📰 Trade talks stuck as U.S. presses oil, aircraft sales to India
As both countries seek to reaffirm their strategic partnership, India is in the crosshairs of economic nationalists in the Trump administration
•India and the United States are in a deadlock over contentious trade issues after the Donald Trump administration sought a formal commitment of additional purchases of $10 billion annually for the next three years, as part of a trade agreement under negotiation.
•As both countries seek to reiterate their strategic partnership at the first 2+2 dialogue in New Delhi on Thursday, India is in the crosshairs of economic nationalists in the Trump administration. India has a surplus of $23 billion in trade with America, and the U.S. wants to wipe that off by forcing more imports by New Delhi, as part of a proposed trade agreement.
•“Our concerns are steel and aluminium tariffs, and a number of agricultural tariffs. So is the GSP review. The U.S. has concerns... at this stage the discussions are going on,” an Indian official speaking ahead of the 2+2 dialogue said.
Draft agreement
•American interlocutors took Indian officials by surprise last month with a draft agreement that committed additional imports by India, in civilian aircraft and natural gas, The Hindu has learnt from multiple sources familiar with the developments.
•“Trade between countries is determined by competitive advantage and notions of enterprise of private parties. In democracies like India and the U.S., both governments have limited abilities to commit a trade value for future years...,” another Indian official said in Delhi.
•Officials of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) office also aggregated all existing market access issues with India in the negotiations that were initially planned on questions related to the American review of India’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) status and the steel and aluminium tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. With talks in stalemate, the U.S is proceeding with its review of India’s GSP status and India is moving ahead with retaliatory tariffs. Postponed twice, India’s retaliatory tariffs are now set to come into force on September 18.
•Meanwhile, there is a shadow of uncertainty over the Trade Policy Forum (TPF) that was announced for the last week of October. India was expecting to negotiate general market access issues at the TPF, but the USTR wanted all of them resolved beforehand. USTR Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross were expected to travel to New Delhi for TPF and the Commercial Dialogue between the two countries in the last week of October, but these parallel events could be postponed, sources told The Hindu. Deputy USTR Jeffrey Gerrish, called off a trip to New Delhi scheduled for this week, but that could be rescheduled for later this month.
•Pointing out that there has been a decrease in the deficit last year by about 5% or about $1.5 Bn, the first Indian official said. “..this is because US exports have increased by 10%. ..we are importing gas and oil from the United States. ..According to ballpark figures, this calendar year we are likely to import up to US $2.5 billion in oil and gas. This is something we would like the US to acknowledge.”
•The USTR had launched a review of India’s GSP status, that allows preferential treatment to certain number of specified goods from beneficiary countries, following complaints from AdvaDed, or Advanced Medical Technology Association, a group of companies that exports medical devices to India and a dairy association. Earlier signals from the USTR suggested there could be a resolution, with India changing its price control regime in medical devices by moving on to the more acceptable instrument of trade margin rationalisation, and the US discontinuing its GSP review and granting exemptions for India from the steel and aluminium tariffs.
•But the draft agreement prepared by the USTR sought concessions from India on Compulsory Registration Order that governs standards in telecom equipment, American exports of boric acid, pork, poultry and dairy. “In fact, the entire gamut of market access issues that the U.S has been raising for long,” said a business leader who is familiar with the content. “We would like the US to understand that there are different ways of addressing the trade deficit. One of them is to address issues of direct concern, but the other is to look at new ways and new products and services to buy and sell both ways. But I can't comment on what the outcome of these talks will be as discussions are still underway,” said the first official.
•“The growth in civil aviation sector has resulted in placement of higher orders with Boeing by Indian airline operators. With the US restarting oil and natural gas exports Indian imports in these sectors have been going up. In the first six months of this year, US exports to India have gone up by 28%vis a vis the corresponding period last year. So far as accommodating the interest areas and concern of each other both USTR and Dept of Commerce are engaging in talks to find a mutually satisfactory solution,” said the second official.
📰 SC throws out plea to ban Malayalam novel Meesha
‘Creativity of an author cannot be held hostage to subjective perceptions’
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a petition seeking a ban on the Malayalam novel Meesha (Moustache), written by S. Hareesh, as it was perceived to be ‘derogatory’ to temple-going Hindu women.
•The court, in a 30-page judgment, said the creativity and imagination of an author cannot be held hostage to the vagaries of subjective perceptions, whims or fancies of individuals.
•The court assured that it would safeguard the free flow of ideas in a democracy by quoting Voltaire’s “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
•The court said the judiciary should remain committed to keeping the flag of democratic values and ideals of freedom and liberty flying high. “We live not in a totalitarian regime but in a democratic nation, which permits free exchange of ideas and liberty,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, who authored the judgment, observed.
•The judgment said, “A writer should have free play with words, like a painter has it with colours. The passion of imagination cannot be directed.”
•It is for the reader to read a creative work with a mature spirit, catholicity of approach, objective tolerance and a sense of acceptability founded on reality, it said.
‘Intellectual cowardice’
•The Chief Justice, along with Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, wrote that creative voices cannot be allowed to slip into a mode of “intellectual cowardice.”
•The petitioner, N. Radhakrishnan, calling himself a “proud Hindu”, alleged that the book contained “offending parts”, which insult Brahmin priests and amounts to a “casteist/racist slur.” The court held that the language used in the dialogue cannot remotely be thought of as obscene. The concept of defamation does not arise. Nurturing the idea that it is derogatory and hurtful to the temple-going is baseless.
📰 All for one, one for all?: on integrated military theatre commands
Each service of the military extolling its own importance is not helping India to study the changing character of war
•There has been much discussion in the media recently on the integrated military theatre commands. Most of the opposition to such a restructuring has been led by Air Force officers, including former Chief of Air Staff S. Krishnaswamy, who have voiced the view that the creation of integrated commands would seriously hamper the effective application of air power, particularly because of the limited resources available with the Air Force.
Initial steps
•The views of respected Air Force officers, particularly a former chief, need to be taken seriously. There is justification in the argument that moving ahead towards integrated commands without any meaningful restructuring in the higher defence organisation is premature. The initial steps should have been an integration of the Ministry of Defence and the appointment of a Chief of the Defence Staff. This would have put in place structures and practices that would encourage a jointness among the three services and perhaps pave the way in future towards integrated organisations.
•What is more debatable is their somewhat simplistic view on the character of future wars. Wars would “be swift and the objectives… met in days or weeks,” wrote Air Chief Marshal (retd.) Krishnaswamy in The Indian Express on August 16 (“Why theatre commands is an unnecessary idea”). On the same day, in The Hindu (“The roadmap to military reform”) Arjun Subramaniam, a former Air Force officer, wrote that the Air Force would be the decisive arm because: “Capturing ground beyond a few kilometres or taking physical control of vast maritime spaces for prolonged durations are no longer sustainable operations of war as they arguably result in avoidable depletion of combat potential… It is in this context that air power would offer a viable alternative by shaping ‘battle spaces’ adequately before the other services enter combat.”
•The Army and the Navy challenge this assertion with their opinions on the importance of land and sea power. The real problem lies in the fact that all three services have their own vision of how future conflicts could unfold and the primacy of their own arm in winning wars. The start point is therefore a common understanding between the services on the nature and character of wars that India could fight in the future.
•According to Carl von Clausewitz, the nature of war does not change, it is the character of war that undergoes transformation. The enduring elements of the nature of war are its violent character, a clash of wills between two opponents, and political primacy. There is no war without these elements. The character of war, on the other hand, is related to how a war will be fought. This depends on our military capabilities, economy, technology, political considerations, civil-military relations, and the opponent’s aim and strategy.
•Political purpose will decide the start and termination of wars, and the manner in which they will be fought. The services have made their operational plans based on a proactive (cold start) strategy, with the assumption that the war will be short and swift. Maximum combat power is to be harnessed and applied across the border in a series of strikes that will rapidly degrade the military potential of the enemy. The weakness with this strategy is that it seldom takes political objectives into consideration.
Three examples
•Let us take a few examples of the recent past where military force was used or contemplated to be used by the Indian state. The Kargil conflict broke out in 1999. The Pakistan Army had clearly committed an act of war by occupying territory on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC). While the complete military was poised to strike Pakistan by land, sea and air, the political leadership decided to restrict the conflict to only the Kargil sector and to our own side of the LoC. Only a small fraction of the Indian Amy was applied while the Air Force was restricted to bombing posts that had been occupied by Pakistan Army soldiers. Despite this, Kargil was a resounding political, diplomatic and military victory.
•The next crisis emerged from the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001. Operation Parakram was launched and the Indian Army mobilised for an impending war against Pakistan. The Army remained deployed along the borders for almost one year. Even the Kaluchak attack in Jammu and Kashmir in May 2002, in which 34, including soldiers, women and children, were killed, did not trigger an all-out conflict. As the Army returned to its barracks in December 2002, questions were raised whether the military had mobilised without the political leadership having clearly spelled out its objectives and whether this attempted show of force had actually proved counterproductive.
•The Mumbai attack in November 2008 was the biggest terror strike launched from Pakistan. There was outrage in the country and calls for retaliation against Pakistan. I was posted in the Military Operations Directorate at that time and am aware that military options were discussed. However, the use of force was ruled out. As the former National Security Adviser, Shivshankar Menon, explains in his book, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, “The simple answer to why India did not immediately attack Pakistan is that after examining the options at the highest levels of government, the decision-makers concluded that more was to be gained from not attacking Pakistan than from attacking it.”
•Apart from emphasising the need to synergise political and military objectives, another major lesson from these examples is that the importance of a military force lies in its utility to achieve the national aims, and not in the numbers of divisions, ships and aircraft squadrons. The dominance of America’s military power has not resulted in the achievement of its political objectives in Afghanistan.
Imagining the future
•We must also debate the character of future wars. A number of questions need to be answered. What will be the contours of a war between nuclear armed adversaries, and how will victory be defined if we want to remain below the nuclear threshold? As our offensive columns enter the Punjab province of Pakistan, what is the sort of conflict that they will face? Will it merely be a pitting of two armies against each other or a hybrid conflict also involving the local population, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists, and criminal elements?
•How will China achieve its political objectives through armed conflict? Will it be by a massive application of force across the Himalayan watershed or by exploiting its advantages in information warfare, technology and ballistic missile capability? What will be the psychological impact of long-range missiles slamming into population centres and killing people who would never have imagined themselves to be a part of the conflict? Will this be the real clash of wills rather than actions along the border?
•It is necessary for the three services to sit together and find realistic answers. We must be prepared for a whole range of options from non-contact warfare to a full-scale war. Our ability to generate 11,000 sorties in an exercise or launch three strike corps into Pakistan are visible displays of our combat potential but may not translate into the best utilisation of force for all contingencies.
•It is only after these discussions crystallise that we will be able to arrive at a common understanding of how future wars could possibly play out and the kind of joint structures that are required to best fight this conflict. We may not get everything right but each service extolling its own importance is not helping our ability to prepare for the future.
📰 What’s in a name?
A lot in some cases. We must recognise that ‘Dalit’ is an expression of self-empowerment
•The advisory from the Union Information and Broadcasting Ministry to the media saying they “may” refrain from using the term ‘Dalit’ while referring to members of Scheduled Castes is unnecessary, intrusive and issued with little application of the mind. On the face of it, this has been done in compliance with a direction from the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. But a reading of the court’s June 6 order shows it only wanted the Centre “to consider the question of issuing such direction to the media and take a suitable decision upon it”. The court did not go into the merits of using the term. After it was brought to its notice that the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had issued a directive to use only the term ‘Scheduled Castes’ in all official matters, the court merely noted that since media institutions were not a party before it, the I&B Ministry could consider the question of issuing a similar direction to the media. The I&B Ministry’s advisory is confusing as it uses the words “for all official transactions, matters”, though the media’s references to the community are usually beyond official contexts. The advisory must be withdrawn as there is no reason to tell the media how to do their job, even if it is couched in the form of gratuitous advice.
•Of course, the debate over the appropriateness of using the term ‘Dalit’ to refer to members of the Scheduled Castes is far from new. A decade ago, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes disfavoured the use of ‘Dalit’, which it felt was unconstitutional. This is because belonging to a ‘Scheduled Caste’ is a legal status conferred on members of castes named in a list notified by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution. Therefore, arguably, ‘Scheduled Caste’ is the appropriate way to refer to this class of people in official communications and documents. However, it is inexplicable to oppose the use of the term ‘Dalit’ in the media and in non-official contexts — a nomenclature chosen and used by the community itself. Doing so lends itself to the charge that there is an attempt to deny the powerful and emotive meaning of the word Dalit. The term has evolved over a period of time and has come to symbolise different things in different contexts — self-respect, assertion, solidarity and opposition to caste oppression. In the past, Dalits were referred to as ‘untouchables’, but the official term during British rule was ‘depressed classes’. Mahatma Gandhi sought to remove the stigma of ‘pollution’ by using the term ‘Harijans’, or ‘children of god’. In course of time, the community rejected this appellation as patronising and sanctimonious. It was only some decades ago that they began to refer to themselves as Dalits. ‘Dalit’ literally means ‘downtrodden’ or ‘broken’, but it is a word pregnant with meaning, reflecting the struggle of a community to reassert its identity and lay claim to the rights that were denied to them for centuries.
📰 CAATSA, a sticking point
The onus is on the U.S. to find a way around the problem
•Expectations have been high in the run-up to the much-delayed inaugural ‘2+2’ dialogue between India and the U.S. on September 6. These range from the likely signing of the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, which is meant to provide a legal framework for the transfer of communication security equipment from the U.S. to India, to the possible announcement of several high-end defence deals worth billions of dollars. And yet, some statements from Washington over the last week have come as a reality check. They open the possibility of the 2+2 dialogue becoming just another high-optics engagement, one that fails to address the structural issues that could adversely affect the deepening strategic partnership between India and the U.S.
Change in tone
•One such issue, which has emerged as a major friction point and has the potential to derail the relationship, is the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). India had made it clear that it would go ahead with the S-400 Triumf missile system deal with Russia even as U.S. sanctions loom large. Earlier, when U.S. officials expressed concern over the S-400 sale, they had assured India that a way would be found by the Trump administration to shield friends and allies from sanctions. However, recent statements show a change in tone. Randall Schriver, Assistant Secretary of Defence for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, said in a sharp remark in Washington that he “can’t guarantee a waiver will be used for future purchases.” He said that there was an “impression that we are going to completely protect the India relationship, insulate India from any fallout from this legislation no matter what they do. I would say that is a bit misleading. We would still have very significant concerns if India pursued major new platforms and systems [from Russia].” He also added: “Russia is not a country you want to have a strategic partnership [with].” Surprisingly, despite sharing a close strategic relationship with Russia, India chose to remain silent instead of making it clear that it would take its policy decisions in line with its interests.
•The S-400, wrote strategic analyst Ashley Tellis in an article recently, presents a “serious risk to the evolving U.S.-India strategic relationship”. It must be resolved “even if it is admittedly an imposition on India.”
•The U.S.’s change in tone and expectations directly impinge on India’s core national interests and interfere in its policymaking. Several officials have stressed this point on different occasions. While making the decision to purchase the S-400 air defence systems in July, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said, “We have made it clear that CAATSA is a U.S. law and not a UN law.” Asked if the law applied to India, she said, “Of course it does not.”
•Then there are practical considerations — the Indian military is heavily reliant on Russian equipment in many areas. Given the specific requirements of the military, the services will continue to choose Russian equipment, although they are also now diversifying their inventory.
India’s choice
•Several U.S. officials and experts have suggested that India should procure alternatives from the U.S. Speaking at the NATO summit in July, U.S. President Donald Trump, while calling on other partners to share greater financial burden, said that “the United States makes by far the best military equipment in the world: the best jets, the best missiles, the best guns, the best everything.” While Mr. Trump made a good pitch to export more U.S. weapons, selecting a military platform, especially something as complex as air defence systems, is not an isolated effort; military equipment cannot just be procured ad hoc. India has its own due diligence to follow regarding what suits it best and what it needs the most. The best product may not always be what is needed. The product that gives the best value for money and performs well under Indian conditions is what is procured. While the U.S. may expect India to do more for the support rendered by it at various levels, India’s defence cooperation doesn’t fall in that ambit.
•The India-U.S. relationship has moved past the stage of the usual rhetoric of extolling “large democracies”. Given that India is a rising power looking for a greater say on the global stage, the U.S. should be sensitive to its core interests. The onus is on the U.S. to find a way out on CAATSA if it is really serious about taking forward the strategic partnership. Given that the 2+2 format involves talks at the highest levels, it is an opportunity for India and the U.S. to address the issue now and prevent it from escalating further.
📰 Assam NRC: SC refuses to give report copy to Centre
First respond to Prateek Hajela’s suggestion, says court
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to provide a copy of the full report of Assam NRC Co-ordinator Prateek Hajela to the Centre on what excluded citizens could offer as proof of ancestry.
•“We are extremely interested in having a copy,” Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal submitted.
•To this, Justice Ranjan Gogoi replied, “You may be interested, but we have to balance it. The court has called for the report, now it is the discretion of the court to give it to you or not. First you respond to this suggestion (of Mr. Hajela that excluded citizens be allowed to produce additional documents to prove their legacy), then we will see about it.”
•Later, in the court’s order, Justice Gogoi recorded that “the Attorney General has sought a copy of the co-ordinator’s report. We are of the view that what has been set out in the order (of the court) would be sufficient for the Union of India, stakeholders to indicate their views on it.”
•In the previous hearing on August 28, the apex court had noted how the ouster of 40 lakh people in the draft NRC raised “human problems of a huge magnitude.”
‘Re-doing’ exercise
•However, the previous hearing had also seen the Bench of Justices Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman raise questions about the Centre’s willingness, expressed in its draft Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for receiving claims and objections, to allow claimants another chance to prove their Indian ancestry by submitting fresh documents.
•It had even indicated that giving a second opportunity to claimants would “upset the apple cart” and amount to “re-doing the entire exercise” of NRC.
•The court’s questions had prompted Mr. Venugopal to plead that the government was only giving “another chance to people who risk losing all their rights.” Finally, the Bench had ordered Mr. Hajela to file a report on the ramifications of the Centre’s proposal.
📰 Pompeo hopeful of resetting ties with Pak.
‘Long way to go before we resume aid’
•U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he was “hopeful” on Wednesday of resetting the troubled relationship with Pakistan, a key player in the Afghan conflict, after cordial meetings in Islamabad including with new Premier Imran Khan.
•The shift in tone comes days after Washington confirmed plans to cancel $300 million in military aid, and was echoed by Mr. Khan, who voiced his optimism at a fresh start.
Afghan conflict
•Mr. Pompeo told pool reporters shortly before leaving Islamabad that the “broad spectrum” of topics discussed included efforts “to develop a peaceful resolution in Afghanistan”.
•“I’m hopeful that the foundation that we laid today will set the conditions for continued success,” he said — though he added there was a “long way to go” before Washington would resume military assistance.
•The cancelled military aid is part of a broader freeze announced by the Trump administration in January designed to pressure Pakistan into action.
•But Mr. Pompeo said ahead of the trip that it was time to “turn the page”.
•In his earlier comments, Mr. Pompeo also held out the possibility that military aid could be restored under the right circumstances.
•“We were providing these resources when it made sense for the United States because the partnership was in a place where the actions of our two countries made sense to do that,” Mr. Pompeo said. “If that arises again, I’m confident we’ll present to the President the rationale for that.”
•He also said that cancellation of aid was not news for Pakistan. “Look, this wasn’t news to the Pakistanis. It made a lot of headlines over the last few days because of the formality... but they were told this past summer that they weren’t likely to get that money,” he said.
📰 Steps to stop the rot: on dangers of storing foodgrains in the open
The government must stop storing millions of tonnes of foodgrains in the open under tarpaulins
•In India, the height of the rainy season is a time that one prays will pass — flooded roads, wet clothes, masses of insects and mould. No place is safe from the growth of fungi that spring up overnight. With the humidity in the air and the warmth of summer, all that fungi need is something to feed on. To prevent fungal attack. we store food items at home in airtight containers with well-fitting lids or in sealed plastic bags.
•If I were to suggest that instead of all the airtight containers and waterproof bags, you build a cement plinth on the roof of your house or in your yard and pile up your flour, bread, biscuits, rice and other cereals and pulses there in bags and then cover all this with a tarpaulin, assuring you that it would be perfectly safe through the rainy season, you would probably lose all faith in me and my suggestions. This would be based on your practical experience.
•Most grain in India, which is procured from farmers by the government, is stored using the CAP, or cover and plinth method. Very cheap and easy to make, it is described in the preceding paragraph. India stores about 30.52 million tonnes of rice, wheat, maize, gram and sorghum in such structures at Food Corporation of India godowns and hired spaces.
A comparison
•In other parts of the world, grain is stored in silos. Here, stored grain is kept dry and aired so as to prevent fungal and insect attacks. When the North American mid-west came under the plough during the 19th and 20th centuries, the first thing that was done was to build large grain silos and a railway system to export the grain. Today, the U.S. has a permanent storage capacity nearly equivalent to its annual grain production. But in India, the government has considered only four silos to be sufficient for the nation’s needs — one each in Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai and Hapur-Ghaziabad. The last one, in Uttar Pradesh, is the most modern with a storage capacity of 500 tonnes, according to a recent paper.
•The remainder of government-procured grain is stored in conditions so shoddy that it is estimated that there is a 10% loss of harvested grain, of which 6% (around 1,800,000 tonnes) is lost in storage. This means that the grain is so damp and fungus-ridden that it cannot be ground and passed on to the public for consumption.
•In order to export basmati rice, Punjab has, in a public-private partnership, built modern, temperature-controlled grain silos with a storage capacity of 50,000 tonnes — but this is not for the Indian market.
Invitation to illness
•Eating mouldy grain causes a variety of illnesses. According to a World Health Organisation paper, titled “Mycotoxins”, mycotoxins, which are found in mouldy grain/foods, are associated with human disease and produce aflatoxins (cancer-causing), trichothecenes, ochratoxins, citrinin and other toxins. The paper says: “Aflatoxicosis causes abdominal pain, vomiting, hepatitis and (sometimes) death after acute exposure to high concentrations in food. Chronic low dose exposure to aflatoxin can result in impaired growth in children.”
•This is why traditional wisdom ensured that mouldy food was discarded. Today, our grain, especially wheat and paddy, is stored outdoors under tarpaulins through the rainy season. After this, grain is converted to flour or flour-based products or de-husked, which we store in airtight containers and bins to prevent mould. However, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The mycotoxins which we seek to prevent by keeping food dry are already present from the time the flour was stored in the form of grain.
•The government is aware of the deadly consequences of grain with mycotoxins. Although there are regulations in place to prevent the purchase of mouldy grain from farmers, there do not seem to be any published studies on the extent of mould infection in grain stored using the CAP method. However, one does not need these studies. All one has to do is purchase flour from the market, make rotis, bread or biscuits and compare the taste with similar products from developed countries. The “nutty taste” of wheat is missing in what is available in the Indian market. If you get wheat from farmers and get it ground, you will find the “nutty taste”.
Questions for planners
•One needs to ask a pertinent question. When there is an abundance of steel, cement and other building materials, money and the technological know-how, why is the government not moving on a war footing to store food grains in the proper manner?
•Given the weather conditions during the monsoon months, how is it acceptable that our foodgrains, which the public pays to procure, are stored in the open under tarpaulins?
•How can we gloat about a growing economy when 30 million tonnes of foodgrain is stored outside under tarpaulins? Even though foodgrain production has been encouraged and increased, why is there no effort being made to ensure that grain being procured annually is stored properly? Are our planners unaware of what is going on even in their own kitchens?
📰 SC relief for Maharashtra, Uttarakhand
Ban on construction lifted as two States submit that they have solid waste management policies
•The Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted its August 31 order staying construction activities in landslide-hit Uttarakhand for not placing on record in court its solid waste management policy.
•The court also clarified that there is no stay on construction in Maharashtra too. A three-judge Bench led by Justice Madan B. Lokur had ordered a freeze on construction activities in defaulting States and Union Territories.
•It had imposed a fine of ₹3 lakh each on Maharashtra and Uttarakhand, along with Madhya Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, for not complying with a July direction of the apex court to place on record their respective policies under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
•While Maharashtra lawyers blamed a “communication gap,” as the State had already framed a policy in 2017, the Uttarakhand side submitted its policy was awaiting Cabinet approval.
•Uttarakhand said it had been hit by calamity and the fine imposed on them should be channelled for rescue operations in the State. It described how landslides have caused the appearance of an artificial lake in Tehri Garhwal area and around 13 villages were in danger. The court allowed the plea.
•Andhra Pradesh, which was ordered to pay a fine of ₹ five lakh for not even making an appearance in the last hearing on August 31, also pleaded the court for relief along with Odisha and Chandigarh.
•The court asked them to file applications but not before rebuffing them for making an appearance now after being stung by the August 31 order. “The builders must have gone after you after our order,” Justice Lokur told the States.
‘Confusion’ cited
•The Odisha counsel ascribed the lapse due to some “confusion” on its part during the August 31 hearing. “Everybody is confused when it comes to implementation of law,” Justice Lokur reacted.
•At one point, the Uttarakhand counsel blamed the Centre for not filing a national policy on solid waste management. But Additional Solicitor General A.N.S. Nadkarni referred to the ‘Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’ initiative in answer.
•Towards the end of the hearing, the court questioned Maharashtra about the utilisation of cess collected under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. It sought a reply from Maharshtra by September 11 on what steps had been taken to use the funds for the welfare of construction workers in Mumbai.
•On August 31, the Bench had said it was “pathetic” that some States and Union Territories have not bothered to frame their respective solid waste management policies even two years after the Rules came into existence in 2016.
📰 34% Indians not active enough: WHO
Globally, more than 1.4 billion adults are at risk of diseases from not doing enough physical activity
•Thirty-four per cent of Indians — 24.7% male and 43.9% females — are not active enough to stay healthy, according to the latest study released by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which noted that, globally, more than 1.4 billion adults are at risk of diseases from not doing enough physical activity.
‘No improvement’
•Published in Lancet Global Health, the study notes that there is no improvement in global levels of physical activity since 2001. The data shows that if current trends continue, the 2025 global activity target of a 10% relative reduction in insufficient physical activity will not be met.
•Insufficient activity puts people at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, dementia, and some cancers, according to the first study to estimate global physical activity trends over time.
•Worldwide, around 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men do not do enough physical activity to stay healthy. “Levels of insufficient physical activity are more than twice as high in high income countries compared with low income countries, and increased by 5% in high income countries between 2001 and 2016,’’ noted the study.
•The highest rates of insufficient activity in 2016 were found in adults in Kuwait, American Samoa, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, where more than half of all adults were insufficiently active. Comparatively, around 40% of adults in the United States, 36% in the UK and 14% in China were insufficiently active.
•“Unlike other major global health risks, levels of insufficient physical activity are not falling worldwide, on average, and over a quarter of all adults are not reaching the recommended levels of physical activity for good health,” warns the study’s lead author Dr. Regina Guthold.
Self-reported
•In 2016, around one in three women (32%) and one in four men (23%) worldwide were not reaching the recommended levels of physical activity to stay healthy — that is, at least 150 minutes of physical activity of moderate intensity or 75 minutes of physical activity of vigorous intensity per week.
•The new study is based on self-reported activity levels, including activity at work and at home, for transport, and during leisure time, in adults aged 18 years and older, from 358 population-based surveys in 168 countries, and includes 1.9 million participants.
•“Addressing these inequalities in physical activity levels between men and women will be critical to achieving global activity targets and will require interventions to promote and improve women’s access to opportunities that are safe, affordable and culturally acceptable,” said co-author Dr. Fiona Bull.
