📰 Tit for tat: China imposes fresh tariffs on U.S. goods
Items include cars, aircraft, chemicals and soya beans
•China’s Commerce Ministry on Wednesday listed 106 U.S. products, which will be subjected to a 25% tariff, in retaliation to Washington’s intent to impose fresh tariffs on Chinese products worth $50 billion. The items include soya beans, cars, chemicals and aircraft, triggering fears that the world’s top two economies maybe locking horns in a major and escalating trade war.
•The Chinese move was announced soon after the U.S. listed nearly 1,300 Chinese products worth $50 billion for additional duties.
•Analysts say the U.S. tariffs targeted Beijing’s cutting edge Made-in-China 2025 plan. The blueprint is meant to upgrade China’s overall industry, through Internet-based intelligent manufacturing, covering 10 key advanced sectors.
•“The U.S. list suggests that the government is targeting the ‘Made in China 2025’ initiative, while China’s retaliation intends to bring Americans back to the negotiation table,” Bloomberg quoted Zhou Hao, an economist at Commerzbank AG in Singapore as saying.
📰 India, Japan, U.S. stress keeping sea lanes open
Trilateral focusses on counter-terrorism and connectivity
•Senior diplomats of India, Japan and the U.S. held the 9th trilateral meeting here on Wednesday, focussing on connectivity, counter-terrorism and other regional and global issues of common concern, a joint press release issued after the meeting, said.
•“The officials reviewed the outcomes of the Trilateral Infrastructure Working Group that met in Washington in February and agreed to continue to collaborate to promote increased connectivity in the Indo-Pacific,” the press release said.
•It said the talks drew from the guidelines laid out by the Foreign Ministers of the three nations who met in New York on September 18, 2017, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session.
Enhanced cooperation
•“... the officials explored practical steps to enhance cooperation in the areas of connectivity and infrastructure development, counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, maritime security, maritime domain awareness and HA-DR (Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief),” the press release said.
•The meeting is crucial as it comes against the backdrop of the ongoing trade war between China and the Trump administration that erupted after both sides imposed tariffs on each other’s goods. Echoing India’s concern about maintaining freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the western Pacific Ocean, the trilateral emphasised on importance of keeping the sea lanes open.
•The U.S. was represented in Wednesday’s talks by Alice Wells, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, and Susan Thornton, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. “All sides agreed to remain engaged and strengthen cooperation in support for a free, open, prosperous, peaceful and inclusive Indo-Pacific region through partnership with countries in the region,” the release said.
📰 Heeding the lines on the map
Forging a China-India-Pakistan-Bangladesh axis would be a game changer for all of South Asia
•At the heart of South Asia’s poor integration is India-Pakistan rivalry, further complicated by China-Pakistan proximity and India-China hostility. A new dimension has been added with souring of Pakistan-Bangladesh relations and the India-China tug of war over Bangladesh. Time has come to make a paradigm shift in South Asia’s regional integration strategy. Politics and religion aside, across India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (IPB) there are common sociocultural bonds and people-to-people connectivity remains positive.
Caught in a tangle
•Today the big three of South Asia are caught up in a complex quagmire, both within and beyond the region. The remaining five — i.e. Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Afghanistan — are paying the price of regional disintegration caused by unresolved puzzles having roots in the China-IPB (CIPB) axis. If the big three can have a strategic partnership that also factors in China, the remaining five can effortlessly fit into positive regionalism with a win-win situation for all.
•IPB account for approximately 95% of South Asia’s GDP and population. Along with China, they account for 18.5% of global GDP and 41% of global population. South Asia’s intra-regional trade, currently 5% of total trade, can grow to $80 billion from the current $28 billion, the lion’s share being within IPB. Pakistan and India have potential trade capacity of $20 billion compared to the current $3 billion. Underdeveloped transport and logistics services and bureaucratic procedures are deterring India-Bangladesh cross border trade, which can grow by 300%. The Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM-EC) has a pivotal position in developing joint investment agreements but sluggish progress in infrastructural development has rendered the corridor nearly comatose. Due to its common borders with China and India, Myanmar’s significance also needs to be factored in.
•India continues to be the natural choice for external investors including Chinese multinational enterprises like Alibaba and Xiaomi. In 2016, foreign direct investment to Pakistan rose by 56%, largely due to Chinese investment in Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure. Although the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is being developed as a bilateral initiative, if Indian sensitivities can be addressed, it can be a multilateral project, integrating India as well as other South Asian and Central Asian regions. China has already pledged $38 billion to Bangladesh under the BRI. Synergetic integration of the economic corridors with other BRI projects can accelerate inward investment into IPB.
•Due to cross-border barriers and lack of transport facilitation among IPB, freight movement is taking place along expensive routes, escalating investment cost. Movement of trucks across the international frontier is confined by absence of cross-border agreements between India and Bangladesh and India and Pakistan. China is injecting huge funds into physical infrastructure such as Pakistan’s Gwadar port project and $20 billion in various Indian industrial and infrastructural projects. China has committed $1.4 billion for building Colombo Port City and is set to invest $1 billion more.
•Rail connectivity is restricted due to technical problems of different gauges, track structures, signalling and so forth. Absence of a multilateral agreement has restricted the realisation of the railway potential. The deep-pocketed Chinese can invest in land and rail infrastructure to develop both inter-regional connectivity and intra-regional connectivity. Although India and Bangladesh have started exploring opportunities using Ashuganj inland port, regional inland waterways remain unexplored. Air cargo flights are encumbered by limited access to Indian airspace by Pakistan and vice-versa. China can lead in transport and transit agreements to facilitate smooth movement of freight and passenger vehicles across IPB resulting in integration with China and also South Asia.
•The supply-demand gap of power in IPB is estimated to be 18,707 MW. To unravel the full potential, energy treaties based on renewable sources have become imperative. China and India are shifting from fossil fuels to renewables. With greater electricity generation and utilisation of domestic energy endowments, combined efforts of BCIM, CPEC and the proposed China-Nepal-India (CNI) Economic Corridor under BRI, can capitalise on regional energy potential.
•By 2050, China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will experience water shortages. The three largest trans-boundary river basins, Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra, are all within CIPB. This represents a huge potential for water-sharing and hydro power projects across the basins, but political mistrust is an impediment. The Zangmu hydroelectricity dam, situated in the middle reaches of the Brahmaputra, has raised concerns in India over downstream water supply. This damming, along with that of the Ganga, could exacerbate Bangladesh’s downstream water scarcity.
•While there exist bilateral river-water sharing treaties between India and Pakistan as well as India and Bangladesh, China is absent except for a hydrological data-sharing collaboration. China has expressed interest to pursue water- sharing treaties and the other three affected can come together in a collaborative framework. This can boost the livelihoods of millions across the region.
•India and China are leading globally in terms of Internet and smartphone users, but Internet penetration for these four countries is below 55%, representing immense potential. Bangladesh, Cambodia and China have signed a framework to strengthen digital regional trade. China’s BRI initiative is projected to increase connectivity by developing digital infrastructure.
•Between 2016 and 2020, international bandwidth is expected to grow at an average of 43.5% across CPEC and 46.3% across BCIM. Higher broadband connectivity and Internet access can boost regional e-commerce. Digital connectivity can act as the gateway to a holistic transformation of the region via the CIPB conduit.
•IPB fail to attract sufficient tourists due to poor civil aviation connectivity, complex regulations and lack of visa liberalisation procedures. Of China’s total outbound tourists, only 1% are to IPB. Inadequate, expensive and mediocre travelling facilities against the backdrop of pickpockets, burglary, and sexual assaults have resulted in tourists lacking interest in the region. Rooms that cost $400 a night in Delhi or Mumbai would cost hardly $100 in most parts of China. China is unable to attract students from South Asia against the improved facilities provided by the U.S. and U.K. Only 5% of outbound students of IPB go to China, compared to 22% to the U.S. If these opportunities are tapped, it would enhance mobility of both tourists and students.
Solving the jigsaw puzzle
•The CIPB axis is an open-ended chess game played out against cross-border conflicts. A strategic collaboration that rises to the occasion, looking beyond historical animosity and misgivings, can unlock a new era of regionalism whose benefits far outweigh negatives. Solving the jigsaw puzzle will need political statesmanship which will see friends and foes, living next to each other, knowing where to connect and when to disconnect.
📰 Looming U.S.-China trade war?
There is still scope for negotiation in the stand-off
What is happening to U.S.-China trade?
•In the latest round of tit-for-tat, China, on Wednesday, announced plans to hike tariffs by 25% on 106 imports from the U.S. The Chinese move was in response to a U.S. announcement on Tuesday, of a 25% tariff on 1,333 Chinese imports. The proposed U.S. tariffs are the result of the administration’s investigation into whether China has been indulging in unfair intellectual property and technology transfer practices under a “Made in China 2025” industrial promotion policy. If implemented, China’s retaliatory tariffs, on products such as soybean, whisky, orange juice and cars, would hit the U.S. where it hurts; 60% of U.S. soybean exports go to China.
•The tariffs imposed by China are expected to hit $50 billion of trade — similar in value to the Chinese goods targeted by the U.S. tariffs proposed on Tuesday in high technology sectors including aerospace, robotics and communications.
How did this start?
•The proximate cause for this tit-for-tat goes back to early March when U.S. President Donald Trump announced tariffs of 25% and 10% on imports of steel and aluminium, respectively, using “national security” provisions of U.S. trade law. However, even during his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump had alleged unfair practices by the U.S.’s trade partners, singling out China in this context and the trade imbalance between the two countries.
•It is likely that the steel tariff announcement was strategically timed for a few days before a special election for a Pennsylvania Congressional district (eventually won by the Democratic candidate), home to steelworkers, and who form a significant part of Mr. Trump’s support base. As the producer of half the world’s steel, China has in the past been accused of dumping cheap steel on international markets by others, including India and the European Union. Most of China’s steel is sent to Asian markets, not to the U.S. China responded on Monday by imposing tariffs on 128 goods, worth $3 billion (Rs. 19,500 crore) in trade value, a milder response compared to the second round of tariffs announced on Wednesday.
Where is this heading?
•As this went to press, neither the U.S. nor China had announced kick-off dates for the harsher round of tariffs. Hitting Chinese manufactures in high-technology sectors could hurt U.S. businesses that have plants in China, where labour and manufacturing costs are lower. Several of these have lodged objections with the White House and the U.S. is expected to hold consultations before confirming these tariffs. China’s tariffs have also targeted products that are sourced from states that supported Mr. Trump or where Republican lawmakers will soon face elections. There appears to be room for negotiation and discussion before a trade war erupts.
📰 SC invalidates domicile rule for PG medical seats
State has to re-publish calendar of events
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared invalid a Karnataka government condition restricting postgraduate admissions for medical and dental government quota seats to students with minimum 10 years domicile in the State.
‘Modify info bulletin’
•In a judgment by a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U.U. Lalit, the SC directed Karnataka to amend and modify the information bulletin jointly issued by the State Directorate of Medical Education and Karnataka Examinations Authority on March 10.
•The court ordered the State to re-publish the calendar of events in terms of the judgment and complete the entire process within the timeline stipulated by the regulatory authorities.
Plea by 44 doctors
•The judgment was based on a petition filed by 44 doctors, who did their MBBS/BDS courses from Karnataka and have cleared the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Post Graduation (NEET-PG) 2018 with high merit and are aspiring for admission to PG courses in the State.
•The court said the domicile condition of 10 years bars even students who completed their MBBS and BDS from colleges in Karnataka to compete for government quota seats.
📰 House unites to pass Bill on medical colleges
To bypass SC order annulling admissions
•The Assembly on Wednesday unanimously passed a Bill regularising the controversial admission of 180 students to the Karuna and Kannur self-financing private medical colleges in 2016-17.
•Health Minister K.K. Shyalaja said the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Bill, 2018 was a one-off bipartisan law to save the future of the NEET-qualified students who found their prospects imperilled after the Supreme Court upheld the State Admission Supervisory Committee decision to annul their admissions after it found that the colleges had conducted the process in an opaque and illegal manner.
Flawed process
•The Minister said the flawed process had occurred when the admission to professional colleges was in transition from the State entrance list to NEET.
•The colleges ignored the orders of the regulatory committee and admitted students.
•The colleges had refused to cooperate with the government in the admission process or concede 50% of their seats to State merit and violated the law that prohibited capitation fee and exploitative tuition charges. The students realised that the colleges had cheated them when the Supreme Court threw out the management’s prayer to regularise the admissions they had illegally conducted.
Fine proposed
•The plight of the children and their parents prompted the government and Opposition to reach a consensus that a law was required to disentangle the students from the legal quagmire caused by the greed of the college owners. The legislation proposed a fine of Rs. 3 lakh for every student admitted by the colleges.
Dissenting voice
•The passage of the Bill was not without dissent and drama. Congress legislators P. T. Thomas and V. T. Balram doubted whether the Assembly had the Constitutional mandate to pass legislation that would effectively annul the SC’s decision cancelling the medical admissions.
•However, Leader of the Opposition Ramesh Chennithala took the position that the Bill need to be adopted in the larger interests of the students. He refuted the allegation that the government and the Opposition had joined hands to save the errant college managements. CPI (M) legislator E. P. Jayarajan doubted whether Mr. Thomas and Mr. Balram differred with Mr. Chennithala on the matter. Muslim League lawmaker P. K. Basheer said his party was for the Bill and could not agree with Mr. Balram at all times.
•Ms. Shyalaja replied that the legislation reflected the spirit of SC judgment. It was not conceived to validate similar violations in the future and Mr. Balaram’s point of order did not stand legal scrutiny.
📰 ‘EC backs one seat, one candidate policy’
Supreme Court seeks response from Centre for its view
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to respond to an affidavit filed by the Election Commission (EC) of India to amend the law to prevent candidates contesting from multiple constituencies.
•A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a declaration striking down Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, which allows candidates to contest from two constituencies at a time, as invalid and unconstitutional.
•Mr. Upadhyay has asked the court to direct the Centre and the Election Commission to “discourage” independent candidates from contesting parliamentary and State Assembly elections.
•The EC informed the court that it had proposed the amendment of Section 33(7) way back in July 2004. It was one of the 22 “urgent electoral reforms” the EC had suggested to a Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee. It had pointed out that there had been cases of a person contesting from two constituencies and winning from both. “The consequence is that a by-election would be required from one constituency, involving avoidable labour and expenditure...”
•The EC concluded that the “law should be amended to provide that a person cannot contest from more than one constituency at a time.”
EC suggestion
•It suggested that a candidate should deposit Rs. 5 lakh for contesting in two constituencies in an Assembly election or Rs. 10 lakh in a general election. This would be used for the conduct of a by-election in the eventuality that he or she had to relinquish seat. The court posted the case for hearing in July.
📰 Centre is not a party to SC/ST case, says Prasad
‘Union govt. was allowed to make submissions in court’
•A day after the Congress accused Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad of making a “misleading statement” that the Centre was not a party to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act case in the Supreme Court, Mr. Prasad reiterated his stand.
•“I stand by my stand that the Centre was not a formal party to the case,” the Law Minister told The Hindu on Wednesday.
•Stating that the original criminal complaint filed by Satish Balkrishna Bhishe, a resident of Pune, was against the State of Maharashtra and B.K. Gaikwad, another resident of Pune, the Minister said the Centre was allowed to make “submissions” in the court.
•He, however, declined to respond to specific charges levelled by the Congress on Tuesday, citing “propriety” since the Centre’s review petition is being heard again by the top court.
•On Tuesday, Congress’s communication chief Randeep Singh Surjewala said the Supreme Court had given notice to the Attorney-General on November 20 last year since “the case involved interpreting Central statutes”.
•“When the entire architecture of a sensitive law like this is redone, the apex court should have asked the Centre to respond on facts and not just because interpretation,” said a senior official who preferred to be anonymous.
•Law Ministry officials also maintain that since the SC/ST Act is a Central law that is uniformly enforced by the States, views of the State governments should have been sought.
•“The judgment talks about protecting the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21. But in our view, it cannot be read without referring to Article 17 of the Constitution that prohibits untouchability and other such discriminatory practices,” said another senior Law Ministry official.
Change in stand
•On Tuesday, hearing the Centre’s review petition, the Supreme Court questioned the government for changing its stand in the court. “The Union itself had said there was abuse,” observed Justice A.K. Goel, who is part of the two-judge Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice U.U. Lalit.
•Amrendra Sharan, who assisted the court as amicus curiae (friend of the court), also said that the March 20 judgment was based on the government’s views about abuse of the 1989 enacted SC/ST Act. “In our written submission, paragraph 15, we have unambiguously said that the government is committed to protecting the 1989 law along with the amendments carried out in 2015,” asserted the senior government official.
•In its ruling on March 20, the Supreme Court banned immediate arrest of a person accused of insulting or injuring a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe member.
📰 Confidence in the House
The Speaker has enough powers to restore order in the Lok Sabha and act upon a notice for a no-trust vote
•Think of the day in 1997 when Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda had to face a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. Now imagine the following situation. Some MPs from one of the numerous parties disrupt the proceedings by storming the well of the House and showing placards. The Speaker expresses that he is unable to conduct the House and adjourns for the day. Repeat this for several days. The Prime Minister continues to hold his office. Would this be a legitimate government?
•This is not a mere academic question. About three weeks ago, several members of Lok Sabha gave written notices to the Speaker for a no-confidence motion against the current council of ministers. The rules of procedure require the Speaker to verify whether 50 Members of Parliament support the motion by asking them to stand at their seats and taking a count. Since March 16, the Speaker has every day expressed her inability to count the members supporting the motion as some members were shouting slogans and showing placards in the well of the House.
A primary function
•The primary role of the Lower House of Parliament is to determine who forms the government. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers can hold office only as long as they have the confidence of the Lok Sabha. While defending the parliamentary system over a presidential system, B.R. Ambedkar had stressed that the former provided accountability on a daily basis, which was desirable for India. Of course, his assumption was that such accountability would be ensured through parliamentary processes such as questions, adjournment motions and as a final measure, the no-confidence motion. Our Parliament has belied this expectation.
•Parliamentary processes recognise the primacy of the no-confidence motion. After all, most other parliamentary work is either designed to have the government answer on its policies and actions, or to debate government bills or sanction its budgetary proposals. These activities cannot be undertaken when the very legitimacy of the government is being questioned. Thus, if there are any notices for the no-confidence motion, the Speaker has to verify whether there are at least 50 MPs who support its introduction, and then fix a time for discussing it. It is this process that has been stalled.
•What can the Speaker do if some MPs are not allowing the House to function? The Constitution and the Rules of Procedure in Lok Sabha do not give her the discretion to decide whether to allow the motion. She is duty bound to verify whether there are 50 members in the House who support its introduction. In case of disruptive behaviour by some MPs, she has the powers — and the responsibility — to bring order to the House. She can ask these MPs to return to their seats, failing which they can be named and asked to withdraw from the House. If they don’t, they can be forcibly removed. There are a number of occasions when MPs have been suspended. Indeed, during the term of the current Lok Sabha, 25 members were suspended in August 2015 for not allowing the House to function.
•This is not the first time that such a situation has arisen. During the winter session of 2013, several members had given notice for a no-confidence motion. This was during the agitation for creating Telangana, and several members disrupted the House. For several days, the Speaker adjourned the House, and the motion was never introduced. However, in the midst of the ruckus, the Bill to reorganise Andhra Pradesh into two States was passed.
•The present Speaker should not follow her predecessor’s path. After all, an incorrect step should not form a legitimate precedent. Her duty is to put the motion to test immediately. Otherwise, the very existence of the government (as well as that of Parliament as a body representing the will of the people) is under question.
A long tradition
•Till now, there have been 26 no-confidence motions. Many of these were symbolic in nature, such as the first one against Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963, three against Lal Bahadur Shastri and two against Indira Gandhi in the next three years. Of these 25 were unsuccessful, and one did not get to the voting stage as Morarji Desai resigned. On all these occasions, the no-confidence motion was given priority over all other business. It is this tradition that the Speaker must follow.
•Given the membership of the Lok Sabha, it is evident that this government enjoys a comfortable majority. That said, this position still needs to be tested if questioned. Parliamentary democracy works because there is a broadly held belief in the fair and just exercise of power by the state. The inability of Parliament to function and to test the support for the government undermines the very basis of our democratic structure. The Speaker has the responsibility of ensuring that the House functions and taking whatever steps are necessary — including suspension of members, if needed – to ensure order and check whether there is requisite support to admit the debate on the no-confidence motion.
📰 The violent aftermath
The court must re-examine the SC/ST Act verdict, but in an atmosphere of calm
•The loss of nine lives in violent protests against the Supreme Court ruling introducing safeguards against misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is tragic. Clearly, both the Centre and State governments were caught unawares by the scale and intensity of the protests. The government has sought an urgent review, in an attempt to dispel the impression that its own stand was responsible for the Division Bench laying down fresh guidelines on handling complaints under the Act. From the day of the court ruling, what was a matter of concern was the nature of the message the Bench might have conveyed to marginalised and oppressed sections. Norms to safeguard the innocent against false complaints may not have been so unpalatable as the serious implications of the finding that there is large-scale misuse of the SC/ST Act. Proceeding on this premise, the court ruled that the bar under Section 18 of the Act on grant of anticipatory bail was not absolute. It mandated a preliminary inquiry into complaints before an FIR can be registered and barred any immediate arrest of the accused, unless approved by a higher authority in the case of public servants or the Senior Superintendent of Police in respect of private citizens. Whether these directions amount to judicial legislation and go against the grain of prevailing law and policy are complex questions that need careful judicial determination. But it is a moot question whether recent explosion of Dalit anger stems entirely from the fine print of the judgment. It is likely that it is a result of the perception that in a social environment where the legal and administrative system is already loaded against the community, a verdict like this may worsen the lot of the vulnerable.
•As the Bench has now agreed to hear the petition to review its own March 20 order, what is needed is a spell of calm and peace. It is true that the Bench has declined to suspend the order and clarified that its objective was to safeguard the innocent and that it has not diluted the Act or undermined the rights of SCs and STs in any way. In a larger sense, there are two disparate factors at play — protecting the innocent against harassment and misuse of a law, and faithfully preserving the letter and spirit of a piece of legislation aimed at upholding the rights and dignity of the historically oppressed classes. Neither should be sacrificed for the sake of the other. Given the mood of anger and discontent, it is both pragmatic and necessary for the entire question to be re-examined by the court. The first requirement for this is a conducive atmosphere for such a hearing. One hopes that the initial fury has spent itself out and that there will be no cause for its being unleashed again.
📰 Anti-forest, anti-forest dweller
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund is a deeply flawed and unjust mechanism
•Last month, Minister of State for Environment, Forests and Climate Change Mahesh Sharma informed Parliament that his Ministry has collected over Rs. 50,000 crore in a Central compensatory afforestation fund (CAF). This money is to be used though the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF) Act, 2016 or CAF, a purported mechanism to offset forest loss. Before issuing forest clearances to a mine, dam or industry, the Ministry fixes a monetary value for the forest that is to be destroyed and collects this as “compensation”. The funds are to be then used to “afforest” alternative land.
Indicator of destruction
•The fund’s growth over the past decade is a measure of the forest destruction under way in India. It is also a potent indicator of the scale of resource appropriation from some of India’s most marginalised citizens, namely Adivasis and other communities, living in and around forests. The CAF Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation because it reduces their displacement, hardship and loss of livelihood and food sources to a monetary value — to be paid to the state. The law, and now its draft rules, spells further capture of Adivasi lands in the name of compensatory afforestation. The Forest Rights Act (FRA) was enacted in 2006 to provide forest-dependent communities with resource rights via individual and community forest land titles. It also recognised long-standing knowledge systems and community efforts in protection of forest resources by formally establishing the authority of the gram sabha in forest stewardship.
•A decade on, the FRA remains grossly under-implemented, and its vision of devolving power to rural communities stonewalled. The CAF Act and draft rules institutionalise this stymieing by placing a huge fund at the unilateral disposal of the forest bureaucracy, giving it unchecked powers to undertake plantations on private and common property resources. This flies in the face of numerous government and non-governmental reports showing the poor ecological and social consequences as well as the corruption which result from this approach.
•The rules provide no meaningful safeguards against the forest bureaucracy implementing compensatory plantations on dense forests, and where FRA claims have been issued, are pending or have to be filed. The rules provide for mere “consultation” with communities in the planning of compensatory afforestation: a clear step backward from the consent provisions in the FRA and the 2014 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. Consultations are not stipulated for all afforestation projects, and need not even involve the affected gram sabhas. This indicates a wilful blindness to conflicts under way across forested landscapes.
Afforesting forests
•Take the case of Rangamatia, a village of the PVTG (particularly vulnerable tribal group) Juang community in Keonjhar, north Odisha, which has been at loggerheads with the forest department since 2016. This is when the department unilaterally demarcated dense community-conserved forest in the village for a “compensatory afforestation” project, tied to forest clearance for an iron ore mine by the Tatas in the district. Visiting Rangamatia in July 2016, I came across a forest department board in the midst of a splendid sal forest which said: “Site for Compensatory Afforestation in Village Rangamatia”.
•Rangamatia is not unique. An ongoing study of 2,479 compensatory afforestation projects across 10 States by forest rights groups has shown that over 70% were on existing forest land, including dense forests. The study chronicled multiple forms of state violence against villagers protesting against such plantations (including beatings, arrests, criminal cases, food insecurity and forcible takeover of land).
•As Biswajit Mohanty, an Odisha-based wildlife activist, says, forest departments are taking over village resources, which includes existing old-growth forests, because there is a severe paucity of land to service the thousands of afforestation projects that have been floated. “But forest officers have to come up with afforestation proposals, without which forest clearances cannot be issued,” he says. The result is a deeply violent and dishonest mechanism in the name of afforestation.
•Since the CAF Bill was floated, forest rights advocates report that over 2,500 gram sabhas across India have opposed it. But resource rights movements by Adivasi and forest-dwelling communities are marginal in our public discourse, except during momentous events like the recent Nashik-Mumbai march. The government’s ongoing policies do not address such demands for justice and dignity. Instead, they prepare the ground for a fresh chapter of the violent denial of rights and ecological damage.
📰 India pips Japan, becomes second largest manufacturer of crude steel
Growth attributed to Centre’s steps to curb imports, ‘Make in India’ among others
•In a major achievement, India has overtaken Japan to become the world’s second largest producer of crude steel in February, according to the Steel Users Federation of India (SUFI). At present, China is the largest producer of crude steel in the world, accounting for more than 50% of the production.
•India’s crude steel production was up 4.4% and stood at 93.11 million tonnes (MT) for the period April 2017 to February 2018, compared with April 2016 to February 2017. This had helped India to overtake Japan and become the second largest producer of crude steel in the world, SUFI said in a statement here.
•India overtook the U.S. in 2015 to become the third largest producer of crude steel.
•Attributing the growth in steel production to the policies undertaken by the government, Nikunj Turakhia, president, SUFI said, “The government has taken a host of steps to curb imports, push local demand with initiatives like ‘Make in India’, and implement GST and infrastructure projects, to encourage the domestic market.”
•According to the World Steel Association, India produced 8.4 MT of crude steel in February 2018, up 3.4% over February 2017.
•Mr. Turakhia said the Steel Ministry was working pro-actively to prepare a road map to achieve 300 MT by 2030.
•“In addition, quick resolution of various big-ticket steel mills under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the National Company Law Tribunal is expected to further hasten the process of achieving higher capacity utilisation,” he added.
📰 ‘India third most vulnerable country to cyber threats’
The U.S. remains most vulnerable to such attacks, followed by China, according to the recently released ‘Internet Security Threat Report’
•India emerged as the third most vulnerable country in terms of risk of cyber threats, such as malware, spam and ransomware, in 2017, moving up one place over previous year, according to a report by security solutions provider Symantec.
•In 2017, 5.09% of global threats detected were in India, slightly less than 5.11% in 2016. The U.S. (26.61%) was most vulnerable to such attacks, followed by China (10.95%), according to ‘Internet Security Threat Report’.
•The global threat ranking is based on eight metrics — malware, spam, phishing, bots, network attacks, web attacks, ransomware and cryptominers.
•As per the report, India continues to be second most impacted by spam and bots, third most impacted by network attacks, and fourth most impacted by ransomware.
•The report also pointed out that with the threat landscape becoming more diverse, attackers are working harder to discover new avenues of attack and cover their tracks while doing so.
•“From the sudden spread of WannaCry and Petya/NotPetya, to the swift growth in coinminers, 2017 provided us with another reminder that digital security threats can come from new and unexpected sources,” it said.
•Cyber criminals, it said, are rapidly adding “cryptojacking” to their arsenal as the ransomware market becomes overpriced and overcrowded.
Real threat
•“Cryptojacking is a rising threat to cyber and personal security,” Tarun Kaura, Director, Enterprise Security Product Management, Asia Pacific and Japan, at Symantec said, adding that, “The massive profit incentive puts people, devices and organisations at risk of unauthorised coinminers siphoning resources from their systems, further motivating criminals to infiltrate everything from home PCs to giant data centers.”
•“This coin mining gold rush resulted in an 8,500% increase in detections of coinminers on endpoint computers during the final quarter of 2017.”
•While the immediate impact of coin mining is typically performance related — slowing down devices, overheating batteries and in some cases, rendering devices unusable— there are broader implications, particularly for organisations. “Corporate networks are at risk of shutdown from coinminers aggressively propagated across their environment. There may also be financial implications for organisations who get billed for cloud CPU usage by coinminers,” Symantec said.
📰 NASA hires Lockheed Martin to build supersonic plane
•NASA has inked a deal with Lockheed Martin to develop a supersonic “X-plane” that could break the sound barrier without a sonic boom.
•The $247.5 million contract allows for the design, building and testing of a plane that would make its first test flight in 2021, NASA said.
•The experimental plane “will cruise at 55,000 feet at a speed of about 1,513 kmph and create a sound about as loud as a car door closing, 75 Perceived Level decibel (PLdB), instead of a sonic boom,” the U.S. space agency said in a statement.
•As early as mid-2022, NASA plans to fly the X-plane over certain, as yet to be determined, U.S. cities to collect data and gather community responses.
•The goal is to enable quieter supersonic flight and create “new commercial cargo and passenger markets in faster-than-sound air travel,” NASA said.
•But passenger seats are not part of the project Lockheed Martin is working on, at least not yet.
•First, the company must show it is possible to fly a quiet supersonic aircraft. Then, the rules of the Federal Aviation Administration would have to be changed in order to lift the current ban on civil supersonic flights over land.
