ISRO set to launch heaviest rocket
GSLV Mk- III can carry up to 8 tonne
•An indigenous rocket as heavy as 200 full-grown Asian elephants could well take “Indians into space from Indian soil”.
•Standing tall on the rocket port at Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh is the country’s latest rocket — the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mark III (GSLV Mk- III) — the heaviest rocket ever made by India that is capable of carrying the heaviest satellites.
•“We are pushing ourselves to the limits to ensure that this new, fully self-reliant Indian rocket succeeds in its maiden launch,” Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) chairman A.S. Kiran Kumar said.
•If all goes well with the maiden launch of the GSLV-Mk III (earlier named Launch Vehicle Mark-3) and subsequent flights, this rocket could be India’s vehicle of choice to launch “Indians into space, from Indian soil using Indian rockets” he said.
•The heavy lift rocket is capable of placing up to 8 tonne in a low Earth orbit, enough to carry India’s crew module.
•ISRO has already prepared plans of hoisting a two to three human crew into space as soon as the government gives it a sanction of about $4 billion.
•If the human venture materialises, India would become only the fourth country after Russia, the U.S. and China to have a human space flight programme.
Modi in Berlin today, says ‘new chapter’ in ties
PM’s six-day tour to Germany, Spain, Russia and France assumes added significance as all are members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi will arrive in Berlin on Monday beginning a six-day, four-nation tour of Europe.
•He will meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel for talks to tackle issues such as the impasse in the India-EU free trade agreement, as well as developing a common strategy to counter China’s moves on connectivity and preserving the international “rules-based” system.
•“Our strategic partnership is based on democratic values and commitment to an open, inclusive and rules-based global order,” Mr. Modi said in a series of messages on his website, describing the visit to Germany as a “new chapter” in the bilateral strategic partnership.
•From Germany, the Prime Minister will travel to Spain (May 29-30), Russia (May 31-June 1) and France (June 2-3). His meetings at each of these countries will also be significant given that all four are members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group that will meet in June to once again consider India’s membership application.
•Mr. Modi is to meet all the leaders once again in July at the G-20 summit in Hamburg (Spain is not a G-20 country, but is a permanent invitee).
Free trade pact
•Mr. Modi will land in the German capital and leave directly for Schloss Meseberg, a castle outside Berlin that serves as the official retreat for Chancellor Merkel and has been the backdrop for several high level summits. The Prime Minister he is expected to dine alone with the Chancellor.
•On Tuesday morning, the leaders will meet for the fourth bi-annual Inter-Governmental Consultations (IGC) in Berlin, and are expected to sign a number of MoUs on trade and investment, security and counter-terrorism, innovation and science & technology, skill development, urban infrastructure, railways, civil aviation, clean energy, development cooperation, health and alternative medicine, according to officials.
•Germany is India’s largest trading partner in the EU, and Ms. Merkel will make a push for a resumption of the EU-India Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA), that has been suspended for four years.
•Germany wants a commitment from India on either resuming talks with the EU or at least renewing the bilateral investment treaty that lapsed in March 2017.
•Officials have warned that in the absence of any mechanism to protect German companies considering investments in India, their plans may be shelved.
Tackling Beijing
•In a candid statement last week, German Ambassador Martin Ney had also said the “common questions” both countries share about China’s Belt and Road Initiative will be discussed, even as Germany and India explore joint projects for connectivity and development in Africa and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
•Mr. Modi will travel next to Spain for talks with Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, expected to yield an agreement on counter-terrorism cooperation, which Mr. Modi referred to as a “common concern”.
•“We seek [the] active participation of [the] Spanish industry in various Indian projects including infrastructure, smart cities, digital economy, renewable energy, defence and tourism,” he added in his statement on Sunday.
•Mr Modi’s visit to St. Petersburg will mark the first time the Annual India-Russia summit is held outside of Moscow.
•The Prime Minister will meet President Vladimir Putin for a “one-on-one” dinner on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
•India and Austria are the guest countries this year at the SPIEF, an investor’s conference called the “Russian Davos”. Mr. Modi and Mr. Putin are expected to announce a “series of agreements”, officials said, while an MoU to construct the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project’s (KKNPP) reactors 5 & 6 is in its “final stages” before being signed.
Meet with Macron
•The Prime Minister’s final stop in France will see his first meeting with newly elected President Emmanuel Macron. The two leaders are expected to review bilateral relations including cooperation on nuclear and renewable energy, and defence cooperation.
Strategic ties with foreign OEMs
Indian firms will be partners in new model for defence manufacturing
•In a few weeks, the Union government will sound out five or six private sector majors to execute mega defence deals in four key areas — submarines, single-engine fighter aircraft, helicopters and armoured vehicles.
•With the Union Cabinet taking note of the strategic partnership model last week, the Defence Ministry is awaiting its formal notification.
•“The Cabinet has taken note of it. It will now formally come to the Ministry and then get notified as a separate chapter under the Defence Procurement Procedure. The process should roll out immediately after that,” a senior defence official told The Hindu .
•Each of the four segments has programmes under way. “A lot of work has already been done on all these platforms. Short-listing the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) should not be difficult,” the official said and expressed confidence that the first contract should be concluded in a year to a year-and-a-half.
•Private sector majors will be selected as the strategic partner for each segment and they will tie up with the foreign OEMs. “We had suggested a mechanism for implementing the policy. We need a composite structure in the Ministry to roll out the policy quickly unlike the present system,” the official said. The mechanism is essential, officials said, as there are various stakeholders involved in the procurement process such as the acquisition wing and services.
•The present defence procurement policy, which is handled by the acquisition wing, is cumbersome.
Incorporating DPSUs
•While the SP policy is for the private sector, the government has stated that it look at the feasibility of how defence public sector undertakings (DPSU) can be involved in the process and what their contribution would be. “There was a lot of resistance from the DPSUs and the Department of Defence Production to be involved in the policy,” a source added.
•The source said that all DPSUs had full order books and were working at full capacities, and added that probably at some stage in future, there could be collaborations between them and the selected SPs.
•The deals in the four segments are six submarines under Project-75I expected to cost around Rs. 50,000 crore, deal for 100-plus single-engine fighter aircraft estimated at Rs. 60,000 crore, the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle programme estimated at around Rs. 50,000 crore and utility helicopters for the Navy estimated at Rs. 12,000 crore.
•There are broadly six or seven companies viewing to become strategic partners which will be selected by a two-stage evaluation process. Minimum criteria have already been drawn up in Stage I and those shortlisted will be will evaluated in detail under Stage II.
•Larsen & Tourbo, Mahindra, Tata Advanced Systems Ltd., Tata Motors and Reliance Defence and Engineering Ltd. are leading the race. From the public sector, only Mazagon Docks Ltd. will compete as it is currently building the French Scorpene submarines.
Cattle trade rules go against 1960 law
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not impose curbs on sale of cattle for slaughter or sacrifices
•Restrictions placed by the new rules of the Environment Ministry on the sale of cattle in a livestock market for purposes of slaughter and religious animal sacrifices contravene the very law — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 — under which it has been notified.
•The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules of 2017 permit the sale of cattle in markets only to verified “agriculturists”, who have to give an undertaking to authorities that cattle will not be sold or slaughtered for meat. Nor shall the animal be used for sacrifices. The animal will be used only for farming.
•The rules take away the rights of the owner to even sell the carcass of an animal dying of “natural causes” in the market. The rules prescribe that the carcass will be incinerated and not be sold or flayed for leather.
•The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, enacted on December 26, 1960, however, does not impose any such restriction. It does not ban a cattle owner to sell the carcass of his animals for leather. The legislative intent of the 1960 Act is to “prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals”. In fact, the very proof that neither slaughter nor sale for that purpose is banned by the Act is found in Section 9 (e) of the statute. One of the functions of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) under the Act is to “advise the government or any local authority or other person in the design of slaughter-houses or the maintenance of slaughter houses or in connection with slaughter of animals so that unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible, and animals are killed; wherever necessary, in as humane a manner as possible.”
Slaughter for food
•The Act further recognises slaughter for food. Section 11 of the Act does not categorise slaughter of animals for food as cruelty. It makes a specific exemption for “destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.”
•When a PIL petition came up for hearing before the SC to ban animal sacrifices for religious purposes, the court had specifically noted how Section 28 of the Act mandates that “nothing contained in this Act (1960 Act) shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community.”
•The restriction on trade of cattle or carcasses in livestock markets will have to be tested on the touchstone of the fundamental right to occupation, trade or business under Article 19 (1) (g) to see whether it is “reasonable.” Though Section 38 of the 1960 Act confers the Centre the power to make rules, several judicial precedents hold that this rule-making power does not allow going “beyond the scope of enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant.” Rules cannot be used to bring within its purview a subject — in this case, restriction on sale of cattle for slaughter or animal sacrifices —that has been specifically excluded by the statute.
Misreading the tea leaves
The post-War global order based on institutions may be in crisis, but an alternative is not on the horizon as yet
•Institutions created by human beings necessarily reflect the pre-eminent preoccupation of their time. The present, the post-Second World War global order, anchored in the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and now the World Trade Organisation, has survived for over seven decades. This is partly because these institutions responded to the imperative of history when they were created to prevent succeeding generations from being subjected to the scourge of war and the need for post-war economic reconstruction.
Two events
•Is this present global order still ‘fit for purpose’? Much can be said for both sides of the argument. One thing is, however, clear. An alternative order or vision is not on the horizon. It is useful to bear this in mind whilst evaluating two developments. The first is the underwhelming first hundred days of the Donald Trump presidency which finds itself in an internal civil war situation with both the ‘deep state’ and the ‘fourth estate’ and provides cause for anxiety to some that it may be unravelling. The second is Beijing’s spectacular Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) extravaganza.
•Some initiatives result in the building of institutions that are viable and establish their relevance over a period of time. Others, such as the ill-fated League of Nations, start badly and then fail altogether. Those based on flawed thinking find it even more difficult to take off. The present global, post-1945, order can broadly be characterised as having evolved in two phases, the pre-1989 and post-1989 phases. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and the advent and what seemed like the triumph of globalisation resulted in some intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama to go somewhat prematurely into a celebratory dance.
•Brexit and Mr. Trump’s victory appeared to some observers to change all that. As I observed elsewhere, it was far too early in 1989 and still too early in 2017 to celebrate the premature demise of globalisation, free trade, human rights, the Washington consensus and interventionist mindsets. All that Brexit and the Trump presidency signify is that Western industrial democracies have still not come to terms with slow rates of economic growth.
Still the only superpower
•Does this provide an opening for an alternative order to come into being? Some rebalancing will most certainly take place. But no fundamental alteration and restructuring of the existing global order appears, at this point of time, to be realistically on the horizon. Any suggestions that the Chinese are taking over or that the two world’s largest economies have now resolved all their differences cannot but be somewhat fanciful.
•The U.S. is not only an $18 trillion economy but also has by far the largest industrial military complex and a lead in technology and innovation that it will take several decades for China, the second largest economy, to catch up. The U.S. provides global leadership in terms of global public goods. Even allowing for some set-back through mismanagement, it is inconceivable that these global public goods could be provided by even a transforming China.
•This brings us to the BRI extravaganza. When the initiative was first announced in 2013, it was clear that the motivation was to find external outlets for the surplus infrastructure building and manufacturing capacity that had been domestically created and for which demand was now petering out. This brings us to the essential kernel of the problem. Large white elephant type mega projects, such as the one in Hambantota in Sri Lanka, can never be attractive for private investors who will look for returns on their investment. This is where China’s state banks come in. With 68% of Sri Lanka’s GDP now required for debt servicing, such infrastructure projects have their limitations. A railway line China is building in Laos is expected to cost $6 billion and is unlikely to break even after 11 years, as anticipated. Meanwhile Laos’s public debt stands at around 60% of GDP. This is a familiar pattern in country after country. Yes, the Chinese are investing heavily overseas but not in BRI projects. BRI projects get funding from the state banks and are laying the ground for acrimony with local communities, on adequate compensation for land acquisition, Chinese labour, collusive award of works and a host of other problems. All these point to an economic model that can never be viable.
•The EU-27, which account for a significant proportion of global economic activity, refused to sign on to the trade statement in Beijing. Add to that this the $18 trillion U.S. and $5 trillion Japanese economies. It appears highly unlikely that these countries will sign on to a global scheme that is designed to favour contracts being awarded to Chinese economic entities.
•India’s position is beautifully captured in its May 13 statement: “…connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognised international norms, good governance, rule of law, openness, transparency and equality. Connectivity initiatives must follow principles of financial responsibility to avoid projects that create… debt burden for communities….” Also: “Connectivity projects must be pursued in a manner that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Staying away from the BRI
•India’s decision to stay away from the BRI event in Beijing was not only well considered but, in a sense, the only option open to it. That our smaller neighbours decided to attend should not be allowed to influence our overall approach and strategy. Having said that, it needs to be emphasised that the time has come for us to engage the Chinese at a sufficiently senior political and strategic level on how to progress our economic relations. We would be doing ourselves great disservice if we allow this important relationship to be viewed through a 1962 mindset. Equally, a more strategic engagement with China, irrespective of provocations from them, real or imagined, will serve long-term strategic interests in terms of both our security and economic interests.
•China has registered impressive economic gains. Apart from lifting hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty, it has become a major global economic power. It is running massive trade surpluses with most of its trading partners. Whether these surpluses are the result of China’s competitiveness, unfair trading practices or its exchange rate, it is inconceivable that this state of play can continue indefinitely.
•Once the leaders who were present in Beijing have returned to their capitals and resumed their normal duties, they will have no option but to evaluate proposals on their merit. The leaders in Africa are already calling for a rebalancing of bilateral trade. It is unlikely that countries ranging from Russia to Hungary or in Central Asia will agree to trading in their interests for a grand scheme in which their long-term economic interests are not looked after. For the BRI to be a success, it will need to build in win-win elements not only for China but for other stakeholders as well. Unless that is done, the scheme is not likely to take off.
All animals are equal
So why does the Centre’s PCA notification make cattle more equal than others?
•The Centre’s move to notify new rules to regulate livestock markets under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA) is either extremely poorly thought out or much too clever for its own good. In a way, both. On the surface, the notification, which spans eight pages, reads like a general document on the regulation of the sale of all kinds of livestock bought and sold in animal markets, with some welcome prohibitions on the cruelty inflicted in the transport and treatment of animals. But parse the rules, and it is evident that cattle — a category that includes cows, buffaloes, bulls and camels — come under a slew of special restrictions which, when effected, could have an extremely serious impact on the meat and livestock industry, not to mention the livelihoods and dietary choices of millions of people. Surprisingly, only the purchase or sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets has been prohibited. This raises suspicions that the Centre has attempted to conceal, or at least soften perceptions about, an extremely controversial provision, in the guise of passing a seemingly inoffensive, even enlightened, body of rules relating to animal cruelty. The rules framed for the sale of cattle are so cumbersome — for instance, buyers must verify they are agriculturists, and sellers must furnish photo identity proof and written declarations stating that the cattle are not brought to the animal market for slaughter — that one wonders whether the objective is to surreptitiously throttle the entire cattle trade in an elaborate ream of red tape. Is the ban on the sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets intended to act indirectly as an absolute ban? Is the notification, stripped of its generalities and niceties, really about the BJP government’s pet concern, cows?
•Such questions are bound to be raised given the way the rules were notified. If the main subject of the notification was the regulation of livestock markets, why was it issued by the Ministry of Environment and not the Animal Husbandry Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, which deals directly with this issue? Moreover, on what ground can the slaughter of any animal for food be prevented under the PCA, when it explicitly recognises that animals may constitute “food for mankind”? What the Act prohibits is only the “infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering” when animals are consumed as food. Such legal infirmities are bound to be challenged in court, but meanwhile the economic costs of this decision will merit a close watch. If estimates that 90% of slaughtered buffaloes are bought and sold in animal markets are correct, then the trade will be crippled. The Centre must address the concerns of the trade as well as of those who suspect the notification is a part of a Machiavellian plot to influence and curb food choices. While there is a case to retain most of the rules prohibiting the cruel treatment of animals, the ban on the sale of cattle for slaughter in animal markets must go.
Centre’s spending improves after budget date advanced
Disbursal of funds may have increased by 10-15% in April and May, says official•The advancement of the Budget date to February 1 had a positive effect on the pattern of government expenditure, which increased “substantially” in April and May compared to previous years, according to a Finance Ministry official.
•The Budget for the financial year 2017-18 was presented on February 1 instead of at the end of the month in order to facilitate a timely disbursal of funds for various sectors.
Pre-monsoon spending
•“The advancement of the Budget date to February 1 has already seen the disbursement of planned expenditure increasing in the months of April and May, instead of having to wait till the monsoon got over, as was happening earlier,” a senior official in the Ministry of Finance told The Hindu .
•“The exact increase is still being calculated, but it is definitely substantial and we will make the report public soon. It should have increased by about 10-15% of what was happening last year.” According to the government, the February 28 date for the presentation of the Budget meant that the actual disbursal of funds got delayed till the very end of the monsoon.
•“The Budget would be passed on the February 28 and the Finance Bill would only be passed by mid-April or May following the completion of the vote on account, the funds for various projects would be disbursed only by the beginning of the monsoon,” the official said, echoing an argument made several times before by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.
‘Effective disbursal’
•“Then the monsoon would start and the projects would have to wait. So effective disbursal was only after that,” the official said.
•The Finance Act 2016, for example, was passed by the lower house or Lok Sabha only on May 5, 2016, while the Finance Act 2015 was passed even later in the respective year, on May 14. The Finance Act 2014 was passed on July 10 of that year.
