📰 IAF plane shot down, pilot taken captive by Pak. army
PM holds high-level meeting after Imran Khan’s appeal for dialogue
•An Indian pilot was captured by Pakistanafter a major aerial confrontation and chase between Pakistan Air Force planes, which dropped bombs in four locations of Jammu and Kashmir, and Indian Air Force jets that countered them over the Line of Control (LoC).
•The confrontation began after Pakistan sent several aircraft to the LoC on Wednesday morning in retaliation for the Indian Air Force strike on a Jaish-e-Mohammad camp in Balakot a day earlier.
•The government said IAF jets shot down an F-16 jet of the PAF in the skirmish, and the wreckage had fallen on the Pakistan side. Pakistan’s military, however, denied the loss of any aircraft.
•The pilot, Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, began to chase the Pakistani jets and push them back, when he had to eject over the LoC after the MiG-21 he was flying was shot by a Pakistani plane and then landed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, where he was taken into custody.
•The MEA said it is awaiting details of Wg. Cdr. Varthaman’s arrest and condition through diplomatic and official channels, and demanded his “safe and immediate return”.
Manhandled by crowd
•In various amateur videos, Wg. Cdr. Varthaman is seen being manhandled by a crowd in PoK.
•In the evening, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a meeting of the service chiefs, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and other senior officials to take stock of the day’s developments and Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s appeal for dialogue to de-escalate the situation.
•“India strongly objected to Pakistan’s vulgar display of an injured personnel of the Indian Air Force in violation of all norms of International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Convention. It was made clear that Pakistan would be well advised to ensure that no harm comes to the Indian defence personnel in its custody. India also expects his immediate and safe return,” the government said in its démarche.
•Later, the Pakistan military released a video of Wg Cdr Varthaman drinking tea and speaking to Pakistani military personnel as proof that he had not been harmed.
PAF claims it didn't cross LoC
•According to a release from the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, the PAF had carried out strikes without crossing the LoC at “non-military targets, avoiding human loss and collateral damage”, in words that mirrored the MEA statement on Tuesday.
•Pakistan military spokesperson Maj. Gen. Asif Ghafoor also said that PAF aircraft in the operation had “locked into six targets” including supply depots in Bhimber gali, Rajouri and Nowshera in Jammu and Kashmir, and claimed they dropped bombs in open areas “at a safe distance” from four of them in an effort to “prove their capability and resolve” to retaliate if required.
•Rejecting the Pakistani claims, the MEA said that Pakistan’s aerial response had in fact targeted military installations on the Indian side and “due to [IAF’s] high state of readiness and alertness, Pakistan’s attempts were foiled successfully.”
•Terming the Pakistani operations an “unprovoked act of aggression”, the government said India reserves the right to “take firm and decisive action”, calling for the immediate return of the pilot.
India summons Pak Acting High Commissioner
•India handed over its protest in a démarche to the Pakistan Acting High Commissioner Syed Haider Shah who was summoned by the Joint Secretary in the Ministry Deepak Mittal.
•Referring to the Indian strikes on Balakot on Tuesday, the MEA said it had also handed over a dossier to Mr. Shah with “specific details of JeM complicity in the Pulwama terror attack and the presence of JeM terror camps and its leadership in Pakistan” and called on Pakistan to take immediate action against terrorism emanating from its territory.
•With the possibility of escalation growing, several countries rushed in to appeal for restraint from New Delhi and Islamabad.
📰 Sushma Swaraj briefs China on Balakot air strikes, says India does not want ‘escalation’
'Pakistan's inaction against Jaish triggered the cross-border strike'
•Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj on Wednesday blamed Pakistan’s inaction against the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) — the international terror group responsible for the Pulwama terror attack on February 14— for triggering the strikes by the Indian Air Force across the Line of Control in the early hours of Tuesday, and reiterated that New Delhi was averse to any escalation of tensions with Islamabad.
•“In the light of continued refusal of Pakistan to acknowledge and act against terror groups on its territory and based on credible information that JeM is planning other attacks in various parts of India, the Government of India has decided to take pre-emptive action. The target was selected in order to avoid civilian casualties,” Ms. Swaraj said at the plenary foreign ministerial meeting of the Russia-India-China (RIC) grouping.
•She said, “No military installations were targeted. The limited objective of the pre-emptive strike was to act decisively against the terrorist infrastructure of the JeM in order to pre-empt another terrorist attack in India. India does not wish to see further escalation of the situation…”
•Earlier, in the first high-level interaction with China after the Pulwama terror attack, Ms. Swaraj mounted a robust attack on Pakistan, accusing it of harbouring the JeM, which had masterminded the “worst terrorist” attack against the Indian security forces, on February 14.
Visiting China “at a time of grief and anger in India”
•In her opening remarks during a one-on-one with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on the sidelines of the RIC ministerial meeting, Ms. Swaraj stressed that she was visiting China “at a time of grief and anger in India”.
•Ms. Swaraj pointed out that the “worst terrorist attack directed against our security forces” has been “claimed by the JeM, a Pakistan-based and supported terrorist organisation banned by the UN and other countries”.
•She said, “This terrorist attack is the direct result of the impunity and cover provided to the JeM and its leaders by the Pakistani side.”
•Ms. Swaraj made it plain to Mr. Wang that “the entire United Nations had spoken with one voice condemning the terrorist attack”.
Beijing’s intent to pursue with “Wuhan spirit”
•Despite India’s ongoing tensions with Pakistan, Mr. Wang pointed to Beijing’s intent to pursue with the “Wuhan spirit”—a reference to the two-day dialogue between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping to reboot India-China ties.
•“Last year President Xi and Prime Minister Modi held a very important meeting at Wuhan, and this meeting led bilateral relations into an honest and stable new stage. Led by the leaders all level of bilateral relationship is going well. Every level of the two countries and also international society are more optimistic of our bilateral relationship. In 2019, we are going to keep working on the consensus of the two leaders,” he said in his opening remarks.
•Ms. Swaraj said the decision to pursue “strategic communication” by the two leaders provided an “important foundation for the development of our bilateral relations”.
•She noted, “This channel of strategic communication between the two of us and between senior officials of our two sides should always remain open.”
•Stressing the importance of maintaining the Wuhan spirit, Ms. Swaraj said: “It is important for both sides to make sure that thorough andeffective implementation of the guidance given by the two leaders. Both sides have made efforts and we should sustain those efforts.”
Cautious response to air strikes
•On Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded cautiously to the Indian air strikes — criticising New Delhi for taking an unilateral action, but also urging both India and Pakistan to improve their ties.
•Asked to comment on India’s assertion that it had targeted terrorist camps and not Pakistani military sites, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Lu Kang, said New Delhi should have avoided the unilateral action, and instead dealt with the situation through “international cooperation”.
•But instead of singling out India for steps to defuse the crisis, Mr. Lu advocated that the onus was on both New Delhi and Islamabad to cultivate a “sound relationship”. “We have taken note of relevant reports. I want to say that India and Pakistan are important countries. A sound relationship and cooperation serves the interests of peace and stability in South Asia. Both parties [should] remain restrained and do more to improve bilateral relations.”
📰 Imran Khan calls for dialogue with India, renews offer for a probe into Pulwama attacks
His comments came minutes after the External Affairs Ministry in New Delhi said that Pakistan Air Force targeted military installations in India
•Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Wednesday called for talks with India to defuse tensions between the two countries and offered cooperation in investigation into the February 14 Pulwama terror attack.
•In a televised address, Mr. Khan also warned against further escalation of the situation. “With the kind of weapons that we have, can we [India and Pakistan] afford any miscalculation? Should we not think about the consequences of an escalation at this point in time? If it escalates, then it will neither be in my control nor [Narendra] Modi’s. This is why I am inviting you again: we are ready to cooperate in Pulwama investigation, dialogue on terrorism. Better sense should prevail. We should resolve our issues through dialogue.”
•He added that Pakistan “understands the pain of those who lost their loved ones in the Pulwama attack because Pakistan, too, has lost 70,000 of our own... We offered to cooperate with India. We said this because it is not in the interest of Pakistan for its soil to be used for terrorism anywhere in the world.”
•Regarding Pakistan Air Force’s violation of Indian air space on Wednesday morning, Mr. Khan said: “Pakistan was left with no choice but to retaliate after Indian aggression but where do we go from here? Now, I am talking to India: we need to use our brains and decide wisely.”
•Earlier in the day, Pakistan’s Foreign Office issued a statement claiming that the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) took down two Indian aircraft inside the Pakistani airspace. “This was not a retaliation to continued Indian belligerence. Pakistan has taken strikes at [a] non-military target, avoiding human loss and collateral damage. [The] sole purpose being to demonstrate our right, will and capability for self-defence,” read the statement.
•Major General Asif Ghafoor, Director General (DG) Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), also tweeted about the strike: “In response to PAF strikes this morning as released by [the] MoFA, [the] IAF crossed [the] LOC. [The] PAF shot down two Indian aircraft inside [the] Pakistani airspace.” He said one of the aircraft fell inside Pakistan-held Kashmir while the other fell inside the Indian side. “One Indian pilot arrested by troops on ground while two in the area.” He later tweeted that there is only one pilot in Pakistan Army’s custody.
•Addressing a press conference, the DG ISPR said Wednesday’s action was not retaliation “in its true sense” because “we don’t want escalation at the cost of peace in this region”.
•“We only wanted to reiterate that Pakistan has the capability and capacity to retaliate,” said Gen. Ghafoor. “We don’t want war. We do not want to claim any sort of victory because nobody is a winner in a war; humanity is the only loser.”
•Gen. Ghafoor added that nothing is resolved through a war or military means in the world so both countries need to initiate dialogue in order to resolve the ongoing crisis. He asked India to think about this offer from the state of Pakistan with cool head. “The route to peace goes through dialogue. Both countries have the capability and capacity but war is actually the failure of policy, which India needs to understand.”
📰 Calming Arunachal
The polity must foster a civic consciousness to allow equality of opportunity for all residents
•The Bharatiya Janata Party-led government in Itanagar has decided not to act on the recommendations of a Joint High Power Committee granting permanent resident certificates (PRCs) to non-Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes of Namsai and Changlang districts. This decision follows violence in Itanagar, which included arson attacks on the residence of the Deputy Chief Minister. The government took this step to de-escalate tensions despite the fact that both mainstream parties, the Congress and the BJP, were on the same page on the demand to grant the PRCs. The non-APSTs include the Deoris, Sonowal Kacharis, Morans, Mishings, Adivasis and ex-servicemen belonging to the Gorkha community. Successive governments and members of these communities have said PRCs are needed to avail of job and educational opportunities elsewhere in the country, and currently the 26 tribes and numerous sub-tribes who claim to be native to Arunachal Pradesh enjoy this privilege. Members of some of the non-APST communities have been long-time residents of the reconstituted State, and to term them as “outsiders” reflects a chauvinistic mindset that denies a just demand. Previous governments, including one led by the Congress in 2010, had also buckled under pressure on the issue. The indigenous tribes opposing the move say this is one step away from providing Scheduled Tribe status for the non-APSTs, which they vociferously oppose. While this fear is overblown, the award of PRCs could ensure land rights that are otherwise denied to the non-APSTs.
•The fact that the opposition to the demand took such a violent turn could be linked to a retaliation to attempts by the members of the non-APSTs to enforce an “economic blockade” of the State from the neighbouring parts of Assam last month. But these incidents suggest that barely any northeastern State is today free of the pattern of ethnic discord marked by some communities being branded “outsiders” and sought to be denied resident privileges. These include the Chakma issue in Mizoram, the hill versus valley disturbances in Manipur, the longstanding “migration” issue in Assam, the attacks on Sikh residents in Meghalaya, and even the Chakma/Hajong citizenship issue in Arunachal Pradesh itself. The pattern through all these is eerily similar, with ethnic identities trumping civic consciousness in bringing about discord that has even escalated into violence in some cases. Arunachal Pradesh has otherwise remained a peaceful State, and it is incumbent on the government and the polity to foster a civic consciousness that allows equality of opportunity for all residents in the State. This is a difficult task as identity issues persist and fester when there is inadequate economic development – which is the real bane of the Northeast today.
📰 The vexatious question of Masood Azhar
India can take up its fight against terrorism at the United Nations Security Council in various ways
•The UN Security Council adopted a statement on February 21 condemning the Pulwama terrorist attack of February 14, for which the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) took responsibility. India is applauding this development and it should. A lot of diplomatic effort had gone into achieving this result. But this statement should be looked at with a proper perspective.
Hierarchy of actions
•Some media organisations and analysts have mistakenly described the Council as having adopted a resolution. This is not true; the Council made a presidential statement. It may be worthwhile to understand the nuances of the action the Council takes in a given situation.
•The least forceful action that the Council can take is to authorise the current month’s President to speak to media representatives about the proceedings of the Council. There is no official record of these remarks.
•The second level is when the Council adopts a presidential statement. A lot of negotiations are undertaken in the small room reserved for informal consultations next to the Council chamber where only members of the Council are present. Of necessity, it has to be a consensus, as distinct from unanimous, document, meaning that not all the members support everything included in it but go along since they do not have a serious problem with the text. Even if one member has strong objections to the text, the statement cannot be approved. The draft of the text could be prepared either by the President or by one of the members; for the most part, that member is the representative of one of the permanent members. Also, the statement could be issued either in the name of the Council or in the name of ‘members of the Security Council’. The former is generally regarded as carrying more weight than the latter.
•The third level is the resolution, which is the most authentic voice of the Council, carrying maximum weight. Again, the resolution can be under Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the Charter. Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII are enforceable unlike those under Chapter VI (Resolutions regarding Kashmir are under Chapter VI).
•Some analysts dismiss the statements and resolutions of the Council as of no consequence, arguing that the countries concerned should pursue their interests irrespective of the Council’s action. In practice, the country against which the resolution or statement is aimed cares a lot about the text of the resolution because countries care about their image in the international community. Israel, which has the maximum number of resolutions critical of its actions, makes strenuous efforts, through its protector, the U.S., to have the resolutions moderated to make them less critical. Hours are spent on negotiations, discussing whether to ‘condemn’, ‘deplore’ or ‘strongly deplore’ something.
•The February 21 statement was in the name of the members of the Council. It is not that it is not worth much; it is just that it is a notch below a statement that is issued in the name of the Council. A statement in the name of the members might also suggest that not all them were fully on board with the entire text. A statement in the name of the Council would suggest that all the 15 members are in agreement with the text.
•The fact that China went along with the statement does not signify much of a shift in its position, since the Council had already declared the JeM as a terrorist organisation. The statement does not name Masood Azhar. It is not known if the French, who took the initiative in this matter, had at any stage included Azhar’s name in the text and took it out at China’s insistence. From the French perspective, this initiative will earn them brownie points from India, without having to pay much of a price.
•In 2016, India moved the sanctions committee to include Azhar’s name, with the support of three permanent members: the U.S., the U.K., and France. Again, in 2017, India took a similar initiative, supported by the same countries. On both occasions, Russia did not actively support the proposal, though it went along with it. China vetoed it both times.
•It is for consideration whether and why it is so important for India to have Azhar included in the list of global terrorists. The only consequence of naming an individual is that the person cannot travel to other countries and his funds in foreign accounts will get frozen. In Azhar’s case, this will not cause him much discomfort. Is it worth India’s while to invest so much effort and perhaps political capital in getting him named an international terrorist? Suppose China at some stage removes its veto on Azhar’s name, which it will only do with Pakistan’s approval, it would be doing a big favour to India. Will that be regarded enough of a concession by Pakistan for India to resume dialogue with it?
•There is no doubt that India’s relations with West Asia have improved significantly in the past five years. The invitation to External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to be guest of honour on March 1 at the Foreign Ministers meet is ample evidence of this. The past record of the OIC with respect to India is most objectionable. In 2017, the OIC adopted a resolution “strongly condemning the unprovoked firing by the Indian forces on the Line of Control and the Working Boundary with intentional targeting of civilian areas” and “denouncing India” for refusing the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission of the OIC access to “IoK”. It makes sense not to allow the present to be held hostage to the past. Ms. Swaraj has a challenging mission to accomplish. However, to regard the previous OIC resolutions regarding Kashmir as of no consequence is in the nature of rationalising the current approach. Hopefully, the OIC will respect India’s gesture and refrain from embarrassing Ms. Swaraj after her departure.
Raising issues in the Council
•The successful preventive non-military strike carried out by the Indian Air Force on the JeM’s terrorist training camp in Pakistan on Tuesday undoubtedly caught Pakistan by surprise. Apart from military action, which Pakistan has already taken, it will certainly try to raise the issue in the Council. It may be difficult to prevent it, since what has happened would certainly be regarded as threatening international peace and security. Pakistan’s all-weather friend, China, may take the initiative on behalf of its protégé. According to Council rules, if a member of the Council asks for a meeting, the meeting has to be called. India must have spoken to the U.S. and others about this possibility. If the Council does meet, it would give India an opportunity to expose Pakistan’s true face. It will no doubt screen footage and photos to buttress its case in the Council.
📰 Manufacturing unanimity
Giving cash grants to gram panchayats electing sarpanchs unanimously is antithetical to democracy
•Using cash or other favours as an inducement to garner votes in any election, whether to Parliament, Assembly, or the gram panchayat, is a punishable offence in India. The logic is that voters must exercise their choice based on free will and the choice they make should be an informed one using a secret ballot. That is a cornerstone of democracy. While inducements of every sort are endemic during elections, what is to be done when the state itself is the inducer?
•Consider this. In the run-up to the Panchayat elections in Telangana, the government led by the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) encouraged ‘unanimous elections’. The carrot offered to those gram panchayats that elect their sarpanchs unanimously was a cash grant of ₹10 lakh for those with a population less than 15,000 and ₹25 lakh for those with a population more than 15,000. This had an unexpected fallout: large-scale ‘auctions’, which of course are illegal, were held in many gram panchayats across the State. The State Election Commission was seized of the matter when civil society groups cried foul.
•This is not something new. It has a precedent. In fact, Andhra Pradesh has been encouraging unanimous elections for gram panchayats. A Congress-led united Andhra Pradesh in November 2008 issued a government order announcing ₹5 lakh for those gram panchayats with a population less than 15,000 and ₹10 lakh for those with a population more than 15,000, that elect their sarpanchs unanimously. This was revised in August 2013 to ₹7 lakh and ₹20 lakh, respectively. The TRS-led government only made an inflation-adjusted increase.
•United Andhra Pradesh and now Telangana are not the only ones encouraging this practice. In Gujarat, there was a scheme which began in 1992 that provided incentives for unanimous elections. It was revised and named Samaras-Yojana. States including Haryana and Punjab took a leaf out of the Andhra Pradesh strategy book, and in 2008 launched cash grants for unanimous election schemes. There was an echo in Himachal Pradesh too. There was criticism of this democracy-subverting practice, but nothing seems to have come out it.
•What was purportedly meant to save precious resources and avoid rancour among villagers is turning out to be something akin to manufactured unanimity, or manufactured consent, under duress or political pressure. How is this illegal practice being encouraged by States despite posing a threat to democracy?
📰 Regulating drug prices
What has been the impact of market-based pricing?
•The largest share of out-of-pocket expenditure on health is due to medicines (approximately 70%, according to the NSSO). This is a major access barrier to healthcare, especially for the poor. Health experts have criticised the Drug (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013 for doing little to increase the affordability of medicines. Data from the Department of Pharmaceuticals show that the majority of medicines have price reductions of 20% or less.
How are prices regulated?
•The DPCO controls the prices of all essential medicines by fixing ceiling prices, limiting the highest prices companies can charge. The National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) is drawn up to include essential medicines that satisfy the priority health needs of the population. The list is made with considerations of safety, efficacy, disease prevalence and the comparative cost-effectiveness of medicines, and is updated periodically by an expert panel set up for this purpose under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. This list forms the basis of price controls under the DPCO.
What is the mechanism for price capping?
•The NLEM 2015 contains 376 medicines on the basis of which the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has fixed prices of over 800 formulations using the provisions of the DPCO. However, these formulations cover less than 10% of the total pharmaceutical market. The DPCO follows a market-based pricing mechanism. The ceiling price is worked out on the basis of the simple average price of all brands having at least 1% market share of the total market turnover of that medicine.
Have any other methods been used?
•Prior to 2013, the DPCO followed a cost-based pricing mechanism that was based on the costs involved in manufacturing a medicine along with reasonable profit margins. Health experts have argued that this policy resulted in comparatively lower prices than the current market-based policy.
•Since the implementation of the DPCO, 2013, the NPPA has made certain departures from the market-based pricing mechanism, which was found to be insufficient for ensuring affordability. This has been done through the use of special powers to act in public interest under Paragraph 19 of the DPCO, to regulate the prices of cardiac stents and knee implants. These moves have brought about dramatic price reductions: 85% in the case of stents and 65% in the case of knee implants.
What about cancer drugs?
•“The government is planning to cap the trade margins for highly priced drugs for cancer and rare diseases to bring down their prices,” says Malini Aisola, health researcher and co-convenor of the All India Drug Action Network. She explains that this move is in the wake of recent amendments to the DPCO that exempted patented medicines and rare disease drugs from price controls. But Ms. Aisola claims that the trade margin capping will not sufficiently bring down prices. “We urge the government to take serious policy measures to ensure true affordability such as through price controls, implementation of the national rare disease policy and the use of legal flexibilities under patent law,” she says.
📰 China offers to help eradicate ‘terror breeding grounds’
China’s deft balancing act became visible during comments by Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi during the course of RIC Foreign Ministers meet in Wuzhen town.
•China on February 27 appeared to have walked a thin line by tacitly supporting Indian air strikes against the Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist camps in Pakistan, but making it plain that it would not label Islamabad as a state sponsor of terrorism.
•China’s deft balancing act became visible during comments by Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi during the course of the Russia-India-China (RIC) Foreign Ministers meeting in the picturesque town of Wuzhen.
•Without referring to the cross-border strikes by the Indian Air Force on February 26 on a JeM training camp in Balakot, Mr. Wang said that it was “especially important” to “eradicate the breeding grounds of terrorism and extremism”.
•Endorsing the Chinese Foreign Minister’s remarks, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, on two occasions referred to Mr. Wang’s observation.
•In response to a question on whether there was divergence on the Pulwama attack between India and China, Ms. Swaraj said: “As far as joint strategy is concerned, you just heard foreign minister Wang Yi’s speech. What he said during his concluding statement, he reiterated here, and he said that we would cooperate on eradicating the breeding grounds of terrorism.”
Adoption of common approach
•Referring to the adoption of common approach by Russia-India-China, she said, “This is not only a common strategy for the three of us, but it is resolution for the three of us. Mr. Wang Yi said this during his concluding remarks and reiterated it here.”
•But the Chinese Foreign Minsiter was also emphatic against accusing Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
•“China, Russia and India have reaffirmed our strong opposition to terrorism in its various forms and manifestations. At the same time, we believe that Pakistan has always been opposed to terrorism,” Mr. Wang observed.
•Referring to the “recent developments between India and Pakistan,” he said he appreciated “statements by Indian and Pakistani friends saying that they would exercise restraint and avoid escalation of the situation.”
•Besides, describing China as a “mutual friend” of India and Pakistan, he hoped that both countries “can conduct dialogue to establish facts through investigations to keep things under control and maintain peace and stability in the region.”
•Short of offering mediation, he said that Beijing was “playing a constructive role not the opposite”.
•Earlier, during a one-on-one with Ms. Swaraj, Mr. Wang promised that Beijing would not deviate from the momentum generated by last year’s Wuhan summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. That meeting was meant to reboot India-China ties, sullied by the previous 73-day Doklam military standoff.
Xi-Modi meeting
•“Last year President Xi and Prime Minister Modi held a very important meeting at Wuhan, and this meeting led bilateral relations into an honest and stable new stage. Led by the leaders all level of bilateral relationship is going well. Every level of the two countries and also international society are more optimistic of our bilateral relationship. In 2019 we are going to keep working on the consensus of the two leaders,” Mr. Wang said.
•Also referring to the Wuhan summit, Ms. Swaraj spoke highly of the decision taken by the two leaders to pursue “strategic communication”. She said that the communication channel at the highest level provided an “important foundation for the development of our bilateral relations”.
•She said, “This channel of strategic communication between the two of us and between senior officials of our two sides should always remain open.”
📰 India-Pakistan tensions: U.K. calls for diplomatic solutions
Foreign Office Minister urges India and Pakistan to de-escalate tension in region
•The British government has expressed its deep concern about “rising tensions” between India and Pakistan, and called for urgent restraint from both sides and “diplomatic solutions,” but has steered clear from coming down on one side or the other or to play an intermediary role on the wider Kashmir issue, as it acknowledged the need to deal with “underlying” issues,” particularly with regards to that region.
•Foreign Office Minister Mark Field noted that India was entering a “pre-election” period and that remained a “factor of concern.”
•“That is one of the reasons we want to see a de-escalation at the earliest possible opportunity,” Mr. Field said during a question and answer session in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
•He also said that he would express concerns about the safety of Kashmiri people based across India who had faced violence and threats since the attack.
•“I am happy to express those direct concerns when I speak with the High Commissioner,” Mr. Field said. The Minister urged for dialogue and for the two countries to find “diplomatic solutions.”
•The opposition Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said that while India had been absolutely right to take action against the terrorist group and to urge Pakistan to do the same, long-standing human rights concerns also had to be dealt with.
No active role
•Mr. Field rejected calls from some MPs in both main political parties for Britain to take a more active role in the situation on Kashmir, insisting Britain’s position on Kashmir and bilateral relations remained the same.
•However, asked by one Labour MP about human rights concerns and “state violence” in India, and what she described as the Indian government’s “own divisive right-wing nationalist agenda,” he insisted that the situation in India wasn’t “relevant to the present situation.”
•“However, we all know we are in a pre-election period within India and that is one of the factors that is obviously a concern. and that is one of the reasons we want to see a de-escalation of this at the earliest possible opportunity to avoid any of the issues referred to,” he told the MPs.
•“This is an extremely serious situation… We will press for the importance of restraint,” he told the MPs, reiterating Britain’s long-standing and important relationship with both countries. He said that any attempt to intervene or come down on one side or another particularly on Kashmir, this would result in Britain losing “credibility.” “The idea that the U.K. should robustly be seen to be on one side of this battle rather than another is self-defeating. It is in the interest of all to have a calm approach.”
•With a large Indian and Pakistan diaspora in the U.K., MPs from both sides of the political spectrum raised questions about the unfolding situation, with many raising concerns about the human rights situation in Kashmir. “Any allegations of human rights abuses are concerning and need to be investigated thoroughly,” said Mr. Field, during the discussion.
•Some MPs also raised concerns about the location of the Jaish-e-Mohammed camps in Pakistan. “These groups are based in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan… Clearly the answer is that Pakistan should take action to dismantle the terrorist camps and ensure the terrorists are brought to justice,” said Conservative MP Bob Blackman, calling on Mr. Field to tell Pakistan to “own up to its responsibilities.”
•“Making some categorical statements that are not entirely supportable,” at this time did not help the situation, insisted Mr. Field. He welcomed Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s “rhetoric in favour of peace.”
•Ever since controversial comments by former Labour Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in 2002, suggesting Britain play a role in Kashmir, Britain has adamantly steered clear of taking a stance against one country or the other or for suggesting involvement in resolving the Kashmir dispute, insisting it was a bilateral issue for the two sides, taking into consideration the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
📰 Nigerian President Buhari wins 2nd term
Nigerian Opposition vows to challenge ‘sham’ result in court
•Muhammadu Buhari was on Wednesday re-elected Nigeria’s President after a delayed poll that angered voters and raised political temperatures, but the Opposition immediately vowed to challenge the “sham” result in court.
•It was the second victory at the ballot box for Mr. Buhari, a one-time military ruler who was first elected in 2015 to lead Africa’s most-populous nation and top oil producer. With ballots counted in all of Nigeria’s 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr. Buhari triumphed with some 15.2 million votes over his nearest rival Atiku Abubakar, who trailed by nearly four million votes.
•“Muhammadu Buhari... is hereby declared winner and is returned elected,” Mahmood Yakubu, chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) announced early on Wednesday.
Rigging claims
•However, Mr. Abubakar rejected the result of the vote, which has been marred by claims of rigging and corruption.
•“I hereby reject the result of the February 23, 2019 sham election and will be challenging it in court.”
•A total of 72.7 million people were eligible to vote in the presidential poll as well as parliamentary elections held at the same time.
•Low voter turnout — at 35% across the country — was blamed on a combination of voter apathy because of the delay, organisational and logistical problems, as well as unrest.
📰 A.P. gets new South Coast Railway zone
It’s a long pending demand of TDP
•The Centre on Wednesday announced the creation of a separate railway zone in Andhra Pradesh — a long pending demand of the ruling NDA’s erstwhile ally, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP).
•The new zone, South Coast Railway (SCoR), would comprise the existing Guntakal, Guntur and Vijayawada divisions. Additionally, the Waltair division would be bifurcated.
•“One part of the Waltair division will be incorporated in the new zone and will be merged with the neighbouring Vijayawada division,” the Ministry of Railways said. Waltair division is a part of the East Coast Railway (ECoR) zone.
•A separate railway zone was one of the key promises made to Andhra Pradesh in the bifurcation act.
•The Railways said post bifurcation, the remaining part of the Waltair division would be converted into a new division headquartered at Rayagada, Odisha, under the ECoR.
•“As per item 8 of Schedule 13 (Infrastructure) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, Indian Railways was required to examine establishing a new railway zone in the successor State of Andhra Pradesh,” Minister of Railways Piyush Goyal said.
•“The matter has been examined in detail in consultation with stakeholders and it has been decided to go ahead with creation of a new zone with headquarters at Visakhapatnam,” Mr. Goyal added. At present, South Central Railway has six divisions — Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Guntakal, Guntur and Nanded. With the formation of a new zone, the SCR would comprise Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Nanded divisions.
📰 Modify Feb. 13 eviction order of lakhs of forest dwellers: Centre urges SC
States’ mechanism to reject claims is faulty, the Centre claimed
•The Centre and the State of Gujarat filed applications on Wednesday urging the Supreme Court to modify its February 13 order directing the eviction of thousands of Scheduled Tribes (STs) and other traditional forest dwellers whose claims for forest land rights have been rejected under the Forest Rights Act of 2006.
•Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made an urgent oral mention of the applications before the Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra, which had passed the February 13 order. The Bench agreed to hear the case on February 28.
•In its application, the Centre said the claims of lakhs of forest-dwelling STs and other traditional forest dwellers were rejected by the States without observing due process of law.
•The Centre refers to its letter of September 12, 2014, which speaks of the various injustices met out to the tribal populations and forest dwellers in States hit by left-wing extremism. The Centre said such States have high tribal populations too.
•The forest land claims of these tribes and forest dwellers, who live from the forest, are mostly rejected by the States. Being poor and illiterate people who live in remote areas, they do not know the appropriate procedure for filing claims.
•The gram sabhas, which initiate the verification of their claims, are low on awareness about how to deal with these claims. The rejection orders are not even communicated to the forest-dwelling STs and communities.
•The Centre said the 2014 letter did not produce any change in the ground and was followed by a series of letters in 2015 highlighting issues like “high rate of rejection of claims, non-communication of rejection order, unrealistic timelines in deciding claims, irregular holding of State-level Monitoring Committee meetings, lack of support from the district administration concerned in providing revenue or forest maps, rejection of claims despite incomplete or insufficient evidence, etc.”
•“It was requested that technology such as satellite imagery may be used for consideration of claims,” the Centre had suggested to the States in one of the letters.
•But no efforts seem to have been taken by the State governments to remedy the situation to effectively implement the 2006 Act, the Centre indicated.
•“It is uncertain whether the data furnished by the State governments accurately indicates whether the rejection orders were passed after observance of due process of law; compliance with principles of natural justice and whether appeal mechanisms have been properly exhausted. Without such information and compliance with the mandate of law in letter and spirit, the eviction of such tribal, would amount to serious miscarriage of justice,” the Centre argued.
•The Centre urged the court to modify its order and direct the State governments to file detailed affidavits regarding the procedure followed and details of the rejection of claims.
•“Till then, the eviction of the tribals may be withheld... the eviction of tribals, without such information, would cause serious prejudice to them who have been residing in forests for generations,” the Centre submitted.
•The Centre argued that there is no specific provision in the 2006 Act for eviction after a claim is rejected.
•The 2006 Act is a beneficial legislation which should be liberally construed in favour of the poor.
📰 SPV for Sabarimala master plan
The company will be a government-owned entity
•The government is setting up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to improve infrastructure and pilgrim facilities under the Sabarimala master plan. The Cabinet which met here on Wednesday decided to set up the company as a government-owned entity to improve the facilities at Sabarimala, Pampa, Nilackal and transit camps for pilgrims.
•The no-profit company would use the budgetary allocation and funds allotted by the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) to complete the development activities at Sabarimala in a time-bound manner. The SPV would have a governing body chaired by the Chief Secretary, with Secretaries of various stakeholder departments as members and the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, as convener.
•An implementation committee chaired by the Principal Secretary, Devaswom, and Commissioner, TDB, as convener would also be set up.
•The State Budget for 2019-20 has earmarked ₹739 crore for various development projects at Sabarimala. With just eight months to go before the annual pilgrim season this year, the government expects the SPV to expedite the work on the projects. An official pressnote issued here said the government would ensure that the projects were environment-friendly and appropriate for the forest shrine.
•The Cabinet meeting also decided to set up land acquisition units for KIIFB projects in Thiruvananthapuram, Alappuzha, Malappuram and Kannur districts. The units would be headed by special tahsildars.
📰 Tailing a virus
The Zika outbreak response should not end when an outbreak ends
•It is a time of peace and quiet for India on the Zika front. Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, which saw large outbreaks late last year, stopped seeing new cases before the year end. For health authorities, the temptation may be to consider the threat past, and move on to more pressing concerns, like the large number of H1N1 influenza cases this year. The truth, however, is that this is an excellent time to study Zika epidemiology in India. Public health officials must do this while disseminating data quickly and transparently, so that it can be analysed by the global scientific community. This is in India’s best interests.
All strains can hurt
•What are the data that health authorities should be collecting? First, they must leave no stone unturned in following up on every pregnant woman who was diagnosed Zika positive in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. When the epidemics began, there were worrying indications that Central and State health officials were downplaying the risk to pregnant women. Even though there is no evidence conclusively linking a particular viral strain or mutation with foetal anomalies, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) said the Rajasthan strain did not have the S139N mutation linked to microcephaly.
•This is incorrect. Even though microcephaly was first observed as a consequence of Zika during the 2015 Brazilian epidemic, strains other than the Brazilian strain, which do not have the S139N mutation, have been linked with the abnormality. For example, in 2017, when the virus from a foetus with microcephaly in Thailand was sequenced, it did not have the S139N mutation. Researchers also showed that a 1966 Malaysian virus strain — isolated long before Zika was seen to cause microcephaly in Brazil — was as effective at infecting foetal mouse brains as the Brazilian one. In another 2017 study, published in Development, a strain from the African virus lineage, which was hitherto not thought to cause microcephaly, was seen to be more damaging to mouse brains than the Asian lineage (to which the Brazilian strain belongs).Given this research, we must assume that all Zika strains can cause microcephaly.
•If this is the case, why did the link between microcephaly and Zika become evident only in the 2015 Latin American epidemic? Prior to this, numerous outbreaks had occurred in Southeast Asia. Yet, no one picked up on this phenomenon. Scientists have proposed several explanations for this mystery. One is that Zika has always caused microcephaly, although the link became obvious only in Brazil because so many people were infected. Another possibility is that poverty and malnutrition worsen the progression of the disease in pregnant women. This would explain why northeast Brazil, with its widespread poverty, was the most severely affected by microcephaly. Scientists are also probing whether simultaneous infection with dengue or chikungunya make the children of Zika-infected women more prone to foetal anomalies. Two studies published earlier this year show conflicting evidence for the role of dengue. The first, published in Immunity, showed that in mice, the presence of dengue antibodies led to more placental damage and restricted foetal growth due to Zika. Another study in Science showed that people infected by dengue were protected against Zika during an outbreak in Salvador, Brazil.
•Given this conflicting evidence, scientists are very far from understanding what makes Zika deadly to foetuses. This means that any data on how the pregnancies of Zika-infected women pan out in India can be enlightening. Careful studies must be carried out to see if there is increased prevalence of microcephaly, and to understand the risk-factors. Already, the TORCH (Toxoplasmosis, Other, Rubella, Cytomegalovirus, and Herpes) infections are known to cause foetal abnormalities, including microcephaly, among newborns. Wherever women are screened for TORCH, they must also be screened for Zika.
•It’s also important to remember that the Zika risk doesn’t end after the baby is born healthy. The experience of Latin America showed that even healthy newborns can go on to develop symptoms later. This has led to estimates of the incidence of birth defects being revised upwards.
Herd immunity
•The other important bit of actionable information that health authorities can and should gather concerns population immunity. To study immunity, authorities must conduct seroprevalence surveys, in which they screen people in several States for antibodies to zika. Many Indians could well have such antibodies, which means they are protected to some extent. The reason they are likely to have antibodies is because the Rajasthan outbreak virus was around in the State since at least 2016. Moreover, as a recent paper by researchers from the National Institute of Virology revealed, the Rajasthan strain is endemic to Asia, which means it could have been in India for decades now. Still, exposure to the virus does not guarantee a lifetime of protection. So, seroprevalence surveys are needed to identify pockets of low immunity in India. Health authorities can then focus their efforts on these regions, because they would be most vulnerable to future outbreaks.
•It is true that seroprevalence studies are not easy to do, given the cross-reactivity that plagues flaviviruses. The Enzyme-linked immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), which is commonly used in seroprevalence studies to detect antibodies, can throw up false positives for Zika if a person has dengue antibodies. This is because dengue antibodies can neutralise Zika and vice versa.
Separating dengue from Zika
•The good news is that researchers are working to develop alternative tests that are specific to Zika alone. One multinational team, including Swiss firm Humabs BioMed, has developed an ELISA test that is able to distinguish Zika from dengue. The test was used in a survey at Managua, Nicaragua after a large epidemic hit the city in 2016. It found that in 2017, 56% of tested adults had antibodies to Zika, suggesting that the city wouldn’t see another large epidemic in the near future. India should consider doing such surveys too.
•The outbreaks in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have seemingly ended, which is good news. But given that the virus is already in these States, and these States have well connected transportation links, there is reason to expect future outbreaks when the mosquito season begins again. Outbreak response should not end when an outbreak ends, because that is when efforts to contain the next epidemic begin. If India is lucky, the next epidemic will not be a big one. But it is not an assumption that health authorities should make.
📰 A patchwork approach to GST problems
Transparency and simplicity in the tax regime are casualties of the GST Council’s recent decisions
•It has the best intentions, but the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council is nevertheless systematically eroding the strongest features of the new tax regime — simplicity and transparency.
From three to eight rates
•Before the GST was introduced, the government set up a panel under the then Chief Economic Adviser, Arvind Subramanian, to come up with a suitable rate at which most items should be taxed under the GST. Mr. Subramanian came up with a standard rate of 15% for most items, a “low rate” for essentials, and a “high rate” for demerit goods. Presumably dissatisfied with just three rates, the government chose to introduce GST with five different tax slabs: 0%, 5%, 12%, 18% and 28%. Still not satisfied, the GST Council then introduced two more highly specific rates: a nominal 0.25% for rough diamonds and 3% for gold. Those of a critical bent of mind immediately pointed out that the major beneficiaries of this would be Gujaratis. The latest GST Council meeting on Sunday took this a step further and introduced yet another rate of 1% for the sale of under-construction affordable houses. So, from what should have at most been three rates, we now have eight!
•To be clear, the number of tax slabs does not affect the concept of ‘One Nation One Tax’, as a single product is still taxed at the same rate across the country. But specifying eight different GST rates is a blow to tax simplicity, which the GST was to provide.
•That said, the GST Council has not spared the concept of ‘One Nation One Tax’ either. However necessary the government felt it was to provide Kerala additional funds for rehabilitation after the devastating floods of 2018, it had several options available apart from the one it chose, which was to allow the State to impose a 1% disaster relief cess. As a result, for two years, the Indian market will be divided into two: Kerala, where goods and services are 1% more expensive, and the rest of India. While it can be argued that the cess in Kerala is a one-off, the fact remains that this is a bad precedent to set. It’s not too hard to imagine a situation where States start clamouring for a cyclone relief cess, drought relief cess, flood relief cess, etc. Recovery from natural disasters is an expensive process, and additional funds must be made available. But mechanisms for this have already been put in place. There is a National Disaster Response Fund at the Central level and each State has a State Disaster ResponseFund. Increasing budgetary allocations in these areas instead of spending on giant statues and advertising campaigns is an option.
Increasing opacity
•Transparency is the other casualty of the GST Council’s need to provide temporary fixes to problems. Sunday’s decision to remove the input tax credit provision from the real estate sector will likely go a long way in increasing opacity in an already murky sector.
•The input tax credit system was designed to create a seamless chain in the entire supply process. Normally, a company can claim credits for the tax it has paid on its inputs. Under a fully functioning GST system, the government can verify the amount of credits to be paid to the company by matching its invoices with those provided by the vendor. Such a system encourages honesty and transparency. This is the third time the Council has removed this vital provision, and its reason for doing so is weak. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that the Council had noticed that real estate developers were not dropping their prices in line with what they should be doing, considering they were getting the benefit of input tax credits. This happened before in the case of restaurants. In both situations, the government took the easy way out and simply removed the input tax credit provision altogether. So, rather than relying on the body it had created to handle such issues, the National Anti-Profiteering Authority, the Council instead chose to weaken the entire tax system. This wouldn’t have been too much of a problem if the real estate sector was as small as the restaurant industry or the sanitary pads industry (the third industry where there is no input tax credits). But the real estate industry is estimated to be at least ₹40,000 crore in size. Not to forget the fact that cement, a huge input in real estate, is taxed at the highest rate of 28%, and will now not be offset by credits.
•In both cases — disaster relief and anti-profiteering — the GST Council has chosen to ignore established institutions designed for those very purposes in favour of a patchwork approach that is likely to cause more problems than it solves.
📰 ‘RBI pay norms may make private bank CEOs more accountable’
Proposals to help improve transparency in banking system
•The norms proposed by the RBI for compensation of chief executives and board members of private sector banks has been viewed as an effort to improve transparency and accountability of the banking system.
Variable pay
•In a discussion paper, RBI had proposed that 50% of the compensation should be variable and that employee stock options (ESOPs) should be a part of the variable pay. The new norms propose variable pay to be capped at 200% of fixed pay, compared with the 70% now. Also, ESOPs are not a part of variable pay now.
•RBI had also proposed that if there is divergence in a bank’s asset classification or provisioning from the central bank’s norms that exceeds the prescribed threshold for public disclosure, the lender shall not pay the unvested portion of the variable compensation for the assessment year.
•There have been instances wherein some banks had reported significant divergence in disclosing bad loans and provisioning.
•Welcoming the proposed norms, bankers said these were part of a global trend where the banking regulator was imposing stringent norms for compensation of chief executives. “This makes the chief executives more accountable,” said the senior executive of a private bank. “It is part of a global trend. They have made the norms more specific,” said Rajiv Lall, non-executive chairman, IDFC First Bank.
•“This will help to improve transparency and [bring in] greater accountability in the banking system,” Mr. Lall added.
📰 Govt brings 42 non-scheduled cancer drugs under price control
•The government said on Wednesday it has brought 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs under price control, capping trade margin at 30 per cent, which would reduce their retail prices by up to 85 per cent.
•The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) has invoked extraordinary powers in public interest, under Para 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 to bring 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer drugs under price control through trade margin rationalisation, an official release said.
•“Invoking paragraph 19 of DPCO, 2013, the government hereby puts a cap on trade margin of 30 per cent and directs manufacturers to fix their retail price based on price at first point of sale of product... of the non-scheduled formulations containing any of the 42 drugs,” the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DOP) said in a notification.
•As per data available with NPPA, the MRP for 105 brands will be reduced up to 85 per cent entailing minimum saving of ₹105 crore to consumers, it added.
•Currently, 57 anti-cancer drugs are under price control as scheduled formulations. Now 42 non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines have been selected for price regulation by restricting trade margin on the selling price (MRP) up to 30 per cent, the notification said.
•“These would cover 72 formulations and 355 brands as per data available with NPPA. More data is being collected from hospitals and manufacturers to finalise the list,” it added.
•The drug manufacturers have been given seven days to recalculate the prices and inform the NPPA, state drug controllers, stockists and retailers, it said. The revised prices shall come into effect from March, 8, it added.
•The NPPA currently fixes prices of drugs placed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) under Schedule-I of the DPCO. So far, around 1000 drugs have been brought under price control under the initiative.
•Non-scheduled drugs are allowed an increase of up to 10 per cent in prices every year, which is monitored by the NPPA.
📰 China eyes bans for rogue scientists
After uproar over gene-editing, country drafts new rules to supervise research
•China has drafted new rules to supervise biotechnology research, with fines and bans against rogue scientists after a Chinese researcher caused a global outcry by claiming that he gene-edited babies.
•The announcement comes as He Jiankui’s controversial experiment continues to transfix the scientific community, with researchers saying the procedure had the potential of enhancing the learning capabilities and memory of the babies.
•He announced in November that the world’s first gene-edited babies — twin girls — were born that same month after he altered their DNA to prevent them from contracting HIV by deleting a certain gene under a technique known as CRISPR.
•The claim shocked scientists worldwide, raising questions about bioethics and putting a spotlight on China’s lax oversight of scientific research.
High-risk classification
•The new rules unveiled by Beijing on Tuesday propose to classify technology used for extracting genetic materials, gene editing, gene transfer and stem cell research as “high risk”. Health authorities under the central government would manage such research.
•Scientists can be fined 10 to 20 times the amount of “illegal income” earned from unauthorised research and be banned from their field of work for six months to one year.
•“If the circumstances are serious, their medical practice licence shall be revoked and the individual shall not engage in clinical research for life,” the rules say.
