📰 Electoral bonds hit transparency in political funding, says Election Commission
Foreign corporate powers can interfere, the poll panel tells Supreme Court.
•The Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that electoral bonds, contrary to government claims, wreck transparency in political funding.
•Coupled with the removal of cap on foreign funding, they invite foreign corporate powers to impact Indian politics, it said in an affidavit filed in the apex court.
•Besides detailing how donations received through electoral bonds would cause a “serious impact” on transparency in funding of political parties, The ECI ripped apart amendments made to various key statutes through the two consecutive Finance Acts of 2016 and 2017.
•It said these amendments would pump in black money for political funding through shell companies and allow “unchecked foreign funding of political parties in India which could lead to Indian politics being influenced by foreign companies.”
•The commission said it had warned the Ministry of Law and Justice about these amendments way back in May 2017. It annexed the letters written to the Law Ministry, along with its 37-page affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on March 25, 2019.
•“The Election Commission of India has time and again voiced the importance of declaration of donations received by political parties and also about the manner in which those funds are expended by them for better transparency and accountability in the election process,” it submitted.
•The affidavit was circulated on Wednesday by petitioner Association of Democratic Reforms.
•It said the amendments virtually derailed ECI guidelines of August 29, 2014, requiring political parties to file reports on contributions received, their audited annual accounts and election expenditure statements.
•The Finance Act of 2017 amends various laws, including the Representation of the People (RP)Act of 1951, the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act. The Finance Act of 2016 makes changes in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 2010.
•The amendment to the RP Act allows political parties to skip recording donations received by them through electoral bonds in their contribution reports to the ECI. “This is a retrogade step as far as transparency of donations is concerned,” ECI said. The ECI has no way to ascertain whether the donations were received illegally by the political party from government companies or foreign sources.
•On the other hand, a government affidavit on March 14, 2019 in the apex court claimed that electoral bonds were introduced to promote transparency in political funding and donations.
•The government had described the electoral bonds scheme, introduced on January 2 last year, as an “electoral reform” in a country moving towards a “cashless-digital economy”.
•The ECI said the amendment introduced by the government in the Income Tax Act allows anonymous donations. Donors to political parties need not provide their names, address or PAN if they have contributed less than Rs. 20,000. Now, “many political parties have been reporting a major portion of the donations received as being less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,000...” the ECI affidavit told the Supreme Court.
•The ECI extends its critique to the Finance Act of 2016, highlighting how it had amended the FCRA 2010 to “allow donations to be received from foreign companies having majority stake in Indian companies...”
•The affidavit extensively quotes from the May 26, 2017 letter the ECI wrote to the Ministry of Law. The letter, annexed with the affidavit, mentions how the amendment in the Companies Act “opens up the possibility of shell companies being set up for the sole purpose of making donations to political parties...”
•The Supreme Court has listed the case for hearing on April 2. The hearing is based on a petition filed by Association of Democratic Reforms on the issue of electoral bonds, unlimited corporate funding and transparency in political funding.
Complaint filed against engineer
•The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued five prosecution sanction orders last year under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923.
•On October 8, Nishant Agrawal an engineer working at the BrahMos Aerospace Private Limited centre in Nagpur was arrested on charges of illegally possessing highly sensitive and secret documents, the Uttar Pradesh police alleged.
•Police recently filed a complaint (technical term for chargehseet under OSA) in a Nagpur court against the accused but did not press any charges under the British-era Act for sending the sensitive information to Pakistan, a claim widely reported in media. The Nagpur court also sought legal advice on the complaint.
•“We got the prosecution sanction from MHA last December. We filed a complaint against him only for possession of secret documents of BrahMos missile in his personal computer,” said Asim Arun, Inspector General, Anti Terrorist Squad, U.P.
•A senior police officer said Mr. Agrawal stored the information in his personal computer and he had also downloaded certain web-based applications which launched a spyware in the machine.
•“Through the spyware, some Pakistani agents stole the crucial documents from his computer but we have not booked him for that. He should have known and taken adequate precautions. We have charged him only to the extent we can prove,” said the official. Mr. Agrawal’s bail plea was rejected on Tuesday.
•In 2015, the Centre constituted a committee to examine the provisions of the British-era Act. The committee comprising Secretaries of Home, Law and Personnel held meetings but couldn’t reach a conclusion.
•Last year, the Uttar Pradesh police arrested Achutyanand Mishra, a Border Security Force (BSF) constable for allegedly sharing sensitive information with a Pakistani ISI agent who posed as a “defence reporter.”
•Mr. Mishra befriended the woman after he got a friend request on Facebook, the police alleged. He was also booked under the OSA.
•As per the latest data available with the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of cases registered under the OSA was 11, 9 and 30 in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. Since its inception, the OSA has not been amended even once.
📰 SC for as few tribunals as possible
•Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Wednesday said the numerous tribunals, once meant to lighten the burden of high courts across the country, have now become virtually non-functional, crippled by a chronic lack of infrastructure, manpower and an irregular appointment mechanism.
•Heading a Constitution Bench, Chief Justice Gogoi said a “practical solution” would be to have “as few tribunals as possible.”
•The Bench is hearing a batch of petitions, led by the Madras Bar Association, challenging the amendments in the Finance Act, 2017 which have modified the terms of appointment and functioning in various key statutory tribunals, including the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The petitioners allege that the amendments amount to dilution of judicial independence and a threat to the Constitution.
•But the court pointed to how the tribunals are themselves fading into obscurity. Chief Justice Gogoi said the National Company Law Tribunal wants branches all over the country. The selection committee recommends names for appointment as members, but there is hardly any appointment done.
•The CJI said, in the past, the selection committee to NCLT and the NCLAT headed by him had recommended over 20 names, but only three or four were appointed.
•“There is no reason assigned for turning down recommendations of the selection committee,” the Chief Justice observed.
•The CJI said the Centre should make it clear whether it wanted the tribunals to continue or not.
📰 Slow on sanitation
Policymakers have failed to use technological advances made in treating faecal sludge
•The tragic death of six people who entered a septic tank in Tamil Nadu’s Sriperumbudur town is a grim reminder that sanitation remains a low-priority area despite the high political profile of Swachh Bharat. Public understanding of the science of managing septic tanks continues to be poor, and the availability of cheap labour to clean these structures has slowed efforts to develop technologies that can safely remove and transport the waste. Sanitation thus remains a challenge in thousands of unsewered towns. What sets the incident apart from the several instances of people dying of asphyxiation in the tanks is that some of the victims were the owners of the property and not workers. Three people collapsed while inspecting their residential septic tank, and others who tried to save them also perished. Although workers were not affected in this case, it confirms Tamil Nadu’s abysmal overall record at raising sanitation standards. Since 1993, when the first law was passed against manual cleaning, there were at least 144 worker deaths in Tamil Nadu as of November 2018, according to official data reported to the Centre for grant of compensation. Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab also fared badly with a cumulative toll of 146 lives lost during that period. But this is obviously a gross underestimate, since the Safai Karmachari Andolan, which has litigated in the Supreme Court seeking to aggressively prosecute offenders, contends that septic tank cleaning claimed nearly 1,500 lives between 2014 and 2016. More reports of deaths continue to come in.
•Every death of a manual worker represents a crime, since the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 makes the use of such labour to clean septic tanks an offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or with a fine of ₹2 lakh or both even in the first instance. If State governments are reluctant to prosecute offenders, they are also slow to adopt newer technologies such as Faecal Sludge Treatment Plants (FSTP), which can be combined with omniprocessors for safe treatment of waste. For the task of cleaning the tanks, indigenous innovation in robotics looks promising. A prototype is planned to be tested by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras and such devices can potentially transform sanitation in India and other developing countries. But the pace of adoption will depend on the priority that governments accord to the long-neglected problem. Last year, Tamil Nadu, and some other States, notably Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, announced plans to scale up FSTP infrastructure. This is a task that deserves the highest importance, and needs to be completed on deadline. What happened in Sriperumbudur highlights the heavy price that communities pay for the lack of scientific sanitation. If governments remain apathetic, citizens would expect the courts to step in to uphold the law against manual scavenging and make individual departments accountable. The science on sanitation has advanced, and policy must urgently catch up.
📰 A blow against Article 370
Presidential orders and the circumstances in which they were made have eroded J&K’s special status.
•On March 1, 2019, the 77th and 103rd constitutional amendments were extended to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) by a presidential order, with the concurrence of the J&K Governor. These relate to reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State services and special provisions for the advancement of economically weaker sections, respectively. However, on March 18, this was challenged before the J&K High Court.
•Background and status quo
•The constitutional relationship between J&K and the Indian Union has been the subject of numerous discussions in recent times. This has rekindled the long-standing debate on the continued relevance of Article 370. As in Article 370, the provisions of the Indian Constitution do not automatically apply to J&K. To extend constitutional provisions and amendments to the State, a presidential order to that effect has to be passed. This order requires the concurrence of the State government, where the subject matter does not relate to the subjects specified in the Instrument of Accession (defence, external affairs, and communications). For other cases, only consultation is required.
•Accordingly, a 1954 presidential order extended various provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K. This order was made with the concurrence of the State government and also ratified by the State Constituent Assembly. After the J&K Constitution came into effect in 1957, the State Constituent Assembly was dissolved. Since then, more than 40 such orders have been made, through which most constitutional provisions have been extended to the State. The sheer number of such orders, as well as the circumstances under which they were made, have considerably eroded J&K’s special status under Article 370.
A slow death
•From the 1950s there has been a gradual dilution of the procedural norms followed by these presidential orders. In passing the 1954 order, procedural propriety was followed in the fullest possible sense as the requisite concurrence was obtained not only from an elected State government but also the State Constituent Assembly. The presidential orders made after the dissolution of the State Constituent Assembly — except a 1986 order extending Article 249, and the present 2019 order — can be seen as the first level of dilution. This is so because for all these orders, while the concurrence of an elected State government was obtained, the State Constituent Assembly did not exist and, therefore, could not give its ratification. Although the Supreme Court upheld this practice in the Sampat Prakash case (1968), it has been criticised as being beyond the scope of Article 370.
•The 1986 order represents a second level of dilution. This is because it was made when J&K was under Governor’s rule as per Section 92 of the J&K Constitution. In the absence of an elected council of ministers, the Governor could not have validly given the requisite concurrence to the presidential order. Even if the Governor acting without a popularly elected government can be considered as a “state government” for the purposes of concurrence, the Governor must at least have had some nexus with the State and some independence from the Centre. However, this is not the case in practice, since the Governor is not only an unelected nominee of the Central Government but also holds office during the latter’s pleasure. Not surprisingly, the 1986 order was challenged in the J&K High Court; it is still pending.
•If the 1986 order was problematic, the third level of dilution brought about by the 2019 order is almost the final blow. In December 2018, the President assumed all the functions of the State government and the Governor through a proclamation under Article 356. In an order passed on the same day, the President directed that all powers assumed by him would be exercisable by the Governor as well, “subject to the superintendence, direction, and control of the President”.
•This is the main point of distinction between the 1986 and 2019 orders. During Governor’s rule, as was the case in 1986, the Governor is at least on paper expected to act independently. However, in the present case involving President’s rule, the Governor is reduced to a mere delegate of the Centre and is expected to act as per the aid and advice of the Central Government. A presidential order made through obtaining such a Governor’s concurrence is tantamount to the Centre talking into a mirror and makes a mockery of Article 370.
Against federalism
•The manner in which the 2019 order was made also goes against the spirit of federalism, which is a salient constitutional principle. President’s rule is an exception to the general constitutional scheme that envisages representative government at the State level to accommodate regional aspirations. Extending constitutional provisions to the State during this exceptional state of affairs is suspicious. If the Centre had legitimate intentions, it should have waited until the formation of an elected government in J&K. In the absence of popular will backing it, the 2019 order clearly falls foul of the principles of constitutional and political morality.
•Commenting on the 1986 order, the Sarkaria Commission had observed that “every action which is legally permissible may not be necessarily prudent or proper from the political stand-point”. Not only is the recent presidential order against federalism generally and the spirit of Article 370 in particular but it also violates the letter of the Constitution.
📰 A deal at last? on Naga conflict
It will not be easy to find a please-all deal on the Naga conflict
•The Naga Framework Agreement is back in the news after the Centre’s main interlocutor in Nagaland, R.N. Ravi, visited the State to tie up loose ends before a final deal is sealed.
•A young Naga leader with political acumen recently told me that if anyone could solve the Naga crisis, it is the National Democratic Alliance government because it is perceived as a strong entity, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a no-nonsense leader. This is true to a large extent. A vacillating leadership in Delhi will have neither the bandwidth nor the determination to go ahead with a considered decision, irrespective of the consequences. And consequences there will be, whichever way we look at the Naga conundrum.
Spread across States
•Nagas don’t live in a single territory. They are spread across Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The Nagas of Manipur, particularly those in Ukhrul, home of the Tangkhuls, are the most vocal because that is also the home of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isac-Muivah) general secretary, Th. Muivah. A large chunk of the youth who have joined the outfit are also from there. They dream of ‘Nagalim’, a unique homeland where all Nagas can live with dignity. This is of course a utopian idea considering that there really is no basis for that unity. Nagas have always been driven by clan and tribe loyalty. These divisive tendencies cannot be brushed under the carpet to be resolved after the deal with the government is signed. The utopian idea is one that a pragmatic, modern, progressive Naga will not entertain. This mindset is held by those of the former generation who experienced the Naga struggle for sovereignty and lost their family members to the cause.
•Today, the struggle, or what’s left of it, has morphed into something that leaves even Nagas resentful. There is extortion galore by the so-called Naga national workers, a euphemism for the NSCN(IM) cadres and the other subgroups that have emerged over the years. There is not a single item entering Nagaland that is not taxed by these armed groups. The idea of a Nagaland that would be free from this perverse and arbitrary taxation is what young Naga entrepreneurs are expecting. Is that a possibility?
•It is interesting that the formation of the Naga Club in 1918 was the first collective expression by different tribes inhabiting Nagaland and the hills of Manipur to come under a common umbrella. The Naga men who were drafted by British rulers in the Labour Corps as soldiers, porters, builders, etc. felt the need for a united front after they returned from battle in the First World War. The word Naga itself is shrouded in multiple interpretations. Consciousness about borders and boundaries came with the arrival of the British who practised statecraft in the way they knew best — through a policy of divide and rule. Unable to win over the tribes who raided them time and again, the British designed an instrument called the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act (1873) to keep them at bay. The tribes were not allowed to venture beyond this line. That was their first idea of borders.
•The labourers and porters enlisted by the British during World War 1 and sent to France felt lost and alone and longed for a fraternal bond. They agreed that after returning to their homeland, they would work towards solidarity among the different Naga tribes. The British were convinced that the Nagas needed a common identity, especially after Christianity came to the Naga hills. In the Naga Club’s centenary year, ironically, differences have emerged between its members and the Naga Students’ Federation.
Complex politics
•The politics of Nagaland is complex. Tribal loyalties have not vanished because of a unifying religion, Christianity. Corruption is widespread, as is evident in the absence of motorable roads. There is not much visible by way of ‘development’ either.
•Against the backdrop of this complexity, where identities are contested, and ghosts of unresolved tribal differences lurk, the Naga Framework Agreement was signed in August 2015. It was a bold and ambitious step for the then one-year-old Modi government. Since 2015, Mr. Ravi has held consultations with every known Naga political group, first to try and understand their genuine concerns and later to seek their wise counsel on the best possible solution to the long-standing conflict. We wait and watch for the final outcome now that Mr. Ravi says substantive issues have all been ironed out.
📰 Temple and state
Calls to ‘liberate’ temples from the state goes against the social justice ethos of the Dravidian movement and the law
•The constitutional wall that separates the state from religion has continuously shifted. Recently, in the landmark cases of Shayara Bano (2017) and Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018), which dealt with triple talaq and women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple, respectively, the Supreme Court looked at the balance between religious freedoms and fundamental rights. Through these cases, and others preceding them, the Supreme Court established itself as an arbiter of prickly religious issues.
•Nevertheless, in recent times, social conservatives have not stopped demanding that the state stay away from any interference with the ‘temple’. Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court to quash all “State HR & CE [Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments] temple laws as unconstitutional” and BJP National Secretary H. Raja has endorsed the liberation of temples from “the clutches of government.”
•The issue portends serious social repercussions in Tamil Nadu. State control and administration of Hindu temples is seen as an integral reform of the century-old Dravidian movement. It was under the Justice Party’s rule that the first set of temple reforms took shape. In 1925, the government constituted the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, which was vested with the power to control and supervise the administration of temples and appoint officials for proper administration. Around the same time, Periyar’s Vaikom movement sparked a revolution on temple entry and worship by the backward castes.
•In 1970, the M. Karunanidhi-led Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government amended the HR&CE Act to allow appointments of priests. For the first time, this challenged hereditary priesthood. Though this law ran into legal hurdles, it provided the belief to men from all castes that they too could enter the sanctum sanctorum. Ultimately, the 2006 law passed by a subsequent DMK government completed the reform process. The first backward caste priest was appointed by the Tamil Nadu government in July 2018.
•The support among Hindu conservatives towards “liberating temples” goes against the social justice ethos of the Dravidian movement as well as the law. In N. Adithayan (2002), the Supreme Court held that “the vision of the founding fathers of Constitution to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence to mere traditional superstitious beliefs sans reason or rational basis has found expression in the form of Article 17.” The HR&CE Board only serves to reiterate the constitutional guarantee of equality before law of all citizens. Therefore, it is now up to the Court to reiterate the core constitutional principles and ensure that any right to “propagate and disseminate religious beliefs” can only be subject to “public order, health and morality and other provisions of Part-III”, as held in N. Adithayan.
📰 Parties can skip record of donations, says EC
Poll bonds an electoral reform: govt.
•In its affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India pointed to the amendments made to key laws, with dangerous consequences. The Finance Act of 2017 amends various laws, including the Representation of the People (RP) Act of 1951, the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act. The Finance Act of 2016 makes changes in the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act of 2010.
•The amendment to the RP Act allows political parties to skip recording donations received by them through electoral bonds in their contribution reports to the ECI. “This is a retrograde step as far as transparency of donations is concerned,” the ECI said. The poll commission has no way to ascertain whether the donations were received legally by the political party from government companies or foreign sources.
•On the other hand, a government affidavit on March 14, 2019 in the apex court claimed that electoral bonds were introduced to promote transparency in political funding and donations. The government had described the electoral bonds scheme, introduced on January 2 last year, as an “electoral reform” in a country moving towards a “cashless-digital economy”.
•The ECI said the amendment introduced by the government in the Income Tax Act allows anonymous donations. Donors to political parties need not provide their names, address or PAN if they have contributed less than Rs. 20,000. Now, “many political parties have been reporting a major portion of the donations received as being less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 20,000...” the ECI affidavit told the Supreme Court.
•The ECI extends its critique to the Finance Act of 2016, highlighting how it had amended the FCRA 2010 to “allow donations to be received from foreign companies having majority stake in Indian companies...”
•The affidavit extensively quotes from the May 26, 2017 letter the ECI wrote to the Ministry of Law. The letter, annexed with the affidavit, mentions how the amendment in the Companies Act “opens up the possibility of shell companies being set up for the sole purpose of making donations to political parties...”
•The Supreme Court has listed the case for hearing on April 2. The hearing is based on a petition filed by Association of Democratic Reforms on the issue of electoral bonds.
📰 Successful anti-satellite missile test puts India in elite club
PM announces launch in televised address; says it’s for peace, not war-mongering
•In an incremental advance, India on Wednesday successfully conducted an Anti-Satellite (ASAT) missile test, named Mission Shakti, becoming the fourth country in the world to demonstrate the capability to shoot down satellites in orbit. So far, only the United States, Russia and China have this prowess.
•“A short while back, our scientists have shot down a live satellite in the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at 300 km in space,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, addressing the nation around noon.
•The satellite downed by the ASAT missile was Microsat-R, an imaging satellite which was launched into orbit on January 24, 2019 using a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), a senior Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) official said.
•India has built the broad capabilities and building blocks to develop ASAT missiles for some time as part of its Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme.
•Mr. Modi said the aim of the test was to maintain peace, rather than war mongering.
•“A BMD interceptor missile successfully engaged an Indian orbiting target satellite in LEO in a ‘hit to kill’ mode’, the DRDO said in a statement.
•A DRDO official claimed that the ASAT missile was a modified exo-atmospheric interceptor missile of the BMD. A LEO of 300 km was chosen to “minimise” debris and it also won’t last more than a few months, the official said.
•Anti-satellite weapons provide the capability to shoot down enemy satellites in orbit thereby disrupting critical communications and surveillance capabilities. ASAT missiles also act as a space deterrent in dissuading adversaries from targeting the country’s satellite network.
•In March 2011, The Hindu had reported the then Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister Dr. V.K. Saraswat, who later became the DRDO Chairman, as stating after an interceptor test that India had “all the technologies and building blocks which can be used for anti-satellite missions.”
•Meanwhile questions are being raised on the manner of announcement of the ant-satellite capability.
•In 2007, a similar test by China at an orbit of 800 km above earth had drawn global condemnation.
•This test will make it increasingly difficult for India to present itself as exhibiting more strategic restraint and responsibility than China in matters pertaining to space security, and potentially other areas of defence policy as well, said Frank O'Donnell, South Asia expert at the U.S. Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island. “The timing of this test, and the degree of public communications coordination among the Prime Minister’s Office, DRDO, and Ministry of External Affairs, strongly suggests that this test was ordered and conducted for domestic political reasons with the upcoming elections in mind,” he said, expressing concern on the debris generated which “cannot be controlled in terms of its destination and impact regardless of the MEA statement suggesting otherwise.”
📰 The Hindu Explains: What is significant about Mission Shakti?
Anti-sat weapons date back to Cold War.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday announced that the DRDO-developed anti-satellite system A-SAT successfully destroyed a live satellite in the Low Earth Orbit. With this test, dubbed as Mission Shakti, India is only the fourth country after the U.S., Russia and China to have the technology.
What are anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons?
•They are missile-based systems to attack moving satellites. So far the United States, China and Russia were the only ones who’ve reported the ability to shoot down space objects from ground or airborne sources.
•The development of such systems has a long history — fuelled by the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union — with a waxing or waning of funding. There are different kinds of systems — those that can be launched from the ground or those vaulted from planes.
•In the Cold War/Space Race era, 1985 was the last time that the United States had used an anti-satellite system to destroy its P-781 satellite that had instruments aboard to study solar radiation.
•Anti-satellite weapons came back into popular currency after China conducted an anti-satellite missile test on January 11, 2007. The government officially confirmed this only on the January 23, after reports in several US media.
•The target was a Chinese weather satellite — the FY-1C – that sailed at an altitude of 865 kilometres (537 mi). A year later, the United States launched ‘Operation Burnt Frost,’ the code name to intercept and destroy a non-functioning U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellite named USA-193.
What are India’s capabilities so far?
•While 'Mission Shakti' may have targeted an object in outer space, India has long developed the ability to intercept incoming missiles. In 2011, a modified Prithvi missile, mimicked the trajectory of a ballistic missile with a 600-km range. Radars at different locations swung into action, tracking the “enemy” missile, constructing its trajectory and passing on the information in real time to the Mission Control Centre (MCC) to launch the interceptor, an Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile. It had a directional warhead to go close to the adversarial missile before exploding to inflict damage on it.
What’s new about India’s ASAT system?
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday announced the success of ‘Mission Shakti,’ an operation that demonstrated India’s anti-satellite missile capability by shooting down a live satellite. He described it as a “rare achievement” that puts the country in an exclusive club of space super powers.
•The satellite was about 300 km away from earth but no details were shared regarding its ownership and what the satellite was used for and what were the reasons for choosing that particular satellite for the test.
•India’s ASAT development has a long history with Dr V.K. Saraswat, Director-General of the Defence Research and Development Organisation stating in 2012 that India had "all the building blocks necessary" to integrate an anti-satellite weapon to neutralise hostile satellites in low earth and polar orbits. However there was never any formal announcement of such a mission.
What are Low-Earth Orbit satellites?
•The Indian satellite that was shot down was a Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite. These are satellites roughly at an altitude of 2,000 kilometres from the earth and that’s the region where majority of satellites are concentrated. A database from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non government organisation based in the United States, says that there are at least 5 known Indian satellites in LEO: India PiSat, Resourcesat 2, Radar Imaging Satellites 1 and2 and SRMsat.
📰 India reassures global community after test
•India on Wednesday assured the world that it did not violate any international treaty or understanding with the anti-satellite (A-SAT) missile testing of Wednesday.
•The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said India believes in peaceful use of the common outer space that belongs to humanity. “India is not in violation of any international law or treaty to which it is a party or any national obligation,” stated the MEA, answering a set of questions after DRDO scientists carried out an A-SAT test.
•The Ministry said the A-SAT test was not directed against any country and that India plans to play a role in future in drafting global laws on prevention of arms race in outer space.. MEA reiterated India’s support of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) in the Conference on Disarmament “where it has been on the agenda since 1982.”
📰 What we need is a commons manifesto
How India handles land use change will decide whether it can improve lives without warming the world
•Another election is upon us, and we are preoccupied with some matters that are grave and many that are not. But noticeable by its absence in any of the manifestos and declarations by political parties is a debate about the future of human civilisation.
•In October 2018, UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that without radical course correction, the world will exhaust its carbon budget to keep global temperature increase below 1.5°C by 2030, just two general elections away. Any increase above that will trigger runaway changes to global climate that could leave large portions of the planet uninhabitable.
•That is not all. In March, UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services warned that human societies are using up nature faster than it can renew itself and compromising its ability to sustain life on the planet.
A myopic preoccupation
•Scientists reassure us, though, that it is still not too late to avert the worst-case scenarios of ecosytem collapse and a climate-run riot. But for that, the world would need to reframe its engagement with climate change and abandon its myopic preoccupation with greenhouse gas emissions and carbon budgets.
•India’s obsession with 100 GW solar electricity targets may fetch high ratings from the international green energy cheerleaders. But that alone will do nothing to fortify ordinary Indians from the impending disasters. Real resilience will result only from improving the health of the lands they live in and depend on.
•Around the world, governments, multinational charities and technology companies are peddling a simplistic story of false solutions — that crisis can be averted by changing the fuel that powers our economy. By themselves, renewable energy systems will not make an inherently unsustainable economy sustainable or correct an unjust social system. They may even make it worse.
•Last December, during the climate summit in Katowice, Poland, the Environment Minister declared that India was on track to meet its climate goals ahead of the deadline. The same government is also changing laws to dilute environmental protection, facilitate corporate land grabs, disempower local communities and criminalise any dissent against its grand schemes.
•This month, the Union government proposed amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, that will make the draconian Act even harsher. According to Campaign for Survival and Dignity, “These amendments would give forest officials the power to shoot people without any liability; allow forest officials... to relocate people against their will; to hand over forests to private companies for afforestation, and to grab other forests in the name of ‘carbon sequestration’.” These amendments are a targeted attack on forest dwellers; if passed, they will criminalise the cultures that hold the key to rebuilding our broken relationship with nature.
•In February, the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, which regulates “development” along India’s 7,500-km shoreline, was diluted to allow denser construction closer to the sea. The notification cites tourism jobs to justify the construction of temporary facilities within 10 m of the waterline. Mega infrastructure, such as ports and roads, will be permitted anywhere — inside the sea, over dunes, through mangroves and tidal marshes — if they are declared to be “strategic” projects. These are hare-brained policies. Even the government acknowledges that sea levels can rise by 3.5 to 34.6 inches by 2100 and inundate India’s coastline. How India handles land use change, not climate change, will decide whether it can improve the lot of millions without warming the world.
Grassroots campaigns
•Across the country, people are rising up to protest against certain kinds of ‘development’ — for example, the Mumbai coastal expressway, and the proposed ports in Ennore and Kanyakumari. Farmers are mobilising against the bullet train, and indigenous people are fighting against the opening up of forests for mines and dams. Although these fights may have positive consequences for the climate, they have never been explicitly about reducing the kinds of greenhouse gas emissions associated with ‘development’. Rather, they are about how we relate to the lands that sustain us and who gets to define ‘development’.
•Even today, agrarian and indigenous cultures acknowledge the importance of open, unbuilt spaces. The medieval Tamil word ‘Poromboke’ refers to communally held commons such as water bodies, grazing lands and community forests. Unlike the free-for-all landscapes referred to in predicting a tragedy of the commons, Poromboke lands are carefully managed to yield value to the community, and subject to strict regulation. Poromboke lands cannot be bought or sold. Barring a few exceptions, they cannot be paved over nor covered by a roof.
•Far from advocating for pristine nature or a hands-off approach, open earth economies emphasise management, transformation and value extraction through activities that do not kill the proverbial goose that lays golden eggs. The opposing and dominant world view of the ‘developmentalists’ is predicated on the value of built infrastructure, and requires the constant colonisation of open land.
•Paved surfaces, the hallmark of built-earth economies, disrupt water flows, reduce groundwater recharge and obliterate biodiversity. Such economies impoverish local communities and increase their vulnerability to natural shocks. In places like Chennai, which witnessed disastrous flooding in 2015, paved surfaces increased from 47 sq km in 1980 to 402 sq km in 2010, according to a study by the Chennai-based research group Care Earth. Meanwhile, wetlands dipped from 187 sq km to 71 sq km during the same period.
•Urban flooding, though, is not only a third world phenomenon. Hurricane Sandy and the New York floods of 2015, the European floods of 2016, the 2017 floods in Mumbai and Houston, the 2018 floods in Japan, and the ongoing flooding of the Missouri in the U.S. all expose the vulnerabilities of urban areas where climate change meets mindless land use change. In all these instances, land had been paved over, unmindful of the need for water to flow and stay.
•For all the rivalry between the political parties contesting the elections, there is a remarkable homogeneity of thought on matters relating to ecology and economy, and lack of thinking about India’s future. What is desperately needed at this moment is a manifesto for the protection of the commons and open lands, and for the re-creation of economies that derive value out of healing wounded landscapes and covering open lands with diverse vegetation, water and life. For this, we need to defer to the Constitution and ensure that those who are challenging ‘development’ projects like the bullet train can speak without fear.
📰 India in pact to ease U.S. firms’ compliance
Agreement provides for automatic exchange of CbC reports filed by parent entities of MNEs
•India and the U.S. signed an inter-government agreement for the automatic exchange of country-by-country (CbC) reports, which will reduce the compliance burden for Indian subsidiary companies of U.S. parent companies. This is a key step in making India compliant with the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, of which it is an active participant.
•“This Agreement for Exchange of CbC Reports, along with the Bilateral Competent Authority Arrangement between the two competent authorities, will enable both the countries to automatically exchange CbC reports filed by the ultimate parent entities of multinational enterprises (MNE) in the respective jurisdictions, pertaining to the years commencing on or after January 1, 2016,” the government said in a release.
•The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and G20 countries in 2013 recognised that the way forward to mitigate risk from base erosion and profit shifting was to enhance transparency. Against this background, a template was released in 2014, which outlined how MNEs could report the required information for each tax jurisdiction in which they do business. These are called the country-by-country reports.
•MNEs are also required to identify each entity within the group doing business in a particular tax jurisdiction, and to provide information about the business activities each entity conducts. This information is to be made available to the tax authorities in all jurisdictions in which the MNE operates. This was seen as placing a huge compliance burden on the subsidiary companies of these MNEs.
•“It [the inter-governmental agreement] would also obviate the need for Indian subsidiary companies of U.S. MNEs to do local filing of the CbC reports, thereby reducing the compliance burden,” the government release added.
•“The much awaited India-U.S. agreement for exchange of CbC information has been signed,” Vijay Iyer, national leader, Transfer Pricing at EY India said. “It’s a huge respite for subsidiaries of U.S. head-quartered companies. The signing of the agreement further revalidates the keen willingness of Indian and U.S. tax authorities to engage and amicably resolve issues for taxpayers.”
•Base erosion and profit shifting refers to the activities of multinational corporations to shift their profits from high tax jurisdictions to lower tax jurisdiction, thereby eroding the tax base of the high tax jurisdictions and depriving them of tax revenue. In order to combat this, many countries entered into agreements to share tax information with each other to enhance transparency and make such profit shifting that much harder.
📰 ‘Deposits ordinance does not cover gold schemes’
Unregulated deposits banned to save investors from losing money to Ponzi, fake deposit schemes
•The Centre’s recent ordinance banning unregulated monthly deposit schemes will not affect the ongoing monthly schemes operated by jewellery and chit fund firms, said tax practitioners.
•Called the ‘Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Ordinance’, it was promulugated by President Ram Nath Kovind during the last week of February 2019 to save gullible investors from losing money to Ponzi and fake deposit schemes. The ordinance makes such unregulated deposit schemes punishable, among other things.
•Initially, the ordinance sent shock waves among the investors as most of them continue to invest their hard earned money in the monthly gold/silverware purchase schemes being operated by leading jewellery outlets.
•“This ordinance is meant to take on fraudulent individuals and unregistered partnership firms from accepting deposits or services from gullible investors either in the form of advance or loan with or without interest. This would also include monthly chits and Diwali gift schemes among others. It is better to avoid any firm that is unregistered,” said R. Sapthagiri, a tax practitioner.
•Tanishq has been operating the ‘Golden Harvest Scheme’ for a while now. It is a regulated scheme and hence the Ordinance would not affect its business model or its customers, said its regional outlet representative.
•Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. feels that this move would lead to a 25% revenue growth via its Dhanvarsha and Akshaya Scheme.
•The consumption of gold by buyers in Tamil Nadu accounts for 400 tonnes, of which monthly schemes account for 140 kg, which translates to ₹4,600 crore. If these schemes are discontinued, then household savings would be diverted to buy luxury items, which would be of no long-term value to investors, argued Jayantilal Challani, president, The Madras Jewellers and Diamond Merchants’ Association.
•On its part, the Chennai Jewellers Association took the help of legal counsel and decided to continue with its ongoing schemes.
•“It is a well-planned purchase scheme in which our customers pay money in instalments and collect gold or silverware at the end of 11th month. It is not a monthly deposit and we don’t have any hassles in continuing it,” said Uday Vummidi, vice president, Chennai Jewellers Association.
•Gaurikanthan, director, Balussery Benefit Chit Fund, said its investors are not affected by the latest ordinance as the fund only accepts chit investment and cannot accept deposits.
•The ordinance states that those who solicit deposits for an unregulated scheme can face jail time of 1-5 years and a fine of ₹2-10 lakh; 2-7 years with a fine of ₹3-10 lakh; 3-10 years and a fine of not less than ₹5 lakh and that could extend to twice the amount of deposits collected.
