📰 A breakthrough and a gamble
Now that talks between the U.S. and North Korea are on, it is worth testing Pyongyang’s sincerity
•The remarkable announcement of a personal meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un appears welcome news. It points the way out of a crisis that seemed last year to be spiralling out of control, after the exchange of personal and nuclear threats. But the history of talks with North Korea is a story of recurring disappointment and duplicity. A summit meeting without adequate diplomatic groundwork risks emboldening North Korea while setting the stage for a bad deal which sells out American allies, or dashed expectations and a slide to catastrophe.
The fine print
•On the face of it, North Korea’s offer — unusually conveyed from the White House, by three South Korean officials — is attractive. We are told that Mr. Kim has promised to discuss giving up his nuclear arsenal if his country’s security is assured; to hold off from missile or nuclear tests while talks are under way; and to accept that the annual U.S.-South Korea military exercises will continue. He has not demanded a dowry of food or fuel ahead of talks, as in the past. For their part, South Korea and the U.S., mindful of what they called the “mistakes of the past”, have rightly promised that sanctions will remain firmly in place, until a deal is in place. However, the devil is in the detail.
•First, North Korea’s demand for security guarantees is an old one, going back more than a decade. But what does it mean in practice? This could involve simply a U.S. statement of non-aggression, or even a peace agreement that would formally end the Korean War. The Obama administration considered such a discussion, but balked because North Korea had not put de-nuclearisation on the table. Now, it might have done. But what if North Korea seeks, as it has in the past, a deeper guarantee of security, the dissolution of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and the removal of American troops from the peninsula? Such a move would be hugely destabilising, potentially nudging South Korea towards acquiring nuclear weapons of its own. Yet it might appeal to a president who has spoken disparagingly of alliances and distrusts faraway troop commitments.
•Second, how reliable are Mr. Kim’s commitments? In the past, the regime has signed up to deals and then walked through loopholes. In 2012, North Korea agreed to halt missile tests in exchange for U.S. food aid. But a few weeks later, it announced a satellite launch which uses the same technology as ballistic missiles. The deal promptly collapsed. Today, North Korea is yet to confirm that it shares the South’s interpretation of its commitments. Will it really freeze all tests for the duration of talks? The first challenge will come during the massive U.S.-South Korea military exercises due to be held from March to May. South Korea will probably push for these to be scaled down, to avoid provoking Pyongyang, but they will certainly go ahead. It remains to be seen whether Mr. Kim will hold his nose, or lose his temper.
•Third, while Mr. Trump’s personal involvement is significant, it is important that diplomacy take into account the range of regional interests.
Involving China
•China’s role in enforcing sanctions is crucial, contributing to a huge fall in North Korean exports last year. Beijing must be brought along rather than kept in the dark because the sanctions regime will have to be preserved and tightened if talks go nowhere. Japan, which hosts U.S. bases and would be deeply affected in any regional war, is also a key partner. It is encouraging that the South Korean delegation that made this announcement from the White House will be in Japan soon. One option is to revive the ecumenical format of the six-party talks, which involved all these parties plus Russia between 2003 and 2009, although this, of course, clashes with the President’s compulsive need to take credit for any success.
•Finally, we should be realistic. North Korea may have promised to discuss getting rid of his weapons, but this is unlikely to happen. As James Clapper, then the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, acknowledged in 2016, the policy is a “lost cause”. “They are not going to do that,” he warned. “That is their ticket to survival.” One must therefore think creatively about desirable outcomes short of de-nuclearisation. This could involve cutting the number of North Korean warheads and missiles, a permanent freeze on tests, intrusive inspections, and measures to block the export of nuclear technology. This will require diligent, expert and experienced diplomacy — big asks for a demoralised, shrunken and marginalised State Department. If the bar is set too high, the resulting disappointment risks pushing everyone back, more forcefully, onto a path of war.
•All this might have been handled better. A presidential summit, which confers unusual prestige upon Mr. Kim, ought to have been held back as a concession for a later stage. There is a reason why North Korea has wanted a summit for decades. Now that one is agreed, it is worth testing North Korea’s sincerity as long as sanctions are not lifted prematurely. But American forces on the Korean peninsula and the alliance they uphold should not be treated as a bargaining chip. Mr. Trump should proceed with extreme caution.
📰 Saving Ghouta
Given the deal to evacuate one militantgroup, Syria should reach out to the rest
•The agreement reached between armed groups in Eastern Ghouta and a UN delegation to evacuate some militants from the besieged enclave is the first major concession the rebels have made since Syrian government attacks began a month ago. Under the deal, the Jaish al-Islam, the main rebel group, will evacuate militants linked to the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly an al-Qaeda front, from Ghouta on the outskirts of Damascus. HTS militants will go to Idlib, a province in northwestern Syria run by the rebels, mainly the HTS. Over the past month, the rebels had refused to strike any deal with the regime even after repeated bombardment. At least 1,000 people have been killed in one month, with the UN warning of an “apocalypse” in Syria. The regime’s argument was that it was seeking to liberate Eastern Ghouta from terrorist occupation. But about 400,000 people are stuck in the enclave; some reports say the rebels are using them as human shields. But the regime and its Russian backers are paying little attention to human suffering. Last month, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Eastern Ghouta. Thereafter, the Syrian government eased the siege of the city, allowing aid groups to supply assistance. But the ceasefire is yet to take effect. The Russians, who voted for the resolution at the Security Council, continued to justify attacks by citing the presence of the HTS, which is linked to an internationally designated terrorist organisation.
•With HTS fighters now being evacuated, it is an opportunity for Russia and the Syrian regime to cease hostilities and engage with the other armed groups, including Jaish and Faylaq al-Rahman, an affiliate of the Free Syrian Army. Both the rebels and the government can learn from the battle for eastern Aleppo, which regime forces captured in late 2016. After the rebels ran out of all options in the face of continued Syrian/Russian assaults, both from land and air, they finally decided to leave the city under Turkish mediation, handing it over to government forces. The battle for Eastern Ghouta bears an eerie similarity to that of eastern Aleppo. In Ghouta, the rebels do not have any meaningful support coming from outside that could allow them to resist regime forces. What they do now to deter regime advances is to shell the government-controlled parts of Damascus and its suburbs, killing more civilians and giving further reason for the regime to justify its military operations. This will only prolong the conflict, endangering civilians on both sides. Given the Aleppo example and the reality on the ground in Eastern Ghouta, the sooner the government forces and the armed gangs reach an agreement for evacuation, the better it will be for the hundreds of thousands of people in the enclave.
📰 ‘Centre finalising Cauvery scheme’
Will meet six-week deadline: official
•The Central government is “working for” finalising a scheme on the Cauvery issue within six weeks, as stipulated by the Supreme Court, Union Water Resources Secretary U.P. Singh said on Sunday.
•“We had internal discussions. We had consultations with States [of the Cauvery basin on Friday]. We have to see other final points of it [the issue]. We are working for it,” Mr. Singh told The Hindu .
•On the controversy over the term ‘scheme’ and the constitution of an implementation mechanism, the Union Secretary said Section 6A of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act itself had prescribed a scheme.
•While implementation mechanisms had been set up to carry out the orders of some tribunals constituted under the Act, there was also a precedent of the decision of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal–I being implemented without any mechanism, he said. (The order of this Tribunal, popularly called Bachawat Award, was published in the gazette in May 1976).
•Mr. Singh explained that in the context of the Cauvery, the Tribunal, in its final order, had mentioned a two-tier structure, giving details on the composition. “What we had discussed [last week] is some kind of a body which will have full-time members and, may be, part-time members.”
•Asked if he had any model for the implementation mechanism in mind, he said he did not.
•However, he explained there were two models — the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) and the Narmada Control Authority (NCA). Under the BBMB, assets including dams were being operated and maintained by the Board.
•In the case of the NCA, operation and maintenance of the assets were with States concerned —Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat — and the Authority’s role was limited to regulatory work and control over the release of water so that “everybody gets his share of water.”
•Mr. Singh added there could be slight variations of these models. “We had discussed all possibilities [with regard to the Cauvery] and hopefully, we will come out with something which is beneficial to everybody,” he said.
•When it was pointed out that two bodies — the Cauvery River Authority, headed by Prime Minister and comprising Chief Ministers of the basin States and a Monitoring Committee, comprising officials of the Centre and States — were in place between 1998 and 2013 for implementing the 1991 interim order of the Tribunal, Mr Singh said, “My understanding is that we are not talking of that structure.”
📰 Bifurcation and blame
It’s misleading to blame the 14th Finance Commission for not according special category status to States
•The bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has left a troubled legacy. The then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement of six paragraphs in Parliament on February 20, 2014 contained the promise of according special category status to the successor State of Andhra Pradesh. This has stirred up a hornets’ nest, with both the ruling party and the Opposition in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly upping their ante and demanding that the Union government honour the commitment. Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has pleaded inability and has instead agreed to give a generous package. He has placed the blame at the door of the Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC). This is not the first time that the Commission has been blamed for special category status not being given. There were newspaper reports about Venkaiah Naidu, when he was Union Minister for Urban Development, also blaming the FFC for the Union government’s inability to accord special category status. In fact, the circular on the special package issued in September 2016 stated, “Following the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission, the class of special category states ceases to exist.”
Reading the report
•To be sure, the terms of reference of the FFC did not require it to deal with the categorisation of States into the “special category” and “non-special category”. Therefore, it was not required to make any recommendation on the issue. Nor is the classification of States into general and special categories the creation of the Constitution and therefore, the Finance Commission, which was formed under Article 280 of the Constitution, has no business to make any recommendations on the issue. Did it really make such a recommendation as alleged, or has the FFC simply been made a fall guy as it no longer exists?
•A careful reading of the report shows that it came nowhere near making any recommendation relating to special categorisation. The principal task of the Finance Commission is to assess the revenue and cost disabilities of the States and make recommendations to offset these disabilities through tax devolution and grants so that all the States are enabled to provide comparable levels of services at comparable revenue effort. The only reference to categorisation was where the report stated, “We did not make a distinction between special and general category states in determining our norms and recommendations. We believe that while there are certain common factors that impact cost disability and fiscal capacity of States, there exist circumstances that are unique to individual States. Our endeavour has been to take a comprehensive view of these commonalities and special characteristics of individual States while making our assessment and recommendations. In our assessment of State resources, we have taken into account the disabilities arising from constraints unique to each State to arrive at expenditure requirements...” (Para 2.29).
•The point is that the FFC did not make any recommendation to the President on whether or not it should accord special category status. The terms of reference of the Commission did not require it to address this issue and therefore the Commission was not concerned about it. Indeed, there were demands from special category States that different norms should be used for assessing their revenue capacity and expenditure needs since they do not have a broad enough tax base and have severe cost disabilities. It is in regard to this that the Commission clarified that it would use a uniform yardstick and assess the revenue capacity and expenditure needs, and in doing so, take into account State-specific problems. With regard to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the Commission simply stated, “The Commission shall also take into account the resources available to the successor or reorganised States on reorganisation of the State of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (6 of 2014) and the Ministry of Home Affairs notification number S.O. 655 (E) dated 4th March, 2014 and make recommendations, for successor or reorganised States, on matters under reference in this notification” (Para 1.3). Thus, the additional terms of reference too did not require the FFC to dwell on the issue, nor did the FFC do so.
•In fact, the Constitution or the Finance Commissions have had nothing to do with asymmetric arrangements created under the so-called special category status. The status was accorded to some States by the National Development Council on the recommendation of the erstwhile Planning Commission on the basis of five important criteria, namely, hilly and difficult terrain; low population density and/or sizeable share of tribal population; strategic location along borders with neighbouring countries; economic and infrastructural backwardness; and non-viable nature of State finances. The Finance Commissions have had no role in either specifying the criteria or making recommendations for admission to special category status.
An executive decision
•I have not gone into the larger question of desirability of providing asymmetric arrangements among the States on discretionary grounds. There are asymmetric arrangements laid down in the Constitution, such as Article 370 for Jammu and Kashmir, and in Articles 371A to H for the States in the Northeast, and even these are under the “temporary, transitional and special provisions” (Part XXI). Asymmetric arrangements on discretionary and political grounds will only weaken the fabric of federalism. Unfortunately, in this, all ruling political parties are guilty of misdemeanour.
•Thus, nowhere has the FFC referred to the issue of desirability or of according special category status in its report. Therefore, attributing blame to the FFC for the inability to accord special category status is clearly misleading. The decision to give and not accord special category status in the past was taken by the erstwhile National Development Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission based on aforementioned factors and this was entirely an executive decision. Neither the Constitution nor the FFC have had anything to do with this.
📰 Under a humane Constitution
The Supreme Court’s judgment on passive euthanasia must compel more debate on technological self-determination
•Last week, in Common Cause v. Union of India , the Supreme Court ruled that every individual has the right to die with dignity. It upheld the practice of passive euthanasia — the removal of life-support mechanisms from persons who, for the most part, have slipped into a persistent vegetative state in order to allow them to die in the natural course of things — and laid down a set of detailed procedural guidelines to facilitate this process. These include “advance directives” and “living wills”, which are instructions issued by a person specifying what should be done to her in the event of a terminal illness, and who will decide if she herself is incapacitated from giving or withholding consent. The court also addressed situations where a patient was terminally ill, but had not issued an advance directive. In such situations it held that the consent of the patient’s close family, subject to the supervision of and concurrence by trained medical personnel, would substitute for the advance directive.
The individual’s choice
•A number of terms have been invoked to identify the case. It has been called the “living wills case”, the “passive euthanasia case”, the “right to die with dignity case”, or even simply the “euthanasia case”. While all these descriptors are accurate, there is, however, a more fundamental principle that unites the four separate and detailed opinions (spanning 538 pages) in Common Cause . Each of the four opinions — authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A.K. Sikri, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan — are organised around the constitutional values of personal autonomy, bodily integrity and human dignity. And these values, in turn, are expressed in the language of an individual’s choice to receive or decline medical intervention or medical treatment.
The primacy of consent
•Last year, in its privacy judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the ideas of self-determination and the right of the individual to make fundamental choices about how to use her body are at the heart of the Constitution. Common Cause represents the first important application of these general principles to a concrete situation. In framing the issue in terms of the individual’s choice to reject medical intervention, the court articulated an important insight: we live in a world where we are constantly subjected to all kinds of invasive processes, procedures, and systems. In Common Cause , the context was that of medical intervention. Medical intervention, however, is only one offshoot of a world that is now defined and constituted by technology. Systems of technology are embedded in the very fabric of our lives, from something as basic as the phone that helps us find our way in an unfamiliar city, to the more complex architectures that are now used worldwide for large-scale governance and administration.
•Consequently, if the right to privacy, self-determination and choice means anything in the age of technology, it surely means this: individuals have the right to engage with technological systems on their own terms, the right to opt into or opt out of such systems without suffering for it, and the right not to be subjected to technological intervention without being given meaningful choice. Let us call this the principle of technological self-determination: or the right of every individual to determine how, on what terms, and to what extent, she will engage with technological systems. This, of course, is closely related to the question of the relationship between technology and human empowerment; as the Chief Justice correctly put the point in his lead judgment, when discussing the issue of leaving life-support systems on in the hope that a cure might be found some day, “should [the individual] be ‘guinea pig’ for some kind of experiment?”
•The link between the constitutional values of choice and self-determination, and the concrete issue of the engagement between the individual and technological systems (in the context of medical intervention) was explained by all the judges. The Chief Justice noted that “the recognition of the freedom of competent adults to make choices about their medical care necessarily encompasses recognition of the right to make choices since individual free choice and self-determination are themselves fundamental constituents of life.” Justice Sikri observed that “dignity implies, apart from a right to life enjoyment of right to be free of physical interference.” Justice Chandrachud took the insight one step further, when he wrote that “the right not to accept medical treatment is essential to liberty. Medical treatment cannot be thrust upon an individual, however, it may have been conceived in the interest of the individual.” The last sentence is crucial, because the most common justification offered in support of invasive technological intervention is precisely that it is only for the benefit of the people that it targets. As Justice Chandrachud recognised, however, such arguments cannot override human freedom and human choice. And Justice Bhushan concluded by holding emphatically that the principles of autonomy, bodily integrity, and human dignity “enable an adult human being of conscious mind to take decision regarding extent and manner of taking medical treatment.”
•Common Cause , therefore, is an emphatic recognition of the basic principle that, in today’s world, individuals must be empowered to engage with technological systems on their own terms. Under the Constitution, the state cannot subject individuals to technological intervention without their consent, and indeed — as Justice Chandrachud noted in the privacy judgment — must take active steps to facilitate the ability of individuals to engage with such systems as citizens, and not as subjects. Just like the Constitution marks a turn from a culture of authority to a culture of justification, where every decision taken by persons in authority must be justified to the people, so must the principle of justification be applied to the engagement between individuals and technological systems. And at the heart of that engagement must be the principles of self-determination and choice. Common Cause marks the first important judicial endorsement of those principles in the privacy era. And if the court continues to apply it in the cases that will inevitably come before it in the coming months and years, Common Cause might be remembered (as indicated above) as the first formulation of a core constitutional principle for the 21st century: the principle of technological self-determination.
Judicial legislation
•As a final point, it must be noted that the court — speaking through the Chief Justice — laid down detailed procedures for the implementation of the advance directives. These safeguards are quasi-legislative in nature, and the court justified them by citing the famous Vishaka judgment, which had held that when there is a legislative vacuum, the court can step in and fill the gap until a law comes into force. That principle, however, may merit some reconsideration, because even with the best of motives, it involves the court stepping into the legislative sphere.
•One possibility might be to consider a constitutional device used in South Africa: the suspended declaration of invalidity. The Constitutional Court of South Africa is empowered to declare a legal provision unconstitutional, but also give the legislature some breathing space to remedy the defect before the judgment actually comes into force. Similarly, in cases where the Indian Supreme Court finds a legislative vacuum, it could (like it has done in Common Cause ) issue guidelines, but suspend their operation for a period of a few months, giving Parliament an opportunity to consider the guidelines, and take action. If, then, Parliament fails to take action, it could be presumed to have tacitly endorsed the court’s guidelines, and they could then acquire legal force. Such a model would promote dialogue between the different branches of government, and strengthen the court’s legitimacy and competence to act in difficult cases of this kind.
📰 A welcome quietus
The Supreme Court finally ends unjustified curbs on Hadiya’s personal freedom
•Hadiya has at last won her freedom. The curious aspect of her case is that it took such a long time for the courts to acknowledge that the 25-year-old woman from Kerala enjoys as much freedom of choice in her marriage as in her religious belief. The Kerala High Court had caused quite a muddle when it annulled her marriage solely on the suspicion that it was a ruse to scuttle habeas corpus proceedings before it. On her father’s complaint that she had been indoctrinated and brainwashed into embracing Islam, and his fear that she was a victim of a movement to convert Hindu women and send them to overseas battle zones, the high court ordered her confinement in her parents’ home. The Supreme Court’s categorical ruling that the high court was wrong in invalidating a marriage under its writ jurisdiction constitutes a welcome end to the unjustified curtailment of her freedom of movement and her life choices. The verdict, for which detailed reasons are yet to be pronounced, restores the liberty of Ms. Hadiya, who chose to convert to Islam more than a year ago and later married a Muslim man. Last November, the apex court had freed her from her parents’ custody and allowed her to complete her internship as part of a homoeopathy course she had taken up in Tamil Nadu. However, even this was somewhat unsatisfactory, as it appeared to be a compromise between being in parental custody and being allowed to live with her husband.
•It is possible that her father, K.M. Asokan, was gripped by fear as her conversion came amid reports of radical groups recruiting young people on behalf of the Islamic State. The high court did not question her conversion, but suspected the veracity of her claim that she was married, as it happened in a day’s break between hearings. However, these facts were not enough for the court to annul the marriage and label it a “sham”. The court made odd observations on how a woman’s marriage requires the involvement of her parents and that Ms. Hadiya was “at a vulnerable age”. Even in the Supreme Court, Ms. Hadiya could explain to the judges that she stood by her marriage to Shafin Jahan only after other parties had advanced arguments on “indoctrination” and “conspiracy” and the National Investigation Agency had its say. Finally, the court has now given primacy to her view. The implications of her ordeal are disquieting: it is not difficult in this country to question the life choices of an adult woman by casting doubts on her volition and personal autonomy, and her freedom to choose her way of life can sometimes be judicially curtailed. While a lawful investigation into organised recruitment by radical groups must not be impeded, courts should strive even harder to protect personal freedoms without being swayed by mere suspicion.
📰 India commits $1.4 billion for solar energy worldwide
PM announces largest ever funding at International Solar Alliance meet
•India on Sunday announced one of the world’s largest investment plans in solar energy at the Founding Conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA). The $1.4 billion line of credit will cover 27 projects in 15 countries and boost the much-required financial power to the solar sector.
•“India will provide assistance to 15 countries for $1.4 billion. I am happy to announce that to fill the gap of solar technology, India will start a solar technology mission with international focus, which will cover all government technical and educational institutions,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, announcing the unprecedented investment.
10-point plan
•The Founding Conference was co-chaired by Mr. Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron. Mr. Modi presented a 10-point action plan aimed at making solar power more affordable while raising the share of power generated. “We have to increase the share of solar in the energy mix,” Mr. Modi said.
•The solar energy sector, facing a challenge of funding, received considerable support at the conference. Mr. Macron, while pointing to the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, praised those who stayed the course to support the solar power on a global scale. France was committed to providing an additional €700 million in loans and support by 2022 to emerging economies for solar energy projects, he said.
•“We know the hurdles. There are financial hurdles, regulations, capacity hurdles as well. We shall, therefore, lift every single one of them,” the French President said, adding, “It is not enough to look at what governments are doing. We need a new international deal with the private sector, the international public sector and civil society as well.”
•Mr Macron is heading to Mirzapur where he will inaugurate a 100 MW solar power project on Monday.
•Mr. Macron identified three issues to be addressed — the solar energy potential in each country should be be identified; mobilisation of finance; and the provision of a favourable framework. He said the member countries of the ISA would ensure distribution of finance and expertise. The conference was attended by 23 heads of states and governments from all over the world, including Mr. Modi and Mr. Macron.
📰 PNB fraud: RBI starts special audit of public sector banks
To focus on trade financing activities, especially relating to letters of undertaking
•Rattled by a spate of banking frauds, RBI has initiated special audit of State-owned lenders with focus on trade financing activities, especially relating to issuance of letters of undertaking (LoUs) by them, banking sources said.
•In addition, the RBI has asked all banks for details of the LoUs they had issued, including the amounts outstanding, and whether the banks had pre-approved credit limits or kept enough cash on margin before issuing the guarantees.
•Most of the big banking frauds, which were unearthed in the recent past, including the one perpetuated by diamantaire Nirav Modi and his associates, pertain to trade finance. Also, many of the wilful default cases have their roots in trade finance, the sources told PTI.
•In view of the recent Rs. 12,646-crore PNB scam, perpetuated through fraudulent issuance of LoUs with the connivance of the bank’s staff, it was pertinent for the regulator RBI to examine the issue of trade finance which also included issuance of letters of credit (LC) and LoUs, sources said.
NPA scrutiny
•The government recently asked the State-owned banks to scrutinise all cases of non-performing assets (NPAs) exceeding Rs. 50 crore for possible fraud and report the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
•Banks have also been asked by Finance Ministry to come up with a “pre-emptive” action plan in a fortnight to combat rising operational and technical risks, and assign clear accountability to senior functionaries.
📰 ‘Bank recap should be part of broader reform package’
Economic growth prospects remain positive: IMF’s Zhang
•The IMF has said that the recapitalisation of India’s public sector banks should be part of a broader package of financial reforms to speed up the resolution of their massive non-performing assets, which has attracted attention in the backdrop of the Nirav Modi case.
•Recent policy reforms to address vulnerabilities in the banking and corporate sectors in India have been significant, International Monetary Fund Deputy Managing Director Tao Zhang said ahead of his visit to India.
•According to a recent Assocham-Crisil study, India’s banking sector will be saddled with gross non-performing assets (GNPAs) worth a staggering Rs. 9.5 lakh crore by March-end, up from Rs. 8 lakh crore a year-earlier.
•“We think the PSB recapitalisation should be part of a broader package of financial reforms to speed up the resolution of NPAs, improve PSB governance, reduce the role of the public sector in the financial system, and enhance bank lending capacity and practices,” Mr. Zhang told PTI in an interview.
Note ban effect waning
•He added the Indian economy now seemed to be on its way to recovering from disruptions caused by demonetisation and the roll-out of the goods and services tax.
•“With the economy expanding by 7.2% in the latest quarter, India has regained the title of the fastest-growing major economy, Mr. Zhang said.
•Calling this development a ‘welcome change’, Mr. Zhang said the growth prospects remained positive.
📰 Two-factor authentication gathering steam, shows survey
‘System will protect enterprise applications in future’
•A majority IT professionals in India expect their organisations to start using two-factor authentication to protect enterprise applications in the future, with almost half expecting this to happen within the next year, according to a private survey.
•“[as much as] 78% believe the use of two-factor authentication to protect applications in the future will increase within the next year,” said the survey conducted by digital security firm Gemalto. It added that biometric and one-time password-based authentication would be the preferred mode.
•Almost all respondents said that two-factor authentication would be able to contribute towards their organisation’s ability to comply with data protection regulations and pass security audits. The use of two-factor authentication method is a part of organisations’ efforts to ‘consumerise’ the login process to ensure ease of use while strengthening the security. Majority organisations believe that the authentication methods they implement in their businesses are not as good compared with those found on popular sites, including Amazon and Facebook.
Web, mobile apps
•The survey was conducted amongst 1050 IT decision-makers in the three-month period from September-November 2017 globally.
•According to the survey, in India, more than 50% of the respondents believed that web portals and cloud/mobile applications were the biggest targets for cyberattacks.
📰 U.S. tariffs: ‘India must raise dispute at WTO’
‘Protectionism will affect global trade’
•India should drag the United States into the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) dispute mechanism against the latter’s move to hike import duties on steel and aluminium, as the decision will impact exports and is not in compliance with the global trade norms, experts said.
•The decision of the U.S. would not only impact India’s export of these goods to America but also affect global trade, Biswajit Dhar, a professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said.
‘India must raise duties’
•“Such decisions are protectionist in nature. India needs to approach the WTO against this move as it would severely hit global trade,” Mr. Dhar said.
•Former Commerce Secretary G. K. Pillai said the country should take action against America and also raise duties on products like almonds, pistachio and Harley-Davidson motorcycles.
📰 A curse to science
The UGC’s incompetence has legitimised at least 200 predatory journals
•In the last decade, predatory journals, which publish papers for a fee with little or no peer review, have become a curse to science. Despite the unethical business practices adopted by publishers of such journals, the number of researchers who publish in them has been increasing at an alarming rate. From about 53,000 in 2010, the number of papers published in these journals increased to 420,000 in 2014, noted a 2015 paper published inBMC Medicine .
•India is the epicentre of predatory journal publishing. According to the BMC Medicine paper, around 35% of authors in such journals were from India, and 27% of predatory journal publishers were also based here, thus making India the number one country in both categories. A September 2017 paper in Naturefound that authors from India accounted for 27% of the 1,907 papers published in predatory journals.
•From initially being duped into publishing papers in these journals, researchers in India, particularly those from State universities, are now actively seeking out such journals. The University Grants Commission (UGC) is singularly responsible for this.
•Never mind the almost non-existent research infrastructure in most colleges and State universities, the Academic Performance Indicators (API) system introduced by the UGC has mandated that every PhD scholar publish at least two papers prior to thesis submission. A similar condition exists for teachers in colleges and universities at the time of recruitment and assessment for promotion. The myopic policy of the UGC has unwittingly led to a sudden and huge demand for journals that willingly publish substandard papers for a small fee. Bowing to pressure, in January 2017 the UGC introduced a white list of journals where researchers could publish to meet the API conditions. If the introduction of the API was done without any application of mind, the white list prepared without the scientific community’s involvement has led to the inclusion of at least 200 predatory journals. Worse, universities may suggest new journal titles for inclusion in the list, and the criteria for inclusion are not only vague but loose.
•Predatory journals are known to give themselves a fake impact factor, which indicates the standard of the journal, and claim to peer review papers before accepting, though they rarely practice it. They also include scientists as editors and board members even without their consent, include instructions and ethics policies that have been plagiarised and rarely followed, and claim to be indexing in respectable sites. Unfortunately, there are just a few factors for judging a journal for inclusion. It would therefore not be surprising to find most, if not all, of the journals recommended by universities as being predatory. Owing to the UGC’s incompetence, at least 200 predatory journals have been legitimised. It’s time it abandons the list altogether and follows standard white lists prepared by competent organisations, which, even if not perfect, are far better than this one
