WHO for use of devices to test multiple diseases
A single device can diagnose Tuberculosis, HIV and Hepatitis
•The World Health Organization (WHO) on Tuesday released new advice to countries, recommending the use of multi-disease testing devices for Tuberculosis, HIV and Hepatitis.
•A single device called the GeneXpert can be used to diagnose TB and HIV infections, and quantitatively measure HIV and hepatitis C viral loads. India recently procured 600 GeneXpert machines for the National Tuberculosis programme.
•The WHO is recommending use of these state-of-the-art portable machines the size of a microwave oven, which can run molecular tests. However, most countries do not use them for multi-disease testing.
•“Any good health system must have the capacity to do several tests that are of importance. Currently, we are mostly investing in single disease testing technologies, while there is great potential to use the same platform for multiple conditions.” said Prof Madhukar Pai, Canada Research Chair in Epidemiology & Global Health.
Single platform
•“With the power and adaptability of molecular technologies, we are in an era of great advancement for the rapid diagnosis of many diseases using single platforms,” said Dr Mario Raviglione, Director of WHO’s Global TB Programme. “These platforms offer technical and financial efficiencies to countries in their disease control efforts, while expanding access to care.”
Indo-U.S. statement focusses on fight against terrorism
The relationship “has never been stronger, has never been better,” says Trump
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump jointly declared on Monday that bilateral ties between India and the U.S. would continue to grow, seeking to dispel notions that the latter’s election to the White House on a nationalist agenda might have a negative impact on the relationship.
•With Mr. Modi by his side in the Rose Garden of the White House after they met for the first time, Mr. Trump said the relationship “has never been stronger, has never been better.”
•The leaders shared a meal and three hugs in the four hours that Mr. Modi spent at the White House, and First Lady Melania Trump gave the Prime Minister a tour of the residential quarters.
‘Visible chemistry’
•The interaction between the leaders showed “visible chemistry,” and “they were comfortable talking to each other,” Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar told reporters. The one-on-one meeting lasted 40 minutes.
•A joint statement issued after the deliberations underscored the fight against terrorism as a cornerstone of mutual cooperation between the countries, went beyond the usual American position on Pakistan that usually pulls it up for harbouring terrorist groups and echoed Indian concerns regarding the Chinese-led Belt and Road initiative. “We will destroy radical Islamic terrorism,” Mr. Trump said.
•Both sides reiterated their commitment to continuing the course on strategic convergence in Asia Pacific, increasing defence trade partnership and added energy as a new thrust area of cooperation.
Defence sale means jobs
•A fact sheet provided by the White House said, with the sale of Guardian drones, Apache attack helicopters, and C-17 aircraft, defence orders by India for American companies will be nearly $19 billion, “supporting thousands of U.S. jobs.”
•Addressing the media after the formal talks but before the reception and dinner, Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi spoke of shared democratic values, and their status of being leaders of two big democracies. “The friendship between the United States and India is built on shared values, including our shared commitment to democracy,” the President said.
Big gains, but joint statement gets a delicate balancing
Modi-Trump meeting exceeds expectations, and the language on Pakistan is the most direct yet, asking the nation to ensure that its territory is not used for terrorism
•By all indications, the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump exceeded expectations of both sides, on the optics and on the language of their joint statement, with Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar calling it “one of the most productive visits to Washington”.
•However, on some aspects of the bilateral relationship, this year’s joint statement fell short of last year’s, when Mr. Modi met Mr. Obama. Here’s a comparison:
Focus on trade
•The Indo-U.S. Strategic Partnership is on course, but with the emphasis shifting to trade and economic ties. This is reflected in the titles of the two statements: “Enduring Global Partners in the 21st Century” in 2016, and the more modest “Prosperity Through Partnership” this year. While the 2016 statement focussed on “Bolstering Economic and Trade ties”, this year’s statement is more direct on how that will be done, with references to “balancing the trade deficit” (which, as it is in India’s favour, is a sore point for the Trump administration).
•The joint statement of 2017 continues previous references to “a growing strategic convergence” bolstered by military, maritime and intelligence cooperation.
•The language of the joint statement this year is much tougher on terrorism, specifically on Pakistan-based terror groups. A few hours before the Trump-Modi meeting, the U.S. State Department moved to make Hizb-ul-Mujahideen leader Syed Salahuddin a specially designated global terrorist, a move welcomed by India.
•The language on Pakistan is clear, and a departure from last year’s. “The leaders called on Pakistan to ensure that its territory is not used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries. They further called on Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai, Pathankot, and other cross-border terrorist attacks perpetrated by Pakistan-based groups,” the statement said, the most direct message in an India-U.S. joint statement thus far.
On China
•India indicated it had brought the U.S. round to its position on the Chinese “Belt and Road initiative” with a reference to “respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” on regional connectivity projects, which has been India’s major concern.
•However, the statement appears to have softened some of the language on China’s actions in the South China Sea. For example, instead of saying the two countries would “ensure” freedom of navigation, overflight and commerce through the Indo-Pacific region (that refers to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean), the language in 2017 only “reiterates the importance of respecting freedom of navigation,” etc. In place of the 2016 language calling for India and the U.S. to “secure the domains” of land, maritime, air, space, and cyber, in 2017, it speaks of being “responsible stewards” and “democratic stalwarts in the Indo-Pacific Region.”
North Korea new entrant
•North Korea is a new entrant into the joint statement, in keeping with Mr. Trump’s sharp focus on curbing Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear and ballistic belligerence, with the leaders calling his “destabilizing pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile programs, a grave threat to regional security and global peace”. Traditionally, India has maintained trade and low-profile relations with North Korea.
•Mr. Trump welcomed “further Indian contributions to promote Afghanistan’s democracy, stability, prosperity, and security.
•While cooperation on energy is highlighted in the statement, it was to be expected that all reference to the U.S. commitment to helping India battle climate change would be dropped, given Mr. Trump’s harsh observations when he pulled out of the Paris accord. In 2016, this had occupied a hefty space, entitled “Advancing U.S.-India Global Leadership on Climate and Clean Energy”. The India-U.S. civil nuclear deal, which was due to see the conclusion of the NPCIL-Westinghouse agreement for six reactors by June, appears to be on hold, with Foreign Secretary Mr. Jaishankar expressing the hope that Westinghouse, which has filed for bankruptcy, will be “back in business” by 2017-end.
China protests against ‘incursion’
Justifies turning away Indian pilgrims
•China on Tuesday confirmed that it had suspended the entry of Indian pilgrims undertaking the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra and lodged a formal protest with New Delhi, following an alleged cross-border incursion by Indian troops.
•Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said: “We have lodged solemn representation in Beijing and New Delhi to elaborate our solemn position.”
Urgent action sought
•He pointed out that China’s diplomatic protest was in response to the “trespassing into the Chinese border by Indian border personnel.” He demanded “immediate actions” by India to withdraw personnel “who have overstepped and trespassed into the Chinese border.”
•The Chinese protest comes after a warm personal meeting earlier this month between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Astana, on the sidelines of the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
•The two leaders are also expected to meet in the coastal Chinese city of Xiamen during the BRICS summit in September.
•On Monday, the Chinese Defence Ministry said in a statement that the occurrence at the frontier was “seriously endangering the peace and stability of the border areas.”
‘Beijing trying to assert itself’
Spike in breach after Dalai Lama’s visit
•The recent stand-off of the Indian Army with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) at Doko La on China-Sikkim-Bhutan tri-junction is being seen as an attempt by China to “assert” itself in areas which were not prone to transgressions or disputes, a senior government official said on Tuesday.
•The official said there has been a spike in Chinese transgressions after the visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh earlier this year and the numbers are expected to go up. India’s cold shoulder to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is also being seen as one of the reasons behind the increased transgressions.
•In the past 45 days, around 120 Chinese transgressions were reported mainly from Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. Last year, around 250 such transgressions were reported.
Not surprising
•An official said they were not surprised by China’s move to foment trouble in settled boundaries like Sikkim and Uttarakhand. “How much time does it take for China to change its strategy by shifting focus from Ladakh/Arunachal Pradesh to Sikkim and Uttarakhand. It is being done to stall development work in border areas,” a senior government official said.
•On Tuesday, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju met a senior official from military operations and Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) DG Krishna Chowdhury to discuss the construction work along the border areas. Officials have decided to give a measured response on the current stand-off with the Chinese as PM Narendra Modi is on a three-nation tour.
•The tri-junction is primarily guarded by the Army and the ITBP forms the second layer of security.
•“Sikkim and Uttarakhand have remained more or less oblivious to any skirmish as the border, which is yet to be demarcated officially, is considered to be a settled one between the two countries. Recently, we stepped up construction of roads and other infrastructure project, which could have upset them,” the official said.
China sends out a strong signal
The turning away of pilgrims should not be ignored, say sources
•A day after China accused the Indian Army of violating the border, the military authorities were tight-lipped over the claims.
•Despite the official silence, most sources within and outside the military warned that the latest developments, especially the Chinese move to close the Nathula Pass route to Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, should be treated as a diplomatic message from Beijing.
•“While the past trends have shown these kinds of incidents are initiated by the Chinese during high-profile bilateral visits, I don’t think we should read too much into the timing of the incident with respect to the Prime Minister’s visit to the U.S.,” former Army chief General Bikram Singh told The Hindu.
‘No reason to worry’
•Gen. Singh said there was no reason to be unduly worried about the incursions.
•“This is a regular feature. Our patrols also go into Chinese-held areas and they come in due to differing perceptions on the LAC and the International Border. There are robust mechanisms in place to defuse such situations and ensure they don’t go out control.” However, several other sources in the security establishment said the turning away of the pilgrims was a diplomatic signal that should not be ignored.
•According to military sources, soldiers of both sides are in a stand-off along the Sikkim border for the past few days. Indian sources insist that Chinese soldiers entered Indian territory and destroyed two bunkers in Doka La region, on the tri-junction between Sikkim, Bhutan and Tibet.
•Sources said the two sides engaged in some scuffle, and also formed human walls to prevent each other from moving further ahead.
•A retired Lt. General, who had commanded a corps in the area, said, “Sikkim is a settled boundary, barring the finger area in the plateau which came up during 2007.”
•Jayadeva Ranade, president, Centre for China Analysis and Strategy, told The Hindu that the development was significant. “I would say that because of the prolonged face-off, and the kind of articles appearing in the Chinese media.Global Times has put out at least three strong pieces on this. It all happens at a time when the relations are already under strain and also during the Prime Minister’s visit to the U.S. This is one warning shot.”
•Mr. Ranade said the location where it has happened is also significant. “They have been trying to build a road there. For us it is strategically important. It is just 30 km from the Siliguri corridor or the Chicken’s Neck,” he pointed out. “It is a combination of strategic, sovereignty and territorial issues bundled into one,” Mr. Ranade said.
No interim orders on Aadhaar: SC
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass an interim order against the Centre’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of social welfare schemes, with the government assuring it that no one would be deprived of welfare for want of this identification.
Three petitions
•The apex court observed that no interim order could be passed merely on the “apprehension” raised by the petitioners that somebody might be deprived of welfare benefits due to the lack of Aadhaar, especially when no such affected person has come before it.
•The court was hearing three separate petitions challenging the government’s notification.
‘Centre can check States’ loan waivers’
•The government’s mandate and responsibility to control the States’ fiscal deficit means that it has the power to control their finances even at a time of large-scale loan waivers by a number of states, 14th Finance Commission Secretary A.N. Jha said on Tuesday.
•Mr. Jha was speaking at the unveiling of former RBI Governor Y.V. Reddy’s book, at which Mr. Reddy said that giving the States more fiscal powers actually brought a greater element of control. “By giving more powers to the States, you are actually with more powers.” Mr. Reddy said.
Pieces of a complex solution
The success of the bankruptcy law will depend on the jurisprudence that develops under the IBC
•Over the last year, barely a week has gone by without a regulator announcing new measures to help resolve India’s problem of large and mounting non-performing loans/assets, or NPAs. These announcements are usually accompanied by endorsements from the government, as determined reminders that the resolution of the NPA problem is on the top of the government’s mind. Then why does India’s war on NPAs seem intractable? And why have Indian regulators not yet resolved a case that can be showcased as an example of what the recent regulatory measures can achieve?
•The latest announcement came from the Securities and Exchange Board of India which said that companies that are pursuing acquisitions as part of resolution plans approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) would be exempted from open offer obligations typically applied under Indian takeover regulations. This came on the heels of another announcement earlier this month by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), stating its decision to focus on 12 stressed accounts, totalling about 25% of the current gross NPAs and referring them to the IBC immediately. Prior to that, the government had cleared an ordinance to amend the Banking Regulation Act, giving the RBI more powers to direct banks to resolve bad loans.
A tough task
•These measures, particularly the RBI’s direct involvement in referring cases to the IBC, do well to add attention and urgency to the NPA resolution efforts. However, they do not address some of the underlying characteristics of the Indian economy and the banking sector that make NPA resolution a Sisyphean task in India.
•Take, for example, the fact that Indian banks need to accept significant haircuts to resolve the NPA cases as several of them are in sectors where market conditions are in a slump, such as steel, power and textiles. In this environment, it is difficult for banks to find suitable buyers of distressed assets at desired valuations.
•The government will require immense political will to allow bankers to take the necessary haircuts (which will impact profitability negatively), without bankers fearing that their decisions will be questioned or investigated in the future.
•The tight resolution timelines envisaged under the IBC cannot be achieved if bankers do not have the commercial flexibility and the autonomy to sell distressed assets.
Promoters can be a hurdle
•Another issue not addressed by the recent regulatory changes is what role promoters play in delaying NPA resolution. The majority of businesses in India remain under the control of their founding promoters. A quick glance at the 12 cases mentioned earlier that have been selected for resolution by the RBI confirms that this rings true for these cases as well. In India, business continuity and turnaround of distressed assets require the ongoing involvement of promoters, which makes them a key stakeholder in any NPA resolution. Unlike more developed markets, in India, bankers cannot make significant management changes in distressed companies as promoters closely control key aspects of a business such as relationships with suppliers, customers and regulators. It becomes critical that promoters should agree to and be involved in any resolution process. However, the RBI does not regulate promoters and other shareholders, and hence cannot force resolutions on to them. Promoters understand this conundrum and have used it to their advantage in the past.
How ready is the framework?
•Then there is the question of whether the institutional framework within which the NPAs will have to be resolved is ready to handle this complex task. This framework includes the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the adjudicating authority for corporate insolvency cases under Section 60 of the IBC. It also refers to the network of ‘insolvency professionals’ (IPs), a special class of professionals, who will be appointed by the NCLT and in charge of managing the debtor company, whilst being accountable to the committee of creditors and the NCLT. The severe capacity constraints of the NCLT in handling the present and past backlog of cases is well recognised. It is also unclear how long it will take the NCLT judges to ramp up their understanding of the complex bankruptcy environment to allow them to handle the cases in an expedient and fair way. Regarding IPs, it is critical for the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to quickly develop a robust way to select the most qualified IPs. Apart from their technical capabilities, it will be crucial to ensure that the IPs are truly independent and do not allow promoters or other key stakeholders to manipulate the resolution process in any unfair manner. India has a mixed track record of regulating professional services, and the quality and independence of the IPs is critical to the successful implementation of the IBA.
•The various regulatory changes implemented over the last a few months are steps, albeit small, in the right direction. However, the success of the bankruptcy law in India will depend on the jurisprudence that develops under the IBC over the next few months. We have to wait and watch how the various players, including bankers, promoters, the government, IPs, auditors, lawyers, valuers and liquidators, behave in the next few cases. The hope is that institutional capacity will strengthen; there will be greater alignment in the interests of the promoters, creditors and buyers of distressed assets; and, finally, the government and banks will show a strong political will to settle a few cases quickly and transparently. Only then can the value of the distressed assets be maximised and capital and other productive resources get redeployed efficiently.
