📰 Bihar, Punjab take DGP issue to SC
Cite enactment of State laws to modify order on UPSC role in appointments
•The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the pleas of Bihar and Punjab seeking modification of an earlier order directing the States to mandatorily take assistance of the Union Public Service Commission in shortlisting names for appointing Director General of Police (DGP).
•The top court, on July 3 this year, passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and chronicled the steps for appointment of regular DGPs.
•It stated that the States will have to send a list of senior police officers to the UPSC at least three months prior to the retirement of the incumbent. The commission will then prepare a panel and intimate to the States, which in turn will immediately appoint one of the persons from that list.
•A Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S.K. Kaul was on Friday told by the governments of Bihar and Punjab that the July 3 order needed to be modified as they have already come out with State laws to deal with the issue of appointment of DGP.
•Lawyer Shoeb Alam, appearing for Bihar, said the State has already framed a comprehensive law, dealing with various aspects including the procedures to appoint the DGP, in pursuance of the 2006 apex court verdict on police reforms. He said the apex court’s direction on appointment of the DGP needed to be modified.
•Senior lawyer P. Chidambaram appeared for the Punjab government.
•The apex court has now fixed the pleas of both States for hearing on December 7.
•The West Bengal government has also filed a similar plea.
•Earlier, the apex court had passed a slew of directions on police reforms in the country and had restrained all States and Union Territories from appointing any police officer as acting DGP.
•The top court’s direction had come on an application filed by the Centre in which it claimed that certain States have been appointing acting DGPs and then making them permanent just before the date of their superannuation to enable them get the benefit of an additional two-year tenure till the age of 62 years.
•The Bench had ordered keeping in abeyance any rule or legislation framed by any of the States or the Centre running counter to the earlier direction of the court.
•The court, however, had said that if any State has a grievance with regard to the directions, then they may approach it for modification of the order.
•The apex court, on September 8 last year, had agreed to hear a clutch of pleas observing that its historic 2006 verdict on police reforms, recommending steps like fixed tenures for DGPs and SPs, has not yet been implemented by States and Union territories.
•The apex court, while deciding the PIL filed by two former DGPs Prakash Singh and N.K. Singh in 2006, had issued several directions, including setting up of a State Security Commission, to ensure that the government does not exercise unwarranted influence on the police.
•It had said the appointment of DGPs and police officers should be merit-based and transparent and officers like DGPs and Superintendents of Police should have a minimum fixed tenure of two years.
📰 Neighbourhood first?
In a calibrated move, the Modi government is dialling down aggressive postures in bilateral ties
•When Prime Minister Narendra Modi touched down in the Maldives in mid-November to attend the swearing-in of Ibrahim Mohamed Solih as the country’s President, it was easy to count the “firsts” in his visit. Among them: this was Mr. Modi’s first visit to the Maldives, the only country in South Asia he had not yet visited in his tenure, and the first by an Indian Prime Minister in seven years. The only time a visit by Mr. Modi had been planned, in 2015, he cancelled his travel plan abruptly, to register a strong protest at the treatment of opposition leaders, who are now in government. The one “first” that was not as prominent, however, was that despite inviting all South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) leaders to his own swearing-in ceremony in May 2014, the Maldives visit marked the first time Mr. Modi attended the swearing-in ceremony of any other leader. The fact that he did, and chose to be one among the audience rather than on stage, may be a more visible sign of a new, softer neighbourhood policy than the one Mr. Modi’s government has pursued in previous years.
All in 2018
•The current year, 2018, has marked a year of reaching out in the region by the Modi government in general, with a view to dialling down disagreements that otherwise marked ties with major powers such as Russia and China. But while Mr. Modi’s “Wuhan summit” with Chinese President Xi Jinping and the “Sochi retreat” with Russian President Vladimir Putin merited much attention, it is important to take stock of attempts at rapprochement in the immediate neighbourhood.
•With Nepal, the government’s moves were a clear turn-around from the ‘tough love’ policy since the 2015 blockade. Then, the government seemed to want nothing more than to usher Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli out of power. In 2018, however, when Mr. Oli was re-elected, despite his anti-India campaign, the Modi government wasted no time in reaching out and, in a highly unconventional move, despatched External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Kathmandu even before Mr. Oli had been invited to form the government. Since then, Mr. Oli has been invited to Delhi and Mr. Modi has made two visits to Nepal, with a third one planned in December to be part of the “Vivaha Panchami” festival. The frequency of visits in 2018 is in stark contrast to the three preceding years, when Mr. Modi did not visit Nepal at all.
•Similar comparisons abound with India’s reaction to major developments in the neighbourhood. In the Maldives, when emergency was declared by the previous regime of Abdulla Yameen, New Delhi made no attempt to threaten him militarily despite expectations of domestic commentators and Western diplomats. When Mr. Yameen went further, denying visas to thousands of Indian job seekers and naval and military personnel stationed there, New Delhi’s response was to say that every country has a right to decide its visa policy.
•With elections in Bhutan (completed) and Bangladesh (to be held in December), as well as the ongoing political crisis in Sri Lanka, India has chosen to make no public political statement that could be construed as interference or preference for one side over the other. Earlier this year, the government even allowed a delegation of the Bangladesh opposition to visit Delhi and speak at Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-affiliated think tanks, although it later deported a British QC lawyer for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
•Perhaps the biggest policy shift this year was carried out as a concession to the Ashraf Ghani government in Kabul. After a policy of more than two decades of refusing to engage with the Taliban, or even sit at the table with them, in November India sent envoys to the Moscow conference on Afghanistan, where the Taliban’s representatives were present. The U.S. chose to send a diplomat based in Moscow as an “observer”, but the Indian delegation of former Ambassadors to the region represented non-official “participation” at the event. The shift was palpable. Earlier, the government had stayed aloof from the process, explaining that any meeting outside Afghanistan crossed the redline on an “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led solution”. While the change in position was eventually achieved by a high-level outreach by the Russian government, which has projected the conference as a big diplomatic success, India’s participation had been nudged by President Ghani himself. He had made a strong pitch for backing talks with the
Taliban during a visit to Delhi in mid-September. Both in his meeting with Mr. Modi and in a public speech, Mr. Ghani had stressed that the Islamic State and “foreign terrorists” were the problem in Afghanistan, as opposed to the Afghan Taliban itself, and talks with them had the support of the Afghan people. Whatever India’s reservations may have been about the Taliban, the Modi government eventually decided to extend its participation to the Moscow event.
The Kartarpur link
•Given the context, it may be possible to see the government’s latest shift, in sending two Union Ministers to Pakistan this week to join Prime Minister Imran Khan for the ground-breaking ceremony for the Kartarpur corridor, as part of the larger pattern of softening towards the neighbourhood. No Indian Minister has visited Pakistan since the Uri attack in September 2016, and after the cancellation of Foreign Minister talks at the UN this year, it was assumed that the government would not pursue conciliatory proposals with the new government in Islamabad. It is also significant that the BJP and the Prime Minister have chosen not to make Pakistan an electoral issue in the current round of State elections, as they did during last year’s Assembly polls. While it seems unlikely that the larger shift required for a Prime Ministerial visit to Pakistan for the SAARC summit is possible before elections next year, it is not inconceivable that people-to-people ties, of the kind Mr. Modi spoke of in his speech comparing the transformative potential of the Kartarpur corridor to the falling of the Berlin wall, will be allowed to grow.
•All these moves lead to the question, why has the government decided to make the change from playing big brother in the neighbourhood to a more genial and avuncular version of its previous self? One reason is certainly the backlash it received from some of its smallest neighbours like Nepal and the Maldives, that didn’t take kindly to being strong-armed, even if New Delhi projected its advice to be in their best interests. Another could be the conscious rolling back of India’s previous policy of dissuading neighbours from Chinese engagement to now standing back as they learn the risks of debt-traps and over-construction of infrastructure on their own. India’s own rapprochement with China post-Wuhan in the spirit of channelling both “cooperation and competition together” has also led to this outcome.
Temporary or durable
•It must be stressed, however, that retreating from an aggressive position must not give the impression that India is retrenching within the region, opening space for the U.S.-China rivalry to play out in its own backyard. The most obvious reason for the government’s neighbourhood policy shift of 2018, that resounds closer to the “neighbourhood first” articulation of 2014, is that general elections are around the corner. This leads to the question, is the new policy simply a temporary move or a more permanent course correction: Neighbourhood 2.0 or merely Neighbourhood 1.2.0?
📰 Together in an uncertain world
The EU’s road map for strengthening ties with India must be acted upon by both
•Last week saw the European Union releasing its strategy on India after 14 years. Launching the strategy document, the European Union (EU) Ambassador to India, Tomasz Kozlowski, underlined that “India is on the top of the agenda of the EU in the field of external relations… this strategy paper reflects that EU has taken India’s priorities very seriously. We are ready for a joint leap.” The 2004 EU-India declaration on building bilateral strategic partnership, which this road map replaces, has not had much of a success in reconfiguring the relationship as was expected.
Transformative shift
•The new document is sweeping in its scope and lays out a road map for strengthening the EU-India partnership, which has been adrift for a while in the absence of a clearly articulated strategy. The new strategy underscores a transformative shift in Brussels vis-à-vis India and talks of key focus areas such as the need to conclude a broader Strategic Partnership Agreement, intensifying dialogue on Afghanistan and Central Asia, strengthening technical cooperation on fighting terrorism, and countering radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorist financing. More significant from the perspective of the EU, which has been traditionally shy of using its hard power tools, is a recognition of the need to develop defence and security cooperation with India.
•Despite sharing a congruence of values and democratic ideals, India and the EU have both struggled to build a partnership that can be instrumental in shaping the geopolitics and geoeconomics of the 21st century. Each complain of the other’s ignorance, and often arrogance, and both have their own litany of grievances.
•But where India’s relations with individual EU nations have progressed dramatically over the last few years and the EU’s focus on India has grown, it has become imperative for the two to give each other a serious look. In this age when U.S. President Donald Trump is upending the global liberal order so dear to the Europeans, and China’s rise is challenging the very values which Brussels likes to showcase as the ones underpinning global stability, a substantive engagement with India is a natural corollary.
Delhi’s overture
•The Narendra Modi government too has shed India’s diffidence of the past in engaging with the West. New Delhi has found the bureaucratic maze of Brussels rather difficult to navigate and in the process ignored the EU as a collective. At times, India also objected to the high moralistic tone emanating from Brussels. Where individual nations of the EU started becoming more pragmatic in their engagement with India, Brussels continued to be big-brotherly in its attitude on political issues and ignorant of the geostrategic imperatives of Indian foreign and security policies.
•The result was a limited partnership which largely remained confined to economics and trade. Even as the EU emerged as India’s largest trading partner and biggest foreign investor, the relationship remained devoid of any strategic content. Though the Modi government did initially make a push for reviving the talks on EU-India bilateral trade and investment agreement, nothing much of substance has happened on the bilateral front.
•But as the wider EU political landscape evolves after Brexit, and India seeks to manage the turbulent geopolitics in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific, both recognise the importance of engaging each other. There is a new push in Brussels to emerge as a geopolitical actor of some significance and India is a natural partner in many respects. There is widespread disappointment with the trajectory of China’s evolution and the Trump administration’s disdain for its Western allies is highly disruptive. At a time when India’s horizons are widening beyond South Asia and the Indian Ocean region, Brussels is also being forced to look beyond its periphery. The EU will be part of the International Solar Alliance, and has invited India to escort World Food Programme vessels to transport food to Somalia. The two have been coordinating closely on regional issues.
Taking it forward
•The new India strategy document unveiled by the EU, therefore, comes at an appropriate time when both have to seriously recalibrate their partnership. Merely reiterating that India and the EU are “natural partners” is not enough, and the areas outlined in the document, from security sector cooperation to countering terrorism and regional security, need to be focussed on. India needs resources and expertise from the EU for its various priority areas, such as cybersecurity, urbanisation, environmental regeneration, and skill development.
•As the EU shifts its focus to India, New Delhi should heartily reciprocate this outreach. In the past, India had complained that Brussels does not take India seriously and that despite the two not having any ideological affinity, the EU-China relations carried greater traction. Now all that might change.
📰 The death debate: on Justice Joseph’s views on capital punishment
Justice Joseph’s views on abolishing capital punishment require serious consideration
•In questioning the merits of retaining the death penalty, Justice Kurian Joseph has re-ignited a debate that is important and requires serious thought. What he said cannot be ignored, though the law laid down in Bachan Singh(1980), upholding the validity of the death penalty and laying down guidelines for awarding death in ‘the rarest of rare’ cases’, still holds the field. Even the other two judges on the Bench have disagreed with Justice Joseph’s view that the time has come to review the death penalty, its purpose and practice. But it is impossible to ignore the ethical and practical dimensions of the debate in a world that is increasingly questioning the wisdom of capital punishment. Justice Joseph has underscored the arbitrary manner in which it is awarded by different judges and the way public discourse influences such decisions. Concerns over judge-centric variations have been raised in the past. The Supreme Court itself spoke of the “extremely uneven application” of the norms laid down in Bachan Singh. The Law Commission, in its Report in 2015, said the constitutional regulation of capital punishment attempted in that case has failed to prevent death sentences from being “arbitrarily and freakishly imposed”. Justice Joseph seems to endorse the Commission’s assertion that “there exists no principled method to remove such arbitrariness from capital sentencing”.
•In individual cases, much of the conversation about the maximum sentence that may be imposed usually revolves around the nature of the crime, its gravity and cruelty, and the number of fatalities. In recent times, public outrage, the need for deterrence, and the clamour for a befitting punishment to render substantial justice have dominated the discourse. Theories of punishment on whether it ought to be punitive, retributive, reformative or restorative are less relevant to the public imagination and the law enforcers when the crime is grave and heinous. There is a conflict between those who sense the danger of inconsistent application and those who believe in condign justice. This conflict can be resolved only if the debate is taken to a higher plane: a moral position that there shall be no death penalty in law, regardless of the nature, circumstances and consequences of an offence. The Supreme Courthas covered considerable ground in limiting the scope, to the ‘rarest of rare cases’. Post-appeal reviews and curative petitions are routinely admitted. Review petitions are now heard in open court. The treatment of death row prisoners has been humanised, and there is scope for judicial review even against a sovereign decision denying clemency. If there still prevails a perception of arbitrariness in the way death sentences are awarded, the only lasting solution is their abolition. The views of the Law Commission and Justice Joseph should not be ignored.
📰 Fake news affects voting behaviour in a big way: O.P. Rawat
What was the biggest challenge you faced during your tenure as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). Has it been resolved?
•The biggest challenge as CEC was back-to-back elections throughout the year and it is almost getting resolved. I took over in the midst of Tripura, Meghalaya and Nagaland polls. All those elections were very sensitive, because of issues like the terrain and underground cadres. But, that went off very well. In fact, in Tripura, one major issue was the doubt on electronic voting machines raised by a political party. They felt that for the past five elections, the same machines were used and the CPI(M) got a majority and therefore, they should be changed. The Commission turned down the demand. The machines were changed in Meghalaya and Nagaland, but not in Tripura. When the result came, they realised that there was no problem with EVMs, as this time they won the polls. Then in Karnataka, one major party was demanding ballot papers. Then, we launched a massive public awareness campaign on EVM and VVPATs [Voter-Verifiable Paper Audit Trail]. We created a constituency for EVMs. That has been followed by the elections in five States.
Any regrets?
•I wanted to focus on putting up a revised legal framework, involving social media, abuse of money and other emerging threats. Such threats didn’t exist when our laws were framed. Section 126 of the Representation of the People Act [which bars election related publicity in the last 48 hours leading to voting] only talks about television or cinematograph. Now television and cinematograph is on your mobile, there are also social media platforms. I wanted that to be reviewed and realigned to the emerging and futuristic needs. We constituted a committee which submitted recommendations.
•As this year has been full of elections, we have not been able to devote time to go through them and finalise our suggestions to the Union Law Ministry. It seems my successor CEC may also not find time due to the Lok Sabha elections.
The EC has recommended a series of measures for electoral reforms. What are the most important ones that need urgent implementation?
•One important electoral reform relates to money in which if a ceiling on political party expenditure is brought in, it will improve the expenditure and campaign finance regime. It should be more transparent with a level-playing field. As being reported in the media, only the ruling party is getting everything… almost 90%.
•For democracy to survive and thrive, not only a very effective ruling party is required, but an equally effective Opposition. So we should have something in place which regulates these things in a manner that is more conducive to democratic processes.
•The second important reforms pertain to the media, including social media. Fake news affects voting behaviour in a big way and right now, the only mechanism is Section 126 and EC instructions on paid news. We have to bring in a robust mechanism for conduct on social media platforms, which we are working on. We have already interacted with organisations like Google and WhatsApp. The EC will take a call on all those discussions.
•As regards paid/fake news, since the matter is sub judice in the Supreme Court, I won’t be able to tell much on that.
•However, that is also an area where a lot of improvement is needed.
Campaign financing has been a major issue
•Campaign finance should be available through transparent means. The ruling party will of course always have an edge, because everyone feels that the ruling party can help them in some way and so, they contribute.
•It can also be for personal reasons, if they subscribe to the same philosophy and thinking.
•An honourable court of the U.S.A. has already said that corporates express themselves through political donations; it is covered under the fundamental right to freedom of expression. So, with that view, they can express themselves by giving anything to anyone.
You stressed on the need for use of technology to address issues related to data security and counter electoral-malpractice measures. Going ahead, in what ways will technology impact electoral process?
•The Commission, from the very beginning, started adopting technology, such as the ARO Net, through which all the 4,120 assistant returning officers across the country are connected. Then there is use of EVMs and VVPATs and one-way electronic voting. The R&D project for two-way electronic voting is under way. cVigil [mobile application launched recently by the EC for public to share audio-visual proof of election-related malpractice when the Model Code of Conduct is in place], is a very potent initiative in terms of empowering voters. We received about 4,000 in Madhya Pradesh itself. About 60% of the total complaints were verified to be correct and action taken.
•In Chhattisgarh, we got about 1,400 complaints and it was close to 2,800 in Telangana. The response has been good.
What lies ahead for the EC?
•My worthy successors are bright and hands-on and they have been exposed to the working which is required of them to enhance the image of the Commission.
•The challenges will get tougher and tougher by the day, because of the emerging technological developments, social media, money and other factors. However, they are well-equipped to handle those most effectively.
📰 Army not ready for women in combat roles: General Rawat
But their role will increase, says Rawat
•Army Chief General Bipin Rawat said on Friday that while the force would take in increasing numbers of woman officers in the coming years, it wasn’t ready yet to cast them in combat roles. “You will see an increase in the role of women in the armed forces. But we are not yet ready for them in front-line combat roles. Facilities for that need to be created from within and the women need to be prepared to face those kinds of hardships,” he said on the sidelines of the Passing Out Parade of the 135th course at the National Defence Academy in Khadakwasla here.
•The Army Chief said it was pointless comparing the culture here to that of the Western nations which was much more open. “While we may be [culturally and socially] more open in our big cities, our Army personnel do not come only from big cities. Large numbers come from the rural areas where the intermingling between genders is still not there.”
•Gen. Rawat, however, pointed out that there were several fields where women could be inducted and remarked that the Army was contemplating setting up a Permanent Commission for women in the forces.
•“We require continuity and permanency in certain fields and male officers do not fit the bill everywhere in a command-oriented Army. The force needs language interpreters given that military diplomacy is gaining currency. So, we are looking at women interpreters who will naturally be linguistically proficient and militarily sound,” he said.
📰 Wage drag: on ILO’s Global Wage Report
The ILO’s report underlines the need for wage expansion that is robust and also equitable
•The International Labour Organisation’s Global Wage Report has put into sharp relief one of the biggest drags on global economic momentum: slowing wage growth. Global wage growth, adjusted for inflation, slowed to 1.8% in 2017, from 2.4% in 2016, it shows. Worryingly, this is the lowest rate since 2008. Excluding China (given its high population and rapid wage growth it tends to skew the mean), the average was even lower (1.1% in 2017 against 1.8% in 2016). Across a majority of geographies and economic groupings, wage expansions were noticeably tepid last year. In the advanced G20 countries the pace eased to 0.4%, with the U.S. posting an unchanged 0.7% growth and Europe (excluding Eastern Europe) stalling at about zero. The emerging and developing economies in the G20 were not spared a deceleration, with the growth in wages slowing to 4.3%, from 4.9% in 2016. In the Asia and Pacific nations, where workers had enjoyed the biggest real wage growth worldwide between 2006 and 2017, it slid to 3.5% from the previous year’s 4.8%. The obvious impact of this low pace has been on global economic growth with consumption demand hurt by restrained spending by wage-earners. Slow wage growth prompted U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to observe in June that “in a world where we’re hearing lots and lots about labour shortages — everywhere we go now, we hear about labour shortages — but where is the wage reaction? So it’s a bit of a puzzle.”
•The ILO report observes that the acceleration of economic growth in high-income countries in 2017 was led mainly by higher investment spending rather than by private consumption. Extending the time horizon, it reveals that real wages almost tripled in the developing and emerging countries of the G20 between 1999 and 2017, while in the advanced economies the increase over the same period aggregated to a far lower 9%. And yet, in many low- and middle-income economies the average wage, in absolute terms, was so low it was still inadequate to cover the bare needs of workers. The intensification of competition in the wake of globalisation, accompanied by a worldwide decline in the bargaining power of workers has resulted in a decoupling between wages and labour productivity. The fallout has been the weakening share of labour compensation in GDP across many countries that the ILO notes “remain substantially below those of the early 1990s”. The Washington-based Economic Policy Institute uses the U.S. example to buttress the argument that widening inequality is slowing demand and growth by shifting larger shares of income “to rich households that save rather than spend”. For India’s policymakers, the message is clear: to reap the demographic dividend we need not only jobs, but wage expansion that is robust and equitable.
📰 Paris climate deal can’t be renegotiated, says India
“We won’t create obstacles… however we want CoP-24 to be balanced, inclusive,” says Environment, Forests and Climate Change Secretary C.K. Mishra
•India will resist attempts by countries to renegotiate the Paris Agreement, said one of India’s key negotiators at climate talks set to begin next week in Katowice, Poland.
•“India won’t create obstacles…however we want that the Conference of Parties-24 (discussions) be balanced, inclusive and consistent with the Paris Agreement,” said C.K. Mishra, Secretary, Union Ministry for Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
•“Some countries are trying to reopen the Paris Agreement.”
•While he didn’t name them, meetings in the run-up to the COP have seen several, particularly Australia, and the U.S. prominently, raise concerns about clauses in the deal. The landmark deal agreed to in 2015, exhorts countries to take steps to avoid temperatures from rising beyond 2C of pre-industrial levels, and even 1.5 C as far as possible, by the end of the century.
•Currently global emissions are poised to warm the world by 3C by the end of the century.
•The United States opted out of the deal last year but continues to be part of discussions as a complete withdrawal — as per terms of the UN convention — takes up to 4 years.
•A 17-member delegation, consisting of officials from several ministries as well as Union Environment Minister Harsh Vardhan, will be representing India over two weeks in what is likely to be arduous negotiations on how to agree to implement the Paris Agreement.
•A key point, said Mr. Mishra, would be transparency and accountability. Developing and developed countries have disputes on whether there should be a common set of standards that all countries must adhere to when reporting what steps each has taken to contain carbon emissions.
•India and China, which have committed to ensuring that their emission intensities will not cross a threshold, also argue that all countries cannot be held to the same data-monitoring-and-reporting standards.
•Then there’s the thorny problem of finance. Developed countries are expected to make available $100 billion annually to developing countries, according to a 2010 agreement in Cancun. This hasn’t happened and developing countries say that all funds and technology, required to meet goals agreed to in Paris, should be over and above this.
•Over the last month, India has held discussions with 40 countries, including China and Brazil, to forge alliances and compel the developed countries to make good on promises, made over the years, to provide enough finance and technology to stem runaway global warming.
📰 What’s with the back series GDP data?
“We won’t create obstacles… however we want CoP-24 to be balanced, inclusive,” says Environment, Forests and Climate Change Secretary C.K. Mishra
•India will resist attempts by countries to renegotiate the Paris Agreement, said one of India’s key negotiators at climate talks set to begin next week in Katowice, Poland.
•“India won’t create obstacles…however we want that the Conference of Parties-24 (discussions) be balanced, inclusive and consistent with the Paris Agreement,” said C.K. Mishra, Secretary, Union Ministry for Environment, Forests and Climate Change.
•“Some countries are trying to reopen the Paris Agreement.”
•While he didn’t name them, meetings in the run-up to the COP have seen several, particularly Australia, and the U.S. prominently, raise concerns about clauses in the deal. The landmark deal agreed to in 2015, exhorts countries to take steps to avoid temperatures from rising beyond 2C of pre-industrial levels, and even 1.5 C as far as possible, by the end of the century.
•Currently global emissions are poised to warm the world by 3C by the end of the century.
•The United States opted out of the deal last year but continues to be part of discussions as a complete withdrawal — as per terms of the UN convention — takes up to 4 years.
•A 17-member delegation, consisting of officials from several ministries as well as Union Environment Minister Harsh Vardhan, will be representing India over two weeks in what is likely to be arduous negotiations on how to agree to implement the Paris Agreement.
•A key point, said Mr. Mishra, would be transparency and accountability. Developing and developed countries have disputes on whether there should be a common set of standards that all countries must adhere to when reporting what steps each has taken to contain carbon emissions.
•India and China, which have committed to ensuring that their emission intensities will not cross a threshold, also argue that all countries cannot be held to the same data-monitoring-and-reporting standards.
•Then there’s the thorny problem of finance. Developed countries are expected to make available $100 billion annually to developing countries, according to a 2010 agreement in Cancun. This hasn’t happened and developing countries say that all funds and technology, required to meet goals agreed to in Paris, should be over and above this.
•Over the last month, India has held discussions with 40 countries, including China and Brazil, to forge alliances and compel the developed countries to make good on promises, made over the years, to provide enough finance and technology to stem runaway global warming.
