will
not do away with the nexus of black money and electoral politics.
Infusing white
money
A political
party/ candidate which/ who enjoys political support should not be thrown out
of the political arena simply because of lack of funds. Any scheme of state
funding of elections should be designed in such a way that it infuses a
substantial amount of white money into politics in ways that are transparent
and flexible. I have a simple proposal: at the end of every election, every
candidate should be reimbursed at the rate of Rs. 100 for each vote secured by
that candidate in the elections.
The money may be
divided equally between the candidate and her party, to be deposited in a
special bank account for this purpose. There could be a minimum qualifying
cut-off of, say, 1% of valid votes polled, so as to deter non-serious
candidates. There could also be a ceiling on reimbursement, say, twice the
maximum permissible expenditure for a candidate in a constituency, so that a
candidate and her party do not get more than what they need. The candidates
should be allowed to adjust any permissible item of their election expenses
against this amount. A party should be free to use their share on any expense
already incurred on elections or any expense on political activity till the
next election.
Would it cost a
bomb? Over a five-year period, across one round of parliamentary and Assembly
elections, it would cost around Rs. 5,000 crore. That is about 0.05% of the
Central government’s Budget for five years. What about black money? Yes, it
won’t disappear. But the dependence of political leaders and parties on black
money will reduce.
Why pay more
money to already cash-rich political parties for whom this may mean nothing?
Because if the party workers know that the party has access to some legitimate
funds, they would be able to make demands on their party. It would increase
internal democracy and reduce the clout of moneybags within these big parties.
Is it worth it?
Well, let us consider the fact that this amount is about half of what
businessman Vijay Mallya walked away with. To my mind, something that improves
the quality of our democracy is the best value for money and will go a long way
in ensuring a clean democracy.
Revenge of America’s deep state
It strikes by
forcing Michael Flynn’s exit and obstructing a reset of U.S.-Russia ties
Not many had
foreseen such an abrupt end to Michael Flynn’s role in the Donald Trump
presidency. Mr. Flynn, who was Mr. Trump’s National Security Adviser for 24
days, the shortest stint for anybody since the post was created over 60 years
ago, was seen as a key architect of the new administration’s foreign and
security policies. He was one of the first military figures to endorse Mr. Trump
and had been closely associated with him through his rise to the White House.
Still he was
forced to leave amid a growing scandal over his contacts with Sergey Kislyak,
the Russian Ambassador in Washington. While the sudden resignation may be
surprising, for those who closely watch the events that led to Mr. Flynn’s
downfall, it’s not difficult to see an underlying pattern in them, which points
to a growing tussle between the Trump team and U.S. intelligence agencies. The
U.S. deep state, a web of military (intelligence), political and other
interests operating behind the scene to ensure the status quo prevails, may not
be as visible to the public as in dictatorships. That’s mainly because its
interests have always been taken care of by the political leadership. However
Mr. Trump’s attack on the establishment and his seemingly friendly approach
towards Russia, the arch enemy of the U.S. in Washington parlance, clearly
upset the deep state.
The Russia
factor
So the tussle
between Mr. Trump and intelligence agencies dates back to the billionaire
property mogul’s surprising election victory on November 8, 2016. Within a
month, the American media carried reports that the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) had concluded that Russia had interfered in the U.S. election to help Mr.
Trump become President. The finding was that Russian hackers attacked
Democratic campaign servers, stole emails and gave them to WikiLeaks, which
released them to the public apparently hurting Hillary Clinton’s chances in the
election. Barack Obama, by then a lame-duck President, quickly acted on the
intelligence reports, imposing fresh sanctions on Russia and expelling 35
Russian diplomats. Clearly, it made any reset in ties difficult for his
successor.
Another report
that came a month later, again leaked by intelligence officials, claimed that
Russia had “compromising personal and financial” information about Mr. Trump.
There were even
allegations in Washington by influential people such as Strobe Talbott, a
former Deputy Secretary of State, and Michael Morell, a former acting CIA
director, that Mr. Trump is a “Kremlin stooge” and a “Putin recruit”. The leaks
did not stop after Mr. Trump assumed office or his nominees took over the
Pentagon and intelligence agencies. Mr. Flynn’s fall is a case in point. To
bring him down, intelligence officials have leaked the contents of intercepted
communication, something which is seen as one of the most serious felonies
among crimes involving leaking classified information. Mr. Flynn talked to the
Russian Ambassador multiple times on the phone on December 29, the day Mr.
Obama imposed fresh sanctions on Russia and sacked the diplomats. He first
denied having spoken of sanctions. So did the White House. But the Ambassador
had been wiretapped and the intelligence community had the details of what was
discussed. Once the media got hold of these details, the White House had no
option but to give up on Mr. Flynn.
What connects
all these exposés and allegations is the Russia factor. Mr. Trump had sought
better cooperation with Moscow in the war against the Islamic State. He had
also challenged certain accepted notions among the Washington establishment
such as the role and relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(NATO). This was unacceptable for the deep state, for which the presidency is
temporary and the system permanent. The first major leak by the CIA on the
Russian involvement in the cyberattack on Democratic campaign servers was a
declaration of war. This doesn’t mean that the leaks are bad. Any attempt to
make information public, irrespective of its cause and effect, is welcome. But
in this case, information is being used as a weapon in a battle between
powerful groups. It’s also to be noted that the establishment doesn’t have a
problem with Mr. Trump’s more dangerous (for both the U.S. and the world) and
provocative policy measures. The Republican leadership, including Paul Ryan,
defended his Muslim ban. His belligerence on West Asia is unlikely to invite
significant opposition. The opposition comes only over the red line, and that’s
Russia.
Mr. Trump could
either fight back or make peace. Two days after Mr. Flynn’s resignation, he has
signalled both. He attacked the intelligence agencies on Twitter on Wednesday,
while the White House indicated that the promised détente with Russia was over.
But Mr. Flynn has set in motion a process that is unlikely to be controlled by
a seemingly incompetent administration like Mr. Trump’s. With chaos engulfing
his government, Mr. Trump will be forced to conform.
Britain’s moral failure
Ditching the
Dubs child refugee scheme is shocking but consistent with the U.K.’s refrain of
the refugee crisis
There could not
have been a more baffling decision by the British government than to ditch a
scheme to grant asylum to child refugees from Europe. Equally, the move betrays
a shocking reluctance to demonstrate moral leadership in the face of the
unprecedented challenge triggered by mass migrations from the world’s bloody
conflict zones.
All the same,
the step to discontinue the asylum scheme is consistent with the U.K.’s
consistent yet controversial refrain right from the beginning of the refugee
crisis. It has been London’s view that providing shelter to those who have
already entered the shores of Europe would amount to a perverse incentive to
many more millions in West Asia to undertake the risky journey. Such an
assumption explains in large part London’s response to the plight of hundreds
of children stranded in the so-called Calais ‘Jungle’ camp across the border
with France and other refugee camps in Europe. Accordingly, the U.K. has
restricted itself to extend financial aid to displaced Syrians, besides
reuniting children who have families living in the U.K.
Conversely, the
rest of the European Union has pursued a range of pro-active and at times
controversial policies to stem the flow of migrants into the bloc, even if this
has betrayed a lack of a coherent and consistent approach. A case in point is
the launch of search and rescue operations in the high seas and the relocation
of refugees in the wake of the horrific deaths of hundreds of migrants off the
Libyan coast in 2015 and in the Mediterranean Sea last year. London’s 2016
decision to accept some 3,000 unaccompanied children into the country out of an
estimated 90,000 stranded in migrant camps signalled a slight relaxation in the
government’s rigid position on the refugee crisis. The humane stance was the
outcome of a sustained campaign cutting across party lines spearheaded by a
Labour peer, Alf Dubs, who was himself rescued from Nazi-occupied
Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s.
Conversely,
former Prime Minister David Cameron’s principal concern ahead of the EU
referendum last year was to defend the bloc’s so-called Dublin rules that until
recently allowed people with asylum claims to be returned to the first state of
entry. After all, Britain had exploited these rules to deport 12,000
asylum-seekers over the past 15 years; it was but natural that the U.K. should
refuse to cooperate with the EU’s strategy to resettle refugees. On the
contrary, their revision was warranted by the need to redress the unfair burden
imposed on southern European countries by the surge in the flow of migrants. As
London enjoys an opt-out from EU home affairs policies, it is under no
obligation to join the bloc’s current quota system to receive refugees.
The move to
abandon the Dubs scheme is perhaps no surprise after Prime Minister Theresa May
spelt out her government’s red lines on immigration, even if that means the
U.K. must leave the cherished single market it once championed.
‘Low solar tariff viability depends on cost of debt’
Tariffs fell below Rs. 3 per unit at a recent bid in M.P.
The viability of solar projects at the historically low tariffs of about Rs. 3 realised recently would critically depend on the cost of long-term debt, and also the continuance of low prices of solar modules, according to a report by the rating agency ICRA.
The recently-concluded bid for three 250 MW units in the Rewa plant in Madhya Pradesh saw tariffs falling below Rs. 3 per unit, sparking some concern in the industry that tariffs were becoming unviably low.
“This signifies a major improvement in the cost competitiveness of solar energy against both alternate renewable as well as conventional energy sources,” according to the report.
“Viability of such tariff for project developer from its credit perspective will be critically dependent upon the availability of long tenure debt (up to 18-20 year post project completion date) at cost competitive rate as well as more importantly, its ability to keep the cost of PV (photovoltaic) modules within the budgeted levels,” Sabyasachi Majumdar, senior vice president and group head at ICRA Ratings said.
Debt service ratio
Any deviation in project parameters and cost assumptions could have an adverse impact on project returns and debt service ratios, according to the ICRA report.
“On the other hand, however, project developers may have an incremental upside arising out of their ability to improve the PLF level using trackers or by a further downward movement in equipment prices over the execution period,” Girishkumar Kadam, Vice President and Sector Head at ICRA Ratings said.
The report noted that such low tariffs in Madhya Pradesh were enabled by a few favourable and unique structures in the project power purchase agreements such as a State government guarantee for the contracted capacity by the utility as well as a compensation for deemed generation in case of non-availability of the grid.
RBI plans to rejig MDR for cards
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) plans to rationalise the merchant discount rate (MDR) for debit cards – the rate which banks charge a merchant when the customer uses a card for a transaction – and said there would be different charges for different kinds of merchants.
According to the draft norms on MDR, the merchants have been categorised in four categories, small merchants with turnover outside the ambit of GST (less than Rs. 20 lakh per annum), government transactions (railways, VISA fees etc), special category of merchants (utilities, hospitals, Army canteen etc), and all other category of merchants with turnover within the ambit of GST.
For small and special category of merchants, the MDR has been capped at 0.4% of the transaction value for physical point-of-sale (PoS) machines and 0.3% for digital PoS.
For all other categories of merchants, MDR is capped at 0.95% of transaction value for physical PoS and 0.85% for digital PoS. For government transactions, a flat fee of Rs. 5 has been proposed for transaction value up to Rs. 1,000.
Source The Hindu
