📰 ‘Digital Health Mission will liberate citizens’
A central repository of records: Ministry
•The National Digital Health Mission (NDHM) aims at “liberating” citizens from the challenges of finding the right doctors, seeking appointment, paying consultation fee and making several rounds of hospitals for prescription sheets, the Health Ministry said in a statement.
•On Saturday, as part of his Independence Day address, Prime Minister Narendra Modi unveiled the NDHM. “Every Indian will get a Health ID card. Every time you visit a doctor or a pharmacy, everything will be logged in this card. From the doctor’s appointment to the medication, everything will be available in your health profile,” he said.
•The National Health Authority (NHA), the attached office of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare which runs the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, would “design, build, roll-out and implement the NDHM,” the Health Ministry said.
•The scheme would first be tested in the Union Territories of Chandigarh, Ladakh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep. Union Health Minister Dr. Harsh Vardhan said, “Based on the initial learnings, we will gradually work in partnership with the States to launch the NDHM. I seek the whole-hearted support, inputs and cooperation of doctors, healthcare facilities, citizens and State governments to adopt this game-changing scheme.”
Voluntary programme
•The NDHM would be a voluntary programme to reduce the gap among stakeholders, such as doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers, by connecting them in an integrated digital health infrastructure.
•Dr. Indu Bhushan, chief executive officer, NHA, said: “The core building blocks of NDHM such as Health ID, Digi-Doctor and Health Facility Registry shall be owned, operated and maintained by the Government of India. Private stakeholders will have an equal opportunity to integrate with these building blocks and create their own products. However, core activities and verifications, for example, generation of Health ID or approval of a doctor/facility shall remain with the government.”
Nepal Prime Minister calls up Modi to greet India on Independence Day
•Prime Minister of Nepal K.P. Sharma Oli on Saturday called up Prime Minister Narendra Modi and held a discussion, sources in Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
•A Nepalese official statement declared that Mr. Oli sought “meaningful bilateral cooperation” with India.
•The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said that anti-COVID-19 cooperation was discussed during the phone call. “The leaders expressed mutual solidarity in the context of the efforts being made to minimise the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in both countries. Prime Minister offered India’s continued support to Nepal in this regard,” the MEA said in a press statement.
•Mr. Oli’s phone call comes after months of tension between the two sides over the Kalapani territorial dispute. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal said Mr. Oli praised India’s official policy on South Asia. “Prime Minister Oli appreciated Prime Minister Modi’s renewed priority to neighbourhood as spelt out in today’s Independence Day address,” a statement from Nepal’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. The Nepalese leader also congratulated India on the recent election to a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council.
•Mr. Oli had earlier greeted Mr. Modi on his social media accounts on the occasion of Independence Day. “Congratulations and greetings to Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji, the Government and people of India on the happy occasion of the 74th Independence Day. Best wishes for more progress and prosperity of the people of India,” said Mr. Oli in a post on one of his official social media handles.
Boosting dialogue
•Sources in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal said the telephonic conversation lasted 15 minutes and the two leaders exchanged thoughts about multiple issues.
•The high-level contact came after nearly nine months of tension and war of words after India asserted control over the Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura region of Pithoragarh which is claimed by Nepal.
•Nepal issued a map in response, which depicted the region as part of Nepalese sovereign territory and urged India to convene Foreign Secretary-level dialogue to address Nepal’s concerns. The phone call is expected to boost the upcoming “oversight mechanism” level dialogue which is planned for next week.
•The discussion between the Foreign Secretary of Nepal, Shankar Bairagi, and Indian Ambassador to Kathmandu, Vinay Mohan Kwatra, will focus on bilateral development projects and other issues like border security and COVID-19 management. However, the Kalapani issue is unlikely to be part of this initiative.
•The chat comes ahead of an expected reshuffle of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Oli, who appears to have thwarted a tough challenge from rivals in the ruling Nepal Communist Party led by Co-Chair Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda.”
📰 How will the Israel-UAE pact impact the Gulf?
Will the diplomatic breakthrough sharpen divisions in the region even further? How will it affect Palestine, Turkey and Iran?
•The story so far: On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had reached a peace agreement. He tweeted a joint statement issued by the UAE, Israel and the U.S., and called the deal a “historic breakthrough” in Arab-Israel relations. Many countries, including the European powers and India, have welcomed it, while the Palestinian leadership as well as Turkey and Iran have lashed out at the UAE.
What does the deal say?
•According to the joint statement, the UAE and Israel would establish formal diplomatic relations and in exchange, Israel would suspend its plans to annex parts of the occupied West Bank. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had earlier vowed to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Trump administration, as part of the President’s peace plan announced in January, had backed the annexation plan despite international criticism. But now, as part of the agreement, Israel “will suspend declaring sovereignty over areas” of the West Bank and “focus its efforts on expanding ties with other countries in the Arab and Muslim world”. The statement also said delegations from Israel and the UAE would meet in the coming weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding “investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies, and other areas of mutual benefit”.
How significant is the deal for Arab-Israeli relations?
•It’s a landmark agreement given that the UAE is only the third Arab country and the first in the Gulf region to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Arab-Israeli ties have historically been conflict-ridden. Arab countries, including Egypt, Transjordan, Syria and Iraq, fought their first war with Israel in 1948 after the formation of the state of Israel was announced. The war ended with Israel capturing more territories, including West Jerusalem, than what the UN Partition Plan originally proposed for a Jewish state. After that, Israel and Arab states fought three more major wars — the 1956 Suez conflict, the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. After the 1967 war in which Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria, Arab countries convened in Khartoum and declared their famous three “‘Nos’ — no peace with Israel, no talks with Israel and no recognition of Israel”. But it did not last long. After the death of Egypt President Gamal Abdel Nasser, his successor Anwar Sadat started making plans to get Sinai back from Israel. His efforts, coupled with American pressure on Israel, led to the Camp David Accords of 1978. A year later, Israel and Egypt concluded their peace treaty, as part of which Israel withdrew from Sinai in return for Egyptian recognition.
•In 1994, Jordan became the second Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. In 1988, after an initial agreement reached between the two countries collapsed, Jordan abandoned its claims to the West Bank and said it would accept a deal between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel. Following the Oslo Accords, under which the PLO recognised Israel and was allowed to form the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, time was ripe for an Israel-Jordan deal. The enmity between the two countries came to an end in July 1994 with the Washington Declaration on the White House lawn by Jordan’s King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin under the watch of U.S. President Bill Clinton. The UAE-Israel agreement comes after 26 years. If more countries in the Gulf follow the UAE’s lead, it would open a new chapter in Arab-Israel ties.
Why did the UAE sign the agreement?
•The old enmity between Arab countries and Israel has dissipated. The Sunni Arab kingdoms in the Gulf region such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE had developed backroom contacts with Israel over the past several years. One of the major factors that brought them closer has been their shared antipathy towards Iran. Both these blocs were wary of U.S. President Barack Obama’s Iran outreach. When Mr. Trump became the President, his administration brought these two blocs of West Asia, both American allies, together. In February 2019, the U.S. brokered a security conference in Warsaw to build a global strategy against Iran. The meeting brought leaders from Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and several other countries. Following this conference, in August 2019, the U.S. arranged secret talks between the UAE and Israel. These meetings laid the foundations for the agreement.
•Arab countries have signalled that they are ready to live with Israel’s occupation of Palestine. What they do not want is a major change in the status quo which would put them under political and diplomatic pressure. Mr. Netanyahu’s plan to annex the West Bank would have drastically changed the status quo, further putting in peril the two-state solution. The UAE-Israel agreement has averted that outcome. It also allows Mr. Netanyahu to label the suspension of the annexation to his right-wing religious allies in the government as a victory. Further, this is an election year in the U.S. If a Democratic President comes to power and restores the Iran deal, both the Israeli and the Arab blocs in West Asia would come under pressure to live with an empowered Iran in what President Obama called “cold peace”. A formal agreement and enhanced security and economic ties make the Arab and Israeli sides better prepared to face such a situation. So there is a convergence of interests for the UAE, Israel and the U.S. to come together in the region.
Where does it leave the Palestinians?
•Unlike the past two Arab-Israeli peace agreements, Palestinians do not figure prominently in the current one. When Egypt and Israel made peace, the latter agreed to return the Sinai back to Egypt and signed “A Framework for Peace in the Middle East” agreement, which promised the establishment of an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and Gaza and called for the full implementation of the UNSC Resolution 242 that demanded Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The Jordanian-Israeli treaty came after Israel agreed to the formation of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. But in the UAE-Israel deal, Israel has not made any actual concession to the Palestinians. The annexation plan was a threat. The withdrawal of the threat was packaged as a concession, which the Emiratis accepted. That is why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “Who would have ever dreamed there would be a peace agreement with an Arab country without our returning to the 1967 borders?” The Palestinians are understandably upset. They called the UAE’s decision “treason”.
What are the geopolitical implications of the deal?
•The agreement could fast-track the changes that are already under way in the region. The Saudi bloc, consisting of Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain and others, see their interests being aligned with that of the U.S. and Israel and their support for Palestine, which Arab powers had historically upheld, is dwindling, while Turkey and Iran emerge as the strongest supporters of the Palestinians in the Muslim world. This tripolar contest is already at work in West Asia. The UAE-Israel thaw could sharpen it further.
📰 Hurdles to Naga peace
Why is the main rebel outfit upset? What is the government interlocutor’s stand on the ‘framework agreement’?
•The story so far: Fresh hurdles have emerged in the road to peace in Nagaland. After a framework agreement was signed in 2015 between the Centre and the Isak-Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim, or the NSCN (I-M), the largest of the extremist groups in the peace process since 1997, there have been more than 100 rounds of talks and several twists and turns. The latest involves the demand by the NSCN (I-M) to remove Nagaland Governor R.N. Ravi as the Centre’s interlocutor for the 23-year-old peace process and his alleged tweaking of the original framework agreement.
What has made the peace process wobble?
•Talks, fatigue and growing impatience across the Naga domain gave way to optimism when Mr. Ravi was made Nagaland’s Governor in July 2019. His appointment was seen as a message from New Delhi that the solution would be found soon. As the Centre’s interlocutor, Mr. Ravi had signed the framework agreement in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But in October 2019, he issued a statement blaming the “procrastinating attitude” of the NSCN (I-M) for the delay in a mutually-agreed draft comprehensive settlement. He also said the NSCN (I-M) imputed “imaginary contents” to the framework agreement while referring to the government’s purported acceptance of a ‘Naga national flag’ and ‘Naga Yezhabo (constitution)’ as part of the deal. In June this year, the NSCN (I-M) took offence to Mr. Ravi’s letter to Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio in which he referred to them as “armed gangs” running parallel governments. The NSCN (I-M) reacted by demanding Mr. Ravi’s removal from the peace process but the Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), a conglomerate of seven rival groups, and some social organisations want him to stay.
What is the ‘framework agreement’?
•On August 3, 2015, the Centre signed a framework agreement with the NSCN (I-M) to resolve the Naga issue, but both sides maintained secrecy about its contents. The optimism among some Naga groups eroded a bit when the NNPGs were brought on board the peace process on November 17, 2017. This agreement ostensibly made the peace process inclusive but it created suspicion about Delhi exploiting divisions within the Nagas on tribal and geopolitical lines. It was also a throwback to the first peace deal, the Shillong Accord of 1975 that Naga hardliners rejected. That had led to the birth of the NSCN in January 1980. Differences surfaced within the outfit a few years later over initiating a dialogue process with the Indian government. It split into the NSCN (I-M) and NSCN (Khaplang) in April 1988 who often engaged in fratricidal battles.
Why is the ‘agreement’ in the news?
•A few days ago, the NSCN (I-M) released the contents of the framework agreement. The outfit said Mr. Ravi had “craftily deleted the word ‘new’ from the original” line that referred to “shared sovereignty” between India and the Naga homeland and provided for an “enduring inclusive new relationship of peaceful co-existence”. The NSCN (I-M) claimed “new” was a politically sensitive word that defined the meaning of peaceful co-existence of the two entities (sovereign powers) and strongly indicated a settlement outside the purview of the Constitution of India. The group said it had refrained from publishing the contents of the framework agreement respecting the “tacit understanding reached between the two sides not to release to the public domain for security reasons”. But, it claimed, Mr. Ravi took undue advantage and started manipulating the framework agreement to mislead the Nagas and the Centre. The Governor said the framework agreement was an “acceptance of the Indian Constitution” by the outfit.
What are the other hurdles?
•In his ‘Naga Independence Day’ speech on August 14, NSCN (I-M) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah insisted the Nagas “will never merge with India”. But States adjoining Nagaland, where the peace headquarters of NSCN (I-M) is located, are apprehensive of the sovereignty issue. This is because of the NSCN (I-M)’s idea of Greater Nagalim — a homeland encompassing all Naga-inhabited areas in Nagaland and beyond. Apart from Myanmar, where many of more than 50 Naga tribes live, the Greater Nagalim map includes large swathes of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Manipur. The Assam government has vowed not to part with “even an inch of land”, the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union warned against any “territorial changes” while finding a solution. Manipur Chief Minister Nongthombam Biren Singh said he has received the Centre’s assurance that the peace deal with the NSCN (I-M) will not affect the territorial integrity of Manipur. But non-Naga groups are suspicious since the Tangkhul community, forming the core of the NSCN (I-M), is from Manipur and the outfit may not accept any agreement that excludes areas inhabited by them. The NNPGs, whose members are primarily from Nagaland, are also a factor; their inputs for a final solution could be at variance with those of the NSCN (I-M).
