📰 Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on immigrants
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a fresh plea seeking to quash a series of subordinate laws which allows the naturalisation of illegal immigrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians fleeing religious persecution from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
•The petitioners have urged the court to declare the amendments made through the Passport (Entry into India) Amendment Rules, 2015; the Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 and the order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on December 26, 2016 under the Citizenship Act, allowing the naturalisation of illegal immigrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, as “illegal and invalid”.
•They have contended that the leeway offered by the subordinate laws would further multiply the “uncontrolled influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam”. The illegal immigration has caused huge demographic changes in the northeastern State, the petitioners claimed.
•A Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, issued notice on the plea filed by Assam State Jamiat Ulama E Hind and ordered its tagging with a similar pending petition of ‘Nagarikatwa Aain Songsudhan Birodhi Mancha’ (Forum Against Citizenship Act Amendment Bill).
•Earlier, the court had decided to wait till Parliament took a call on the new Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on January 8.
•The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill proposed to amend the original Citizenship Act of 1955 vintage. It mandated that those who crossed the border to India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan and belong to “minority communities”, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians would not be treated as illegal immigrants despite having entered India without valid travel documents. If the Bill is implemented, the immigrants from the minority communities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan would not face deportation.
U.P. tops the list for the third straight year
•More than 200 alleged hate crimes against marginalised people, including 87 killings, were documented by Amnesty India’s interactive “Halt the Hate” website in 2018. About 65% of the crimes were against Dalits.
•Of the 218 documented incidents, 142 were against Dalits, 50 against Muslims, and eight each against Christians, adivasis and transgender people. There were 97 incidents of assault and 87 killings reported. Of the 40 incidents of sexual violence, Dalit women were victims in 33 cases.
•For the third straight year, Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number of reported crimes, with 57 such incidents.
📰 Fifty years apart, the story of two OIC fiascos
Reaching out to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is morally wrong and politically futile
•India’s most recent encounter with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) bears an uncanny resemblance to India’s failed attempt to gain entry to the inaugural session of the same grouping held in Rabat, Morocco, in 1969 and for much the same reasons. In the earlier episode New Delhi lobbied fiercely to wangle an invitation to the meeting. However, on Pakistan’s insistence the invitation that had been extended was withdrawn and India was denied membership of the OIC despite its insistence that as the country with the third largest Muslim population in the world it deserved a seat at the “Islamic” table.
Contrary to secularism
•I remember writing an oped at the time that New Delhi’s bid for membership of the OIC was both morally wrong and politically futile. As a country whose foundational philosophy was based on secularism, it was inappropriate for India to join an organisation whose defining criterion was shared religious identity. In India’s case this applied to all organisations that used religious criteria to define themselves, whether they be Muslim, Hindu, Christian or Buddhist.
•Further, since India’s membership of the OIC would be perceived as a powerful refutation of the basis on which Pakistan was created, it was bound to object stridently to India’s induction into the organisation. Pakistan had great leverage with the conservative Arab monarchies for ideological reasons and because of the fact that its military was willing to provide the Arab monarchies with well-trained soldiers for hire that the latter needed to protect their insecure regimes.
•Pakistan at that time also had close relations with Iran and Turkey with whom it shared membership of CENTO (Central Treaty Organisation, formerly the Baghdad Pact) and an anti-Soviet and pro-U.S. orientation. Consequently, Islamabad had much greater clout within OIC circles than did New Delhi and was in a position to thwart Indian attempts to attain OIC membership. As it turned out, my prediction came true. New Delhi’s attempt to gain OIC membership led to unnecessary humiliation that could have been avoided had South Block acted with greater forethought.
•The situation today is both different and similar to 1969, and this was clearly reflected in India’s latest experience with the OIC. In an apparent gesture of goodwill, the organisers of the OIC Foreign Ministers meeting in Abu Dhabi, which in effect meant the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia invited External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj as the guest of honour and keynote speaker (picture) despite Pakistan’s objections. This was both a reflection of India’s growing economic and political stature internationally and the desire on the part of the Gulf monarchies to cultivate New Delhi in order to take advantage of the opportunities provided by India’s expanding economy and its technologically skilled workforce.
A new twist
•However, this is where the difference between 1969 and 2019 ends and the similarities kick in. The impact of Ms. Swaraj’s speech, especially her denunciation of terrorism that was clearly aimed at Pakistan, was more than neutralised by a number of events that followed her address. First, the Abu Dhabi declaration issued at the end of the meeting did not contain even a simple expression of thanks to the Indian External Affairs Minister for addressing the plenary session of the assembly. Furthermore, it failed to mention the fact that Ms. Swaraj was the guest of honour at the meeting and delivered the keynote speech. This omission was very glaring in view of the fact that the document mentioned all sorts of unimportant issues, such as the UAE hosting the 2020 Expo in Dubai.
•Second, to add insult to injury, the document’s only reference to the India-Pakistan stand-off stated that the OIC welcomes the “positive initiative undertaken by the Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan to hand over the Indian pilot as a gesture of goodwill to de-escalate tensions in the region”. The Pakistani “initiative” was given a very positive twist by decontextualising it totally. There was not even an implicit reference to the primary reason that led to the most recent India-Pakistan conflagration, namely, Pakistani support for terrorism as witnessed most dramatically by the attack in Pulwama that killed 40 Central Reserve Police Force personnel.
•Third, what was even more galling from the Indian perspective was the resolution on Kashmir that accompanied the Abu Dhabi declaration. This included the phrase “Indian terrorism in Kashmir” while condemning what it called “atrocities and human rights violations” in the State. It is clear from this sequence of events and the wording of the documents that emanated from the OIC meeting that despite the invitation to Ms. Swaraj, the leopard has not changed its spots and that Pakistani influence within the organisation has diminished only marginally.
•Once again, the Ministry of External Affairs, instead of prematurely celebrating the invitation to Ms. Swaraj to address the Abu Dhabi conference, should have thought long and hard before advising the Minister to accept the invitation. It was particularly incumbent upon the Ministry of External Affairs to do so in light of the resolutions passed by the OIC over the years regarding Kashmir and India-Pakistan issues which had always favoured the Pakistani point of view. It appears from hindsight that the External Affairs Minister’s participation in the OIC Foreign Ministers’ conclave, like the Indian attempt to gain admission into the Rabat conference in 1969, was nothing short of an avoidable fiasco.
📰 Pension scheme for workers launched
For the first time, unorganised sector will be entitled to monthly pension: Modi
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday launched the Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Mandhan (PM-SYM) Yojana. The national pension scheme for workers and labourers of the unorganised sector was announced in the interim Budget in February this year. It provides for a monthly pension of Rs. 3,000 to the employees of the unorganised sector after 60 years of age.
•During the national launch from Ahmedabad, Mr. Modi also distributed the PM-SYM pension cards to select beneficiaries and claimed that for the first time in independent India, workers of the unorganised sector would be entitled to monthly pension.
•He said the new scheme is the extension of various social security schemes implemented during the last five years of the NDA government. According to him, 42 crore workers from the unorganised sector are eligible for this pension by contributing Rs. 55 to Rs. 200 monthly.
•“This scheme is aimed at uplift of the section of society which has been ignored and left at the mercy of God,” he said, adding that the “they (Congress) only gave slogans for Garibi Hatao (remove poverty).”
•“What they could not do in 55 years, this government has done in 55 months,” Mr. Modi said. “They (Opposition) want to strike Modi, but I want to strike at terror,” he said, referring to the recent air strike by the Indian Air Force inside Pakistan.
•“I want to fight poverty and work for the poor but they are all ganged up to remove this chowkidar,” he said.
📰 Tariff hike to hit exports to U.S.
Trump notifies U.S. Congress on ending GSP benefits, cites Indian trade barriers
•U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he intends to end preferential trade terms for India under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programme. His intent was conveyed in a letter sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
•The GSP programme, which sets zero tariffs for certain goods from a set of 121 developing countries to foster their trade and economic development, accounts for some $5.6 billion of India’s exports to the U.S., making India the largest GSP beneficiary. Chemicals, gems and jewellery, engineering and textiles are among the Indian industrial sectors that benefit from the GSP.
•“I am taking this step because, after intensive engagement between the United States and the Government of India, I have determined that India has not assured the United States that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to the markets of India…,” Mr. Trump’s letter, which was shared with reporters, said.
•From the U.S. perspective, a total of $21 billion in imports entered the U.S. duty-free under the GSP in 2017, of a total of $2.3 trillion in imports from all countries that year, according to the Congressional Research Service.
•The United States Trade Representative (USTR) had said in October 2017 that it would review GSP eligibility based on the eligibility criteria, starting with a review of Asian and Pacific Island countries. A review of India’s eligibility was launched last April.
•“India has implemented a wide array of trade barriers that create serious negative effects on United States commerce. Despite intensive engagement, India has failed to take the necessary steps to meet the GSP criterion,” the USTR said on its website.
•One of the discretionary criteria the President must (as per the GSP statute) take into account while determining GSP eligibility is whether the beneficiary “will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets and basic commodity resources and the extent to which it has assured the United States it will refrain from engaging in unreasonable export practices.”
•India’s new e-commerce rules — which have impacted American companies like Amazon and Walmart (majority owner of Flipkart), price controls on medical devices (cardiac stents), tariffs on ICT products like smart watches and high-end mobile phones and lack of greater market access for the U.S. dairy industry are among the issues that have caused trade friction between the two countries.
•Mr Trump has repeatedly taken shots at India’s tariffs, which he views as unreasonable. He called India “tariff king” last October and as recently as last weekend, complained about Indian tariffs on Harley Davidson motorcycles, a long-standing pet-peeve of the U.S. President .
•India and the U.S. have been in focused trade talks since Washington imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium early last year, ostensibly on grounds of national security. India had made a list of products for retaliatory tariffs but has withheld taxing these, given ongoing negotiations.
•In diplomatic messaging in the U.S., Indian officials have been quick to bring up the declining trade surplus (over just over $21 billion) that India has with the U.S. Mr. Trump is known to look at bilateral trade balances the U.S. has with other countries as a proxy for the “fairness” of trade with those countries.
Oil purchases
•Oil is one of the new measures to increase India’s purchase of U.S. goods. Last month Indian Oil Corporation announced a $1.5 billion deal to purchase oil from the U.S. until March 2020. India had imported over $3 billion in U.S. oil in 2018, Indian government sources had told Business Line in December.
•A mandatory 60 days must now pass after the notice has been given to the beneficiary countries and to Congress during which time there is, at least technically, the possibility of negotiation. After the 60 day notice period, a beneficiary country can be taken off of the GSP list by Presidential proclamation.
•Notably, Mr. Trump’s letter to the two Congressional leaders also says, ‘I will continue to assess whether the Government of India is providing equitable and reasonable access to its markets, in accordance with the GSP eligibility criteria.”
•It is not likely though that it will be re-negotiation of India’s place under the system, a source familiar with the process told The Hindu.
•Reversals are however possible, including over the longer term. Argentina, which lost GSP benefits under the Obama administration in 2012 for failing to pay arbitration awards in two disputes involving U.S. investors, saw them being reinstated by Presidential proclamation — but not for all product categories — effective January 2018.
Turkey to Lose GSP Benefits
•A separate letter was sent to Congressional leaders by Mr. Trump saying he intended to withdraw Turkey from the list of GSP beneficiaries. However, the reasons were different: Mr. Trump said Turkey was no longer at a level of economic development that warranted preferential treatment. “ In particular, in the four and a half decades since Turkey’s designation as a GSP beneficiary developing country, Turkey’s economy has grown and diversified,” the letter said.
📰 Life without GSP
India must not underestimate the impact of the U.S. withdrawal of trade privileges
•The U.S. has ultimately acted on its threat to withdraw concessions granted to Indian imports under the Generalised System of Preferences. With President Trump indicating as much in a letter to the House of Representatives and Senate, Washington became the first to pull the trigger in a long trade stand-off between the two countries. India-U.S. trade tensions escalated last year when the U.S. took two consecutive decisions to increase import tariffs on steel and aluminium, and place India’s eligibility for GSP benefits under review. Shortly after, India said it would impose retaliatory tariffs on imports from the U.S. and even notified the list of items on which these would apply. Meanwhile, the U.S. stood fast on not exempting India from its tariff hikes, with Mr. Trump complaining about India’s high import tariffs several times. The GSP review, however, stretched on, with the two countries holding frequent talks to address the concerns. India, for its part, postponed the deadline for the imposition of the retaliatory tariffs six times; the latest deadline is on April 1. Washington’s decision to review India’s GSP status stemmed from complaints from American medical and dairy industries, both of which said India was not providing “equitable and reasonable access to its market”. India has said it had tried hard to cater to most of the U.S. demands and reach an understanding, but key points of difference, especially regarding India’s cultural concerns to do with dairy products, could not be accommodated. Given this, and the fact that the U.S. has been expressing discontent over India’s policies to do with data localisation and FDI rules in e-commerce, the decision to withdraw the GSP status should not come as a surprise. The question is, how will New Delhi react?
•Following the U.S. announcement, the Commerce Ministry was quick to downplay the impact, saying the GSP benefits amounted to only $190 million while India’s total exports under GSP to the U.S. stood at $5.6 billion. Indian officials have stressed that talks on the issue would still continue during the 60-day period after which the GSP decision would come into effect. The other option the government can exercise is to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods. The government’s efforts to downplay the impact of the withdrawal of GSP status and express readiness for more talks, however, suggest it is not keen to take a decisively strong stance. It bears emphasis that while the actual amounts at stake are relatively small, with even India’s proposed tariffs on the U.S. amounting to just $900 million, the impact on small industries in the country could nevertheless be significant. Export bodies have already said that such industries would lose their market share in the U.S. without fiscal support to help them maintain their edge. In its absence, orders meant for India could go to other GSP countries, signs of which are already evident.
📰 India downplays impact of U.S. GSP withdrawal
Centre keen to continue talks as it still has 60 days before the rule takes effect
•The Indian government on Tuesday downplayed the effect of the U.S. decision to withdraw trade concessions granted to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), with Commerce Secretary Anup Wadhawan saying that the impact would amount to only $190 million on the value of $5.6 billion in exports to the U.S. that fall under the GSP category.
•Sources in the Ministry of External Affairs, however, said that the government would continue to talk to the U.S. during the 60-day period after which the GSP withdrawal would come into effect, in an effort to work out a deal.
•The U.S. Trade Representative office on Tuesday morning (Indian Standard Time) said that it had decided to withdraw the GSP status for India and Turkey at the direction of U.S. President Donald Trump following India’s “failure to provide the United States with assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors.”
•“The withdrawal of GSP benefits to India will have a minimal and moderate impact,” Mr. Wadhawan said at a press conference. “The total GSP benefits amount to about $190 million on exports of $5.6 billion [that fall under the GSP category].”
‘Unacceptable’ requests
•“We had worked out a meaningful package that covered the U.S. concerns but they made additional requests which were not acceptable at this time,” he added. “The GSP system is envisaged as a non-reciprocal benefit to developing countries.”
•“Ours is not a systemic problem,” the Ministry of External Affairs official said. “Our efforts were to find a reasonable package and a balance between the two sides. There were a number of areas [in which] we were willing to bring U.S. products into the Indian market. In some cases, there were genuine cultural concerns like dairy products, where too we were trying to see how we could work with them.”
•“Evidently, all the flexibility we showed did not meet their requirements,” the official added. “We are still in discussion and will continue to talk to them. There is agreement on a very substantial package, but some issues where for domestic reasons on both sides flexibility was not possible. While they have initiated this, there are still 60 days left.” Mr. Wadhawan added that India was still in talks with the U.S. on the higher import duties that the country charges on steel and aluminium, and said that India was still reviewing whether it would impose retaliatory tariffs or not.
Deadline postponed
•The government had, in the middle of last year, decided the list of items on which it would impose retaliatory tariffs but has since then postponed the deadline of implementation six times. The latest deadline is April 1, 2019. “The U.S. needs to keep in mind that for the second consecutive year, their exports to India have climbed by 30% in the past year,” the MEA official said.
•“Surely that counts for something, particularly in a depressed global scenario. By kicking in the GSP review, the trade package has been shelved, but if they would like to pick up the conversation on that, we are ready,” the official said.
•By U.S. statute, the changes to the GSP status cannot take effect until at least 60 days after the notifications to the U.S. Congress and the Government of India, and will be enacted by a Presidential Proclamation.
📰 Azhar’s brother, son held in Pakistan
Govt. cracks down on terror outfits
•Pakistan has taken 44 members of banned organisations, including Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar’s son and brother, into preventive detention, and put Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) offshoots Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FiF) on its proscribed list, the Ministry of Interior announced on Tuesday.
•New Delhi had criticised Pakistan for failing to ban JuD and FiF, which are banned by the UN Security Council, despite an announcement they would do so on February 21. Both organisations were subsequently put on the National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA)’s list under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA of 1997)
Ministry statement
•“In order to implement [the] National Action Plan (NAP), a high-level meeting was held in the Ministry on March 4, which was attended by representatives of all provincial governments. It was decided to speed up action against all proscribed organisations,” the Ministry said in a statement.
•“In compliance, 44 under-observation members of proscribed organisations, including Mufti Abdul Raoof [Azhar’s brother] and Hamad Azhar [his son], have been taken into preventive detention for investigation. These actions will continue, as per the decisions taken in the National Security Committee, while reviewing the National Action Plan.”
•The action plan was announced by the government to crack down on terrorism. Minister of State for Interior Shehryar Afridi told a press conference in Islamabad that this was solely Pakistan’s decision. “We will not allow Pakistani soil to be used against any country,” he said. Ministry of Interior Secretary Azam Khan was also present.
•Azhar’s son and brother were named in the Pulwama dossier handed to Pakistan by India last week, said Azaz Syed, author of The Secret of Pakistan’s War on Al-Qaeda . Indian dossiers after the Mumbai and Pathankot attacks contained evidence, which was why cases were lodged in Pakistani courts against those allegedly involved in those attacks.
📰 Fifteen of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in India
Two cities each in Pak., China among worst performers
•Fifteen of the top 20 most polluted cities in the world are located in India, according to an analysis of air quality in several cities around the world.
•Gurugram, in Haryana, topped the list with an average annual particulate matter (PM 2.5) quality of 135 micrograms/cubic metre, in 2018. Delhi — a frequent fixture on global pollution hotspots — was only the 11th most noxious city behind Lahore, Pakistan (10th) and Hotan, China (8th). The other cities in India that made the list of 20 were Ghaziabad, Faridabad, Bhiwadi, Noida, Patna, Lucknow, Jodhpur, Muzaffarpur, Varanasi, Moradabad, Agra, Gaya and Jind.
•When ranked by country, Bangladesh emerged as the most polluted followed by Pakistan and India respectively.
•Of the cities analysed, 64% exceeded the WHO’s annual exposure guideline (10 micrograms/cubic metre) for fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5. India’s annual guidelines range from 40-60 g/m3, depending on whether they are residential or industrial areas.
•Every single one of measured cities with data in the Middle East and Africa exceeded the WHO guideline, while 99% of cities in South Asia, 95% of cities in Southeast Asia and 89% of cities in East Asia breached this level.
•The ranking — a one of its kind study that relies on ground-based sensors located in 3,000 cities from 73 countries — was compiled by IQAir Group, a manufacturer of air-monitoring sensors as well as purifiers and environmentalist group Greenpeace.
Pollution hubs
•Jakarta and Hanoi emerged as Southeast Asia’s two most polluted cities and average concentrations in the cities in China fell by 12% from 2017 to 2018. Beijing ranks now as the 122nd most polluted city in the world in 2018 and China, the 12th most polluted country in the world. Of the countries analysed, Iceland emerged as the one with the cleanest air.
📰 Assam gets ‘smart’ fence along border
61 km stretch shared with Bangladesh now equipped with digital surveillance
•A digital ‘barrier’ has finally filled a 61 km gap on the 4,096.7 km India-Bangladesh border fence three decades after the project kickstarted.
•Assam shares a 263 km border with Bangladesh. Much of the border was fenced, but a 61 km stretch in Dhubri district remained open owing to the terrain dictated by the Brahmaputra.
•On Tuesday, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated an electronic surveillance system that “is expected to diminish challenges faced by the Border Security Force in manning this stretch against cross-border crimes.” Comprising microwave communication, optical fibre cables, cameras, and an intrusion detection device, this system is called BOLD-QIT (Border Electronically Dominated QRT Interception Technique) and was established under the Comprehensive Integrated Border Management System.
•“This appears to be a better system than fencing which takes a long time and undergoes wear and tear. This should make the work of the border sentinels easier and more effective,” Mr. Singh said.
•The Centre, he said, had taken the cue from Israel and in 2017 decided to go for a technological solution for fool-proof sealing of the border.
•“We are looking at implementing this system in other difficult stretches of this border as well as the one on the western sector (with Pakistan),” he said.
Eyes and ears
•A senior BSF officer said that, despite their best efforts, they faced an uphill task of manning the 61 km stretch against cross-border criminals.
•“This stretch is where the vast Brahmaputra and its numerous channels with chars (sandbars) in between flow into Bangladesh. Infiltrators, cattle smugglers and others invariably took advantage of the difficulty in keeping vigil along this stretch, even on speedboats. This system has given us the eyes and ears where it is difficult for our men to see and hear,” he said, declining to be quoted.
•Fencing of the India-Bangladesh border, a long-time demand in Assam for checking illegal influx, started in the 1990s. Phase I, covering Assam, Meghalaya and West Bengal, cost ₹854.35 crore. Phase II included Tripura and Mizoram, the last of the five States bordering Bangladesh, and cost ₹1,930.06 crore.
•The third phase entailed overhauling the fence erected during Phase I and merging the work under Phase II in 2012. The work is yet to be completed. After a pilot project in West Bengal, the government sanctioned a ₹1,327 crore project for floodlighting 2,840 km of the India-Bangladesh border.
📰 SC asks petitioners to clarify stand on ‘green crackers’
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked petitioners objecting to the use of chemicals like barium nitrate and potassium nitrate in the formulation of ‘green crackers’ to submit a reply detailing their stand on the issue.
•A Bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer gave the direction in response to a request made by advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing three toddlers who filed a writ petition against the toxic effects of firecrackers, urging that the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests examine the samples of green crackers which contain “conventional formulations” with barium nitrate and potassium nitrate as oxidisers.
•Mr. Sankaranarayanan had earlier submitted that these two components are among the several toxic ingredients which the Supreme Court had previously red-flagged. The usage of these chemicals in the improved/green crackers would be a violation of the Supreme Court’s orders against the use of noxious firecrackers.
•On October 23, the court had struck a balance between the interests of the firecracker industry and the right to public health by allowing licensed traders to manufacture and sell “green” and reduced-emission or “improved” crackers while banning those which are loud and toxic to man, animal and the environment. The latest turn of events come after participants at a meeting of the CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and fireworks’ manufacturers reached agreement on commencing bulk production of green crackers by March 30, the minutes of the meeting show.
•As per the minutes, an agreement was reached for manufacturers to submit product approval documents by March 7. The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation could then provide approval for the improved formulation by March 21, and production of the green fireworks could start by March 30.
