📰 ‘Look into atrocities against Dalits, tribals’
NHRC asks Rajasthan to create atmosphere where they can voice their concerns
•The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Friday asked the Rajasthan government and other stakeholders to look into the issues of atrocities against Dalits and tribals and denial of rights to them. It said that an atmosphere should be created to enable them to voice their concerns.
•NHRC chairperson Justice H.L. Dattu and members, former judges Pinaki Chandra Ghose and D. Murugesan, held a two-day sitting of its three benches here to hear 169 complaints, mainly of the people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
•The Commission closed 57 cases after being satisfied with the affirmative action taken by the authorities and called for further reports in 108 cases. An amount of Rs. 4.10 lakh was paid as monetary relief in some cases, while a total of Rs. 12.90 lakh was recommended to be paid in four cases.
•Justice Dattu said Rajasthan was by and large taking care of its people, including Dalits and tribals, but a generalisation could not be made in terms of lapses in the system.
•He said the Commission would issue appropriate guidelines for dealing with cases of cow vigilantism after receiving the government’s report on some of the alleged incidents. The NHRC had already taken cognisance in some instances where deaths occurred, he said.
📰 Websites for special needs
•To empower persons with disabilities, 100 websites of the State governments and Union Territories under the Accessible India Campaign were launched by the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Thaawarchand Gehlot at the national conference on “Improving accessibility” here on Friday. A statement said those websites would help persons with disabilities understand, navigate and interact with the Web, and that they can contribute to the Web.
📰 India admitted to Australia Group
Will ensure a more secure world: MEA
•India on Friday joined the Australia Group saying that the membership will be mutually beneficial.
•The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that India’s entry into the group which aims to prevent proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, will ensure a more secure world.
•“The Australia Group decided to admit India as its 43rd participant. India would like to thank each of the participants. Its entry would be mutually beneficial and further contribute to international security and non-proliferation objectives,” said Spokesperson of the MEA Raveesh Kumar, praising the role of the former head of the group ambassador Jane Hardy.
•Earlier, in a separate statement, the Australia Group said India’s membership will help to counter the “spread of materials, equipment and technologies that could contribute to the development or acquisition of chemical/biological weapons.”
Show of support
•Diplomats said the entry is a show of support from the international community for India’s non-proliferation records.
•“India’s entry shows that our export controls and safeguards for biological and chemical agents, equipments and technologies meet the benchmarks established by the international community,” said Rakesh Sood, a former Special Envoy of the Prime Minister for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation.
•India joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2016 and the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) last year. The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies is a multilateral export control regime.
•It is understood that the membership will also boost India’s membership bid for the Nuclear Suppliers Group which is being opposed by China.
📰 On a new keel: Netanyahu's visit to India
With Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit, India and Israel have fully normalised bilateral ties
•Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to India this week was the final step in the process of fully normalising the bilateral relationship. That process began in 1992 when India established diplomatic ties with Israel, with major milestones in 2003 when Ariel Sharon became the first Israeli Prime Minister to visit India, in 2015 when President Pranab Mukherjee visited Israel, and in 2017 when Narendra Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Israel. With Mr. Netanyahu’s six-day visit, the focus is now on the future, and their joint statement drew a 25-year timeline in which to realise the potential of the strategic partnership. The close personal equation between the two leaders was evident throughout the visit, with Mr. Modi hosting Mr. and Ms. Netanyahu in Gujarat, where they flew kites and took part in a roadshow. Mr. Netanyahu also made the traditional trip to the Taj Mahal, and a symbolic journey to Mumbai’s Chabad House, one of the sites of the 26/11 terror attacks where Israeli citizens were among those killed. On business, Mr. Modi welcomed Israeli partnership in Indian manufacturing, pointing to the winning combination of an India that has “size and scale” and an Israel that has “sharpness and edge”. Mr. Netanyahu’s case, made at a speech inaugurating the Foreign Ministry’s annual Raisina Dialogue, was that the two countries have a “natural partnership” and a “natural friendship” that also caters to their need for hard power.
•With a relationship that is more open, India has also decided to have a more honest conversation with Israel on the peace process. While the Modi-Netanyahu meeting in July 2017 had practically brushed aside the Israel-Palestine peace process, the joint statement issued on Monday in New Delhi “reaffirmed their support for an early resumption of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians”. This indicates that the two Prime Ministers had a deeper conversation on the issue this time, including India’s vote at the UN against the decision of the United States to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Mr. Modi is expected to visit Ramallah as well as meet Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who as the custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem is leading peace efforts in the Arab world, and is due in New Delhi shortly. This would take forward India’s commitment to assisting in finding a just solution for the conflict. It will require using the leverage India has built over the decades among Israelis and Palestinians in order to join global and regional powers in pushing them back to the negotiating table. It will also involve challenging Mr. Netanyahu’s contention that struck a jarring note in his otherwise successful visit. He said: “The weak don’t survive. The strong survive. You make peace with the strong. You ally with the strong.” India must stick to its strategy of strengthening ties with Israel without damaging its commitment to the West Asian peace process, and build its friendships and alignments in a way that goes beyond an appraisal of strengths and weaknesses.
📰 Signs of a geopolitical whirlwind
As the U.S. recalibrates ties with Pakistan, India should maintain a cautious distance
•With a New Year tweet from his handle accusing Pakistan of “lies & deceit” in return for “33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years”, U.S. President Donald Trump ‘appears’ to be radically resetting his administration’s Pakistan policy, with implications for the rest of South Asia. To be sure, this is unlikely to have the gravity or determination of the post-9/11 threat from the American administration which at the time made it clear to Pakistan that if it didn’t cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terror, it would bomb Pakistan “back to the stone age”. The threat did work for some time.
A clever ploy?
•A less worrisome interpretation of Mr. Trump’s outrage would be that it is a clever ploy to gain more leverage in a region where the U.S. is seemingly losing ground. It is steadily losing its Afghan war, losing ground to China in the region, and China is increasingly interested in politically managing the potential outcomes of the Afghan war. And Islamabad so far is seen to have had the best of both worlds — being China’s closest ally, while remaining a non-NATO ally of the U.S. In that interpretation, Mr. Trump decided to end the party for Pakistan on January 1, till of course Pakistan agrees to deliver on American concerns regarding China and Afghanistan. Yet, another way of reading this would be that it’s an empty threat on which Mr. Trump’s officials will eventually soft-pedal.
•So how is Islamabad likely to deal with an apparently belligerent Trump administration? Will it fall in line or decline to act against the Taliban and the Haqqani network, widely considered to be Pakistan’s proxies in Afghanistan? Any tightening of the noose around the Taliban is likely to be viewed by the Pakistan army as a strategic blunder, the implications of which would outlast the irresolute U.S. commitment in Afghanistan. So the reasoning likely to be, why not wait out Mr. Trump’s occasional rage?
•The U.S. may also have ill-timed its outrage. Caving into U.S. demands would have grave implications for the much-weakened civilian government in Islamabad, especially when all eyes are on the general elections later this year. The government, then, is likely to brave Mr. Trump’s wrath, or smooth-talk its way out. The response from Islamabad has so far been verbal, with threats of suspending military and intelligence cooperation with Washington. However, it should be noted that American aid and reimbursements (for expenses incurred by Pakistan in the war on terror) have been declining over the past several years. If so, the impact of the U.S. withholding aid may not be exceptionally damaging for Pakistan. That said, it would be instructive to watch what role Beijing would play in this war of nerves between its strategic adversary and closest ally.
Sharper fault-lines
•Notwithstanding how Pakistan responds to the U.S., the latter’s strong-arm policies have implications for South Asia. For one, this would considerably diminish Pakistan’s ability to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds: being China’s closest strategic partner while remaining a key U.S. ally in the region even as China and the U.S. inch towards a Cold War of sorts. Pakistan has been steadily moving towards China from the American camp: this will now be a far quicker shift.
•Second, as a direct consequence of these moves and counter-moves, there would emerge a far severe geopolitical competition in the region, the sharpest since the end of the Cold War. Southern Asia’s regional geopolitics would be reshaped along several disconcerting fault-lines. The emerging China-Pakistan-Russia axis is set to play a dominant role in the regional geopolitical order. All three members of this axis have scores to settle with the U.S. The role of Iran — which also has hostile relations with the U.S. even as it maintains a crucial strategic partnership with New Delhi — in this grouping would be interesting to watch. And what would it mean for India-Russia relations? Is it the beginning of the end of the special relationship between the two countries, signs of which are already apparent? Moreover, the closer India gets to the U.S., the more each of these countries would display their discomfort towards India.
•The emerging counter-pole is to be led by the U.S., with India and Japan on board, and the increasingly cautious Western powers taking a rather subdued interest. However, given the rise of China and the retreat of the U.S., current American allies are likely to hedge their bets. The one U.S. ally that has immense influence in Pakistan is Saudi Arabia with which India also maintains a close relationship. The question then is two-fold: Will the Americans choose to use Riyadh to put pressure on Islamabad, and will the Saudis want to do that at a time when China-Saudi relations are on the uptick? Many of these compelling scenarios will play out in various ways in the days ahead.
Implications for India
•Implications of the U.S.-Pakistan rift may not be as straightforward as they might seem. Even though the American rhetoric against Pakistan is viewed highly favourably in India, the freezing of U.S.-Pakistan relations could potentially have negative implications for the country, certainly in the medium to long term. For one, this will mean the end of the indirect influence (through the U.S.) that India has traditionally managed to exert on Pakistan, especially on terror-related issues. Second, the ever-strong China-Pakistan ties, without the balancing effect of the U.S. in the region, could push India further to the wall. Finally, what happens should there be an India-Pakistan crisis like the Kargil conflict of 1999? For one, American ‘absence’ would embolden Chinese manoeuvres against India, and more so, China will be a far less pro-India broker than Washington ever was.
•Reluctant India will be prodded to make a choice: either to remain unallied and safeguard its strategic autonomy or walk with the U.S. While New Delhi’s best bet would be to deal with Washington without closing its doors to Moscow or Beijing, such fine balancing would require a great deal of diplomatic acumen, strategic foresight and long-term thinking. Moreover, choosing sides while physically located in the middle of a geopolitical whirlwind is no easy task. Such a crucial choice needs to factor in economic relations, defence partnerships, and most of all geographic realities.
•In any case, New Delhi should also closely consider the real intent behind Washington’s ire at Islamabad: it’s the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani network the Americans are after, not so much India-centric terror groups. When put under intense international pressure and American ire, Pakistan has managed to weather the storm in the past. Whether it will be able to do so this time is anyone’s guess. But one thing is clear; if Pakistan can deliver on these fronts, its relations with the U.S. will improve. It is also important to note that even though the relations between the two countries were deteriorating in the recent past, the out-of-the-blue statements from Mr. Trump may not be adequately thought-out; hence the possibility that the U.S. establishment, with long-term interests in Pakistan, might soft-peddle its President’s angry outbursts. Put differently, New Delhi should view it as a clash between Pakistani and American geopolitical interests, and not get involved itself. To its credit, then, the response from New Delhi has been guided by ‘cautious optimism’.
•A sharper geopolitical competition in the region could also adversely impact the overall sub-systemic stability in the region: when hard-nosed geopolitics takes over, focus on infrastructure development, market access, development of regional organisations, and regional conflict resolution mechanisms is bound to suffer. And that’s precisely what India needs to carefully consider; for unlike both China and the U.S., India is deeply invested in stability in South Asia.
📰 U.S. asks Pakistan to prosecute ‘terrorist’ Saeed
State Department responds strongly to Pak. PM’s remarks
•The U.S. said on Friday that it has told Pakistan clearly that Hafiz Saeed is a “terrorist” and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, reacting strongly to Pakistan Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s remarks that there was no case against Saeed.
•The reaction by the State Department came after Mr. Abbasi, during an interview to Geo TV on Tuesday, referred to Saeed sahib .
Call for legal action
•State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said: “We believe that he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... He is listed by the UNSC 1267, the Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee for targeted sanctions due to his affiliation with Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a designated foreign terror organisation,” Ms. Nauert told reporters.
•“We have made our points and concerns to the Pakistani government very clear. We believe that this individual should be prosecuted,” she said.
•Responding to a question about Mr. Abbasi’s remarks, Ms. Nauert said: “We regard him as a terrorist, a part of a foreign terrorist organisation. He was the mastermind, we believe, of the 2008 Mumbai attacks which killed many people, including Americans as well.” Saeed was released from house arrest in November.
Challenging times
•Acknowledging that that the U.S. has had some challenging times with the government of Pakistan recently, Ms. Nauert said the administration expected Pakistan to do a lot more to address terrorism issues.
•Earlier this month, the U.S. suspended about $2 billion in security assistance to Pakistan. In retaliation, Pakistan reportedly suspended military and intelligence cooperation with the U.S. The State Department said it had not received any formal information in this regard.
📰 Differences over Doklam resolved: MEA
China repeats claims on territory
•A day after it denied reports that China had changed the ‘status quo’ at Doklam, the government on Friday appeared to shift its stand slightly, saying it had “used mechanisms” to “resolve misunderstandings” with China.
•The comments came even as China repeated its old claims on controlling all of Doklam, and accused India again of “illegal transgressions” there last year.
•“We are, of course, keeping a constant vigil on the developments [which have a bearing] on India’s security and taking all necessary steps to safeguard it,” said MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar.
•“The two sides do have, and have used established mechanisms to resolve any misunderstandings,” he added, in what appeared to be the first admission in recent times by the government that it has raised the issue of infrastructure construction with Chinese authorities.
•However, the MEA would not comment on which mechanisms had been “used”, and when, including whether it was a diplomatic mechanism or a military mechanism on the ground at the Doklam outpost where troops had faced off last year.
•On Thursday, Army Chief General Rawat had said that any Chinese infrastructure in the standoff area was “temporary” in nature.
•He was responding to photographs published by a TV channel and a news website that had appeared to show heavy infrastructure including helipads, bunkers and a base in North Doklam, not far from the standoff site.
•The photographs, and seemingly ambiguous statements from the government have invited criticism from the Opposition, with the Congress demanding more clarity on the agreement after the 73-day standoff over Chinese road construction on land claimed by Bhutan ended in August last year.
•Since then, reports have regularly pointed to a surge in Chinese troops as well as heavy equipment and construction activity not far from the standoff point, but the MEA has maintained that there has been no change to the “status quo.”
•In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said PLA troops were entitled to build infrastructure at Doklam, but declined to comment on the photographs.
•“I don’t know who offers such kind of photos. I don’t know the detailed information,” Mr. Lu said.
•He said “Donglang” Doklam was Chinese sovereign territory, which he claimed had “always belonged to China and is always under China’s effective jurisdiction.” However, parts of Doklam under Chinese control are claimed by Bhutan, which had led India to send in its troops to the standoff with the PLA in June last year.
•In fresh comments that could spark another war of words between New Delhi and Beijing, Mr. Lu once again repeated China’s claim that Indian troops had “illegally transgressed” into Doklam.
•“We hope the Indian side learns lessons and avoids such incidents in future,” he added.
•The MEA spokesperson declined to react to the statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on remarks by General Rawat as well.
📰 A poor prognosis: the National Medical Commission Bill
The National Medical Commission Bill is unlikely to provide a dynamic new thrust to medical care in India
•There is no doubt that the Medical Council of India (MCI) has outlived its utility and should be reformed or replaced. The remit for the proposed new body, the National Medical Commission, should be clear, direct and workable. A regulatory body should be expected only to regulate and not to formulate policy, which is the function of Parliament and requires inputs from a number of sources, preferably with different points of view.
•The fundamental flaw in the proposed Medical Commission is the lack of clarity on its function. Unfortunately, in the National Medical Commission Bill, 2017 in the chapter titled “powers and functions of the commission”, the phrase “lay down policy” occurs repeatedly. The Commission is also expected to “assess the requirements in healthcare, including human resources...” Such complex tasks, which require inputs from multiple agencies, will be done poorly, if at all, by the commission. The Commission should only be expected to monitor and regulate the training of health-care personnel and maintain professional standards.
Point of integration
•What type of medical practitioners should the country train? This is a matter that the government should decide. It is poor policymaking to smuggle in clauses about interdisciplinary meetings between different medical systems and bridge courses into this Bill, under the omnibus “miscellaneous” section (item number 49). The failure of successive governments to promote scientific medicine and integrate the best of indigenous systems into one unified system has led to unhealthy competition among the various streams of medicine in India. It must be emphasised that modern medicine is wrongly labelled “Western”or “Allopathy”. Modern medicine takes all that is useful in therapy regardless of its source. It subjects every treatment protocol to the impartial tests of science. “Allopathy” is a term coined by Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, and is seldom used in countries other than India. It would be great statesmanship to move to just one scientific system of medicine in India, combining all that is proven from different streams.
•Who should the members of the Commission be? The present system of appointing members to the MCI has failed, resulting in rent-seekers repeatedly entering the Council. The present method of election, where potential candidates have to spend quite a large amount of money and time to get elected, has the unfortunate outcome of ensuring that mostly rent-seekers seek election. The election process should be reformed, not replaced. The proposal to have sections of society other than medical professionals in the commission is laudable. Having an almost entirely nominated commission, as the present Bill provides, is unhealthy. It will lead to a collection of ‘yes men and women’ whose chief qualification will be proximity to the existing government.
Medical education
•Should private initiative be allowed in medical education? If the government is sincere in its objective of providing universal medical care, it is clear that high-cost private education will further exacerbate the problem of too many specialists in metropolitan areas chasing too few patients. Many ethical problems in India arise from this basic situation of too many doctors chasing too few paying patients. Issues such as unnecessary investigations and procedures, and too little time spent with each patient arise from the need to earn a reasonable amount and the need to do it from the small pool of paying patients. More importantly, such policy decisions should not be left to the Commission.
•To start a medical college, State governments first issue a certificate of essentiality. The MCI then decides whether the proposed college has enough facilities to start the first year. Subsequently, inspections are done every year till the first batch of students has completed the final year. This has led to problems, as somewhere along the way, the Council finds that some colleges are unable to meet the requirements and withdraws recognition. This leaves students in a lurch and they then approach the judiciary to solve their unhappy situation. The proposed Commission has no mechanism to prevent this from happening. Merely shifting this responsibility to a medical assessment and rating board is no solution.
•The present Bill is unlikely to provide a dynamic new thrust to medical care in India. It falls between the stools of excessively ambitious objectives and micro-management. On the one hand the Commission is expected to formulate policy, but on the other it is to decide fee structure. The government should exhibit statesmanship and form a parliamentary committee to draft a new Bill altogether with clear and workable objectives. In the end, policy decisions should be decided by policymakers, and not bureaucrats.
📰 Soon, you can make calls while flying
TRAI recommends facility
•Flyers in India, as well as those flying over the country, may soon be able to make voice calls and remain connected to the Internet even when on board an aircraft as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on Friday recommended allowing in-flight connectivity in Indian airspace.
•Currently, flyers are not allowed to use mobile phones and Internet within the Indian airspace due to security concerns. While the government has been considering the issue for almost two years, with the latest TRAI recommendation, flyers will be able to check emails, send and receive WhatsApp messages and post statuses and photos on social networking sites.
•People today, Trai highlighted, are increasingly accustomed to stay connected anywhere, 24/7 – driven by the need to keep in touch with family, enjoy entertainment and maintain critical business communications. Even when they fly, they want broadband connectivity equal to what they’ve experienced from terrestrial network and Wi-Fi hotspots on the ground, it said, adding that the demand for in-flight Internet access is driven by millions of smart phones, tablets and laptop computers.
•About, 83% of passengers would prefer to fly with an airline offering in-flight connectivity and over half (55%) of all in-flight connectivity users have connected more than one device, a survey found.
📰 ‘Ease of data access is driving compliance’
Fear of detection spurs trend: Jaitley
•Finance and Corporate Affairs Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday said the ease with which corporate data is available online had put pressure on companies to ensure compliance. It was also helping in preventing improprieties due to the fear of the possibility of such wrongdoings being detected, he said, unveiling the National CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) Data Portal and Corporate Data Portal.
‘Open to public gaze’
•“It’s now all open to public gaze (which) has its own advantages. There is a pressure to make sure that compliance takes place. Everyone realises that if there is any impropriety, the possibility of it being detected is going to be very high,” Mr. Jaitley said.
•He added, “Therefore this transparency is good for the system, good for corporate India, it’s good that your details to the extent that are to be made public, are being made public.”
•The National CSR Data Portal will capture information on CSR activities carried out by eligible companies, according to an official statement.
•“The CSR portal contains all filed information, which can generate predefined reports with respect to expenditure across states, districts and development sectors,” it said, adding that the portal also provided for feedback on projects to be given by registered users.
•The open access to data is expected to help researchers, improve quality of data filed by companies as well as involve intended beneficiaries in giving valuable feedback to companies. It will help in institutionalising and consolidating the CSR activities.
User-friendly format
•The Corporate Data Portal aims at making all the financial and non-financial information of the companies available in a user friendly format to the general public.
•P.P. Chaudhary, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs and Law and Justice suggested that CSR projects should be geo-tagged and aimed at helping the poor. According to Injeti Srinivas, Secretary, Corporate Affairs the CSR portal would facilitate the social audit of CSR projects.
📰 Navy confident of commissioning aircraft carrier Vikrant in two years
Hold-ups in procuring major parts resolved
•After several delays, the Indian Navy is confident of commissioning Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-1) Vikrant, currently under construction at Kochi, by October 2020, a senior officer said on Friday.
•“IAC-I is expected to join the Navy in October 2020. All trial schedules have been worked out. We are going to sign advanced contracts with Cochin Shipyard Limited very soon,” said Commodore J. Chowdhary, principal director of naval design. He was speaking at a media briefing on the Navy’s Republic Day contingents. The theme of this year’s Navy tableau is centred around a model of Vikrant being built at the shipyard.
•The IAC-I project has been delayed due to hold-ups in procurement especially of 18 major equipment related to aviation complex, including the arrestor and the withstanding gear, from Russia, Cdre. Chowdhary said. “There were licencing issues which have been resolved.”
Sea trials
•The carrier is likely to be handed over to the Navy by December 2018 after which it will be put through harbour and sea trials before commissioning.
•Vikrant borrows its name from India’s first aircraft carrier, the 20,000-tonne INS Vikrant purchased from the U.K. India currently operates the 44,500-tonne INS Vikramaditya procured from Russia.
•Like INS Vikramaditya, Vikrant too would employ the STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) mechanism with a ski-jump and arrestor cables to launch and recover aircraft.
•It can operate 20 fighter jets and 10 other aircraft. The Mig-29K fighters currently in service with the Navy would also be on the deck of Vikrant.
•Initially the plan was to have a mix of Mig-29K and the naval variant of the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft, Tejas.
•The IAC-I project was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) in 2003 and the keel for the 260-metre ship was laid in 2009. The CCS had initially sanctioned ₹3,200 crore, which was subsequently revised to ₹19,341 crore.
•In a 2016 report, the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) said that the “delivery of the carrier with completion of all activities is likely to be achieved only by 2023.” But Navy officials stated that all issues have now been resolved and the ship would join the Navy in 2020.
•The Navy has already set sights on the IAC-II, which it envisages to be conventionally powered and displace 65,000 tonnes with an advanced Catapult-based Aircraft Launch Mechanism (CATOBAR) similar to the U.S. Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for aircraft launch and recovery.
