📰 Gaps in learning: On rural students and the pandemic
Students can still learn during the pandemic, if they get textbooks and resources
•In a year of severe disruption for schools caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, students in rural areas have received only marginal assistance in the form of structured learning materials from teachers, and have had to rely more on parents and siblings to study at home. This unsettling finding by the Annual Status of Education Report 2020 should prompt the Centre and the State governments to plan remedial measures for the future, when it will be safe again for students to return to the classroom. In the interim, they must work with schools to make remote learning possible. The ASER 2020 survey covering 26 States and four Union Territories has come up with striking findings, including one of a shift in enrolments from private schools to government institutions, of about five percentage points over 2018, ranging from class one to higher secondary levels. Also, with the suspension of physical classes since the lockdown in March, there is a marked rise in students not being enrolled, either because they dropped out, or because it was not possible to get admitted. It must also concern governments that the digital divide stands out starkly once again: the survey found 43.6% of students in government schools without access to a smartphone, while 67.3% of those who received learning materials in these institutions got them over WhatsApp, underscoring the role played by gadgets and connectivity. On the other hand, only half the children got help with studies at home, a third got materials from teachers, and nearly 60% used textbooks.
•The ASER survey provides data that could facilitate intervention by the education system in some respects, even if, going forward, schools opt for a hybrid solution of partial reopening and online learning. Expanding availability of textbooks to all, including those who dropped out or are waiting to be formally admitted, will help parents and siblings aid learning. Bridging the divide on educational aids, now including smartphones, will enable transmission of learning materials, and personal tutorial sessions. Beyond these basics, however, the education system could creatively use opportunities during the current year to broaden learning. Students could use the safety of the open countryside to learn, under guidance from teachers, a host of topics by doing things themselves. This is particularly feasible for lower classes, where observational learning creates a strong foundation. Educational video, which has helped thousands, can advance learning even beyond the pandemic, using talented teacher-communicators. States such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala have already hosted curriculum-based video lessons on the Internet, after beaming them on television. It will take out-of-the-box thinking during the pandemic to come up with interventions that are a substitute for traditional methods and prevent 2020 becoming a zero year, as parents everywhere remain wary of sending children to school.
If the PUSA Decomposer is successful in tackling stubble burning, we may see a revolution in farming
•Stubble burning refers to the practice of farmers setting fire to plant debris that remain in farms after harvest. Before the 1980s, farmers used to till the remaining debris back into the soil after harvesting the crops manually. The origin of stubble burning can be traced to the advent of the Green Revolution and mechanised harvesting, which utilised the combined harvesting technique. The Green Revolution increased greatly rice and wheat production, which simultaneously increased stubble post harvest. However, the popular combined harvesting technique was not efficacious, as machines left behind one-foot-tall stalks. This prompted stubble burning as a low-cost and speedy solution available to farmers due to the limited time period of 20-25 days between harvesting one crop and sowing another.
Environmental impact
•Stubble burning is practised predominantly by farmers in north India. It releases harmful gases including nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. In recent years, this practice has created vast smoke blankets across the Indo-Gangetic Plain and numerous neighbouring States, including Delhi. This directly exposes millions of people to air pollution. As per a TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) report, in 2019 the air pollution in New Delhi and other parts of north India was 20 times higher than the safe threshold level as prescribed by the World Health Organization. Stubble burning also has a deleterious impact on soil fertility, destroys organic fertilizers and reduces ground water levels. Stubble burning during a pandemic could worsen the situation by making lungs weaker and people more susceptible to disease. It could also impact those recovering from infection.
•In 2013, stubble burning was banned by the Punjab government. In 2015, the National Green Tribunal imposed a ban on stubble burning in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab and directed government to assist farmers by obtaining equipment like happy seeders and rotavator. Stubble burning is an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981.
•Recently, in Aditya Dubey v. Union of India, the Supreme Court appointed retired apex court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur as a one-man committee to monitor and provide steps to prevent stubble burning activities in Punjab, Haryana and U.P. Haryana submitted that numerous steps are taken to curb stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana, including the development of an app to detect and notify authorities about stubble burning committed in a particular field. Now the Union government has brought out an ordinance to set up a permanent commission for air quality management, which will replace the Justice Madan B. Lokur Commission.
New revolution
•A revolution in timely stubble removal is the need of the hour. The action plan of Punjab and Haryana appears to focus more on setting up Custom Hiring Centres which will facilitate farmers removing stubble by providing them with machinery such as the happy seeder, rotavator, paddy straw chopper, etc. on rent along with the supply of more balers. As per a study by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, the application of happy seeders and super SMS machines can improve agricultural productivity by 10% to 15% while reducing labour costs and allowing the soil to become more fertile.
•This year, the Union government is testing an innovative method, the PUSA Decomposer, developed at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa. The PUSA Decomposer is a set of four tablets made by extracting fungi strains that help the paddy straw to decompose at a much faster rate than usual, giving farmers the option to shred the straw, spray a solution containing the fungal strains, and mix it with the soil for decomposition. If methods such as this become successful, it will be a new revolution in farming. This has the potential to both reduce air pollution and increase soil fertility.
📰 The India-U.S. defence partnership is deepening
The optics around the 2+2 Dialogue in Delhi are defining — the defence ties between the two countries have come of age
•The India-United States defence partnership received a major boost earlier this week with the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper for the third round of the 2+2 Dialogue with their Indian counterparts, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. The joint statement spells out the highlights but the optics are what define the visit. At a time when most ministerial engagements and even summits are taking place virtually, the significance of two senior U.S. officials travelling to Delhi a week before the U.S. goes to the polls conveys an unambiguous political message — the defence partnership has come of age.
A long road
•It has been a long process, with many ups and downs since the first modest steps were taken with the end of the Cold War three decades ago. The 1991 Kicklighter proposals (Lt. Gen. Claude Kicklighter was the Army commander at the U.S. Pacific Command) suggested establishing contacts between the three Services to promote exchanges and explore areas of cooperation. An Agreed Minute on Defence Cooperation was concluded in 1995 instituting a dialogue at the Defence Secretary level together with the setting up of a Technology Group.
•Also read | Indo-U.S. 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue brought ‘unprecedented cooperation’ between two countries, say U.S. lawmakers
•The end of the Cold War had helped create this opening but the overhang of the nuclear issue continued to cast a shadow on the talks. There was little appreciation of each other’s threat perceptions and the differences came to a head when India undertook a series of nuclear tests in 1998. The U.S. responded angrily by imposing a whole slew of economic sanctions and leading the international condemnation campaign.
•An intensive engagement followed with 18 rounds of talks between the then External Affairs Minister, the late Jaswant Singh, and then U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott spanning two years that helped bring about a shift in perceptions. Sanctions were gradually lifted and in 2005, a 10-year Framework for Defence Relationship established, followed by a Joint Declaration on Defence Cooperation in 2013. The Framework agreement was renewed in 2015 for another decade.
•The Framework laid out an institutional mechanism for areas of cooperation including joint exercises, intelligence exchanges, joint training for multinational operations including disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, technology transfer and a sharing of non-proliferation best practices. Initial movement was slow; it gathered momentum once the nuclear hurdle was overcome in 2008 with the India-U.S. civil nuclear deal.
•There were other factors at play too. Equally important was the progressive opening up of the Indian economy that was registering an impressive annual growth rate of over 7%. Bilateral trade in goods and services was $20 billion in 2000 and exceeded $140 billion in 2018. The four million-strong Indian diaspora in the U.S. has come of political age and its impact can be seen in the bipartisan composition of the India Caucus (in the House) and the Senate Friends of India group. From less than $400 million of defence acquisitions till 2005, the U.S. has since signed defence contracts of $18 billion.
A bipartisan consensus
•A bipartisan consensus supporting the steady growth in India-U.S. ties in both New Delhi and Washington has been a critical supporting factor. The first baby steps in the form of the Kicklighter proposals came in 1991 from the Bush administration (Republican) when P.V. Narasimha Rao led a Congress coalition. Following the nuclear tests, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Bharatiya Janata Party) welcomed President Bill Clinton (Democrat) to Delhi. The visit, taking place after 22 years — the previous one being U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s visit in 1978 — marked a shift from “estranged democracies” to “natural allies”. A Congress coalition led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh carried the process forward with a Republican Bush administration. Heavy political lifting was needed to conclude the historic nuclear deal in 2008, removing the biggest legacy obstacle.
•The biggest push has come from Prime Minister Narendra Modi overcoming the “hesitations of history” and taking forward the relationship, first with a Democratic Obama administration by announcing a Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region in 2015, followed by elevating the India-U.S. Strategic and Commercial Dialogue (launched in 2009 and the first round held in 2010) into the 2+2 dialogue in 2018 with the (Republican) Trump administration reflecting the ‘Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership’. Mr Modi is not constrained (at least on the strategic side) unlike Dr. Singh during his second term who faced opposition within his party, had a Defence Minister who preferred to shy away from any decision, and often had to prod a reluctant bureaucracy.
•The signing, last week, of the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) providing for the sharing of geospatial data is the last of the foundational agreements. The first, General Security Of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), relating to security of each other’s military information was signed in 2002. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government signed the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) in 2009 but then dragged its feet on the others on the grounds that it would jeopardise India’s strategic autonomy. However, it was apparent that as military exercises with the U.S. expanded, both in scale and complexity, and U.S. military platforms were inducted, not signing these agreements was perceived as an obstacle to strengthening cooperation. Nearly 60 countries have signed BECA. In 2016, Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) relating to exchange of logistics support had been concluded, followed by Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018 permitting encryption standards of communication systems. More than a 100 countries have signed these agreements with the U.S. Equivalent agreements on logistics and mutual security of military communication have also been signed with France but without the political fuss.
Breaking away from ‘labels’
•Developing the habit of working together has been a long process of building mutual respect and trust while accepting differences. The U.S. is used to dealing with allies (invariably junior partners in a U.S.-dominated alliance structure) and adversaries. India falls into neither category. Therefore, engaging as equal partners has been a learning experience for both India and the U.S. Recognising this, the U.S. categorised India as “a Major Defence Partner” in 2016, a position unique to India that was formalised in the National Defense Authorisation Act (2017) authorising the Secretaries of State and Defence to take necessary measures. It has helped that India also joined the export control regimes (Australia Group, Missile Technology Control Regime and Wassenaar Arrangement) and has practices consistent with the Nuclear Suppliers Group where its membership was blocked by China spuriously linking it to Pakistan. In 2018, India was placed in Category I of the Strategic Trade Authorisation, easing exports of sensitive technologies.
•In every relationship, there is a push factor and a pull factor; an alignment of the two is called the convergence of interests. An idea matures when the timing is right. After all, the Quad (Australia, India, Japan and the U.S.) was first mooted in 2007 but after one meeting, it petered out till its re-emergence now. Alongside the ministerial meeting in Tokyo earlier this month, India was invited for the first time to also attend the Five Eyes (a signals intelligence grouping set up in 1941 consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the U.S.) meeting.
•The policy debate in India is often caught up in ‘labels’. When Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru described non-alignment as the guiding principle of Indian foreign policy, it was designed to expand India’s diplomatic space. Yet, in 1971, when the Cold War directly impinged on India’s national security, a non-aligned India balanced the threat by signing the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation between the Government of India and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, it was often hijacked by the Non-aligned Movement tying up policy in ideological knots. Such became the hold of the label that even after the Cold War, India defined strategic autonomy as Non-alignment 2.0! The Indian strategic community needs to appreciate that policies cannot become prisoners of labels. Ultimately, the policy objective has to enhance India’s strategic space and capability. That is the real symbolism of the in-person meeting in Delhi.
📰 Centre sets up permanent Commission to tackle air pollution in Delhi territory
22-year-old Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority dissolved
•Dissolving the 22-year-old Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) that has so far addressed air pollution in Delhi, the Centre has constituted a “permanent” body — the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas.
•Encompassing Delhi, Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, the all-powerful body assumes several powers to coordinate action among States, levy fines — ranging up to ₹1 crore or five years of prison — to address air pollution. Brought in via an ordinance on Thursday, it awaits formal perusal by the Supreme Court before it can be brought into effect.
•There will be at least six permanent members and it will be headed by a former or incumbent Secretary to the Government of India, or a Chief Secretary to a State government. It has members from several Ministries as well as representatives from the States.
•The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and its State branches have the powers to implement provisions of the Environment Protection Act for air, water and land pollution. Their powers continue. However, in case of dispute or a clash of jurisdictions, the Commission’s writ will prevail specific to matters concerning air pollution.
•A major weakness, environmentalists and experts have said, in tackling air pollution in Delhi and the surrounding region, has been the inability of agencies such as the CPCB and the EPCA to consistently enforce rules on the ground. Rules to, for instance, factor in stubble burning or prevent pollution from thermal plants do exist, but these are often not strongly enforced always in States due to political considerations.
•A senior official in the government said the new Commission would be empowered to constitute special investigative groups for stricter implementation but the letter of the ordinance has no detail on the creation of new cadre or groups tasked with implementation.
•“The major issue with the ordinance will be when it comes to implementation, as EPCA had almost similar powers but failed miserably in cleaning the air even after being in force for more than 20 years. The question of whether it’s a positive move or just a distraction and wasteful exercise will be decided on the fact whether the ordinance changes the status quo when it comes to ground implementation and strict action on polluters or not,” said Sunil Dahiya, Analyst, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
•EPCA Chairman Bhure Lal, and Member Sunita Narain said in a letter to the Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar on Thursday that they “welcomed” the creation of a new Commission. They also listed key contributions of the EPCA — the notification of the Graded Response Action Plan that lists out measures to be taken in case of worsening pollution, the construction of the Regional Rapid Transport System and early adoption of BS-VI fuel standards, among other measures.
•“In the ultimate analysis, the effectiveness of the Commission will be determined by the choice of its permanent members, especially its Chairperson,” said Ajay Mathur, Director-General, The Energy Resources Institute. “We need to ensure that these members have the capability to bind together the States into air quality solutions that can and will solve our air quality problems.”
•Describing the Commission as a “bureaucratic vessel”, Navroz Dubash of the Centre for Policy Research said in a statement: “The fact that it was created practically overnight, with no discussion and input, does not inspire confidence that it will open the doors to a more fruitful conversation and action across all interests...The Commission is a lost opportunity to explicitly set the ground rules for an air-shed based approach — one that could have been deployed in polluted areas across the country.”
•Others rued the lack of diversity in representation. “Of the 15 members, only three members representing NGOs have been included. The Commission has been given power to co-opt members, but the majority are Ministries which are engaged in actions which contribute towards pollution — the Ministry of Power, Housing and Urban Affairs; Road Transport and Highways; Petroleum and Natural Gas. The only exception is the Ministry of Agriculture. Crucial Ministries missing are the Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Labour,” said environmental lawyer Ritwick Datta in a statement.
