📰 Nepal raises Kalapani boundary issue with India
Visiting Foreign Minister also took up Nepal’s requirement for vaccines to fight COVID-19
•Nepal has raised the Kalapani boundary dispute with India during the Joint Commission meeting, visiting Foreign Minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said here on Friday. The Minister said that the Indo-Nepal boundary dispute exists in “two segments” and Kathmandu wishes to find a solution to the matter urgently. Mr. Gyawali took up Nepal’s requirement for vaccines to fight the COVID-19 pandemic as Kathmandu approved Serum Institute of India’s (SII) Covishield vaccine.
•“We started the demarcation and mapping of the boundary since 1981. At that time, Joint Technical Committee was founded which had tenure till 2007. It produced 182 strip maps which depicts the border... but for various reasons [work on] two segments — Susta and Kalapani — were not completed. If we talk of the overall boundary between Nepal and India, it is a smaller segment. However, it is an unfinished work and that’s why we are talking of the need and urgency of finalising and finishing those segments as well,” said Minister Gyawali, addressing a gathering at the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA).
•This is the first time that the Foreign Minister of Nepal has presented the dispute on the boundary front from the Indian capital since the issue erupted in November 2019 prompting Nepal to unveil a new political map that showed the Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura region of Pithoragarh district as part of the country’s sovereign territory. Friday’s observations about the border dispute reveal a slight change in Nepal’s articulation of the dispute as Kathmandu had stated while amending the Constitution to include the Kalapani region in the updated map that its claim is based on the Treaty of Sugauli of 1816.
•The Hindu had reported earlier citing informed sources that the Indian side was aware the Nepalese delegation would raise the boundary issue in Friday’s interaction but said that India will not discuss the matter at the Joint Commission level as the boundary dispute has a dedicated Foreign Secretary-level mechanism which is yet to meet. Addressing the bitterness that was witnessed in India-Nepal relations in 2020, Mr. Gyawali said there were “ups and downs” and there were differences on some issues. “But overall partnership and relation moved smoothly and we should take this momentum ahead by drawing lessons from that,” said Mr. Gyawali highlighting that Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared “very personal” ties.
•Mr. Gyawali delivered the speech at the ICWA on “Nepal-India Relations”, which was held after he headed the Nepalese delegation at the Sixth Joint Commission meeting with External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. A statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal said “boundary and border management” was part of the discussion. In contrast, a statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs said “border management” was part of the discussion. The statement from Nepal said that both the teams “discussed the review of the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1950”. It is understood that the review has been recommended by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) constituted by Mr. Modi and Mr. Oli in 2016. The EPG report, which has been completed, is yet to be submitted to the Indian Prime Minister. The Nepalese statement said the issue of “submission” of the report was also raised during the meeting.
•Mr. Gyawali, who is accompanied by Laxman Aryal, Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Population of Nepal, took up Kathmandu’s requirement for vaccines made in India. The discussion was held in the backdrop of the MEA’s declaration that the vaccines for other countries will “take some time” as the domestic process of rolling out of the vaccine is just beginning in India. “On Nepal’s request for the Government of India’s support in availing COVID-19 vaccines, the Indian side assured that the requirements of Nepal would be in priority consideration after the roll-out of vaccines,” he said. Hours after the bilateral meeting, Kathmandu cleared SII’s Covishield vaccine.
•Both the delegations reviewed the development partnership and discussed the benefit of the Integrated Check Posts (ICP) at Birgunj and Biratnagar. They welcomed the commencement of construction of the third ICP at Nepalgunj. India also informed that a new ICP at Bhairahwa “would be initiated shortly”. India conveyed that it would build two cultural heritage projects in Nepal on the ‘Pashupatinath Riverfront Development’ and the ‘Bhandarkhal Garden Restoration in Patan Durbar’ through grant assistance.
The trade deficit, a source of friction between India and China, declined to a five year-low of $45.8 billion, the lowest since 2015.
•India’s trade with China last year fell to the lowest since 2017, with the trade imbalance declining to a five-year low on the back of a slump in India’s imports from China.
•Two-way trade in 2020 reached $87.6 billion, down by 5.6%, according to new figures from China’s General Administration of Customs (GAC). India’s imports from China accounted for $66.7 billion, declining by 10.8% year-on-year and the lowest figure since 2016.
•India’s exports to China, however, rose to the highest figure on record, for the first time crossing the $20 billion-mark and growing 16% last year to $20.86 billion.
•The trade deficit, a source of friction between India and China, declined to a five year-low of $45.8 billion, the lowest since 2015.
•While there was no immediate break-up of the data in 2020, India’s biggest import in 2019 was electrical machinery and equipment, worth $20.17 billion. Other major imports in 2019 were organic chemicals ($8.39 billion) and fertilisers ($1.67 billion), while India’s top exports were iron ore, organic chemicals, cotton and unfinished diamonds. The past 12 months saw a surge in demand for iron ore in China with a slew of new infrastructure projects aimed at reviving growth after the COVID-19 slump. China’s total iron ore imports were up 9.5 per cent in 2020.
•Whether 2020 is an exception or marks a turn away from the recent pattern of India’s trade with China remains to be seen. While India’s imports from China declined, so did India’s imports overall with a slump in domestic demand last year. There is, as yet, no evidence to suggest India has replaced its import dependence on China by either sourcing those goods elsewhere or manufacturing them at home, and the trade pattern of the coming 12 months, as India’s economy begins to rebound, will reveal whether the past year was an exception or a turning point.
•The decline in exports to India bucked the trend of a strong year for Chinese exports, which surged 10.9% in December and grew 4% in 2020, aided by the economic recovery in China while many countries remained in various states of lockdown.
•This marked a sharp turnaround for the world’s second-largest economy, which saw its GDP contract 6.8% during the height of the COVID-19 outbreak in the first quarter of the year and a 4.9% fall in foreign trade from January until May. With a stringent lockdown bringing the outbreak in China under control by the summer, the economy rebounded to grow 3.2% in the second quarter and 4.9% in the third, with China’s industries humming back to life with much of the rest of the world in lockdown.
•China was “the world's only major economy to have registered positive growth in foreign trade in goods,” Li Kuiwen, spokesperson of the GAC, said, with China’s foreign trade and exports in the first 10 months of the year accounting for a record 12.8% and 14.2% of the global total.
•That was reflected in the annual export figures, recording a sharp rise with most of China’s major trading partners. Exports to ASEAN countries, China’s largest trading partner last year with $684 billion in annual trade, were up 6.7%, while exports to the EU, China’s second-largest trading partner, were also up 6.7%, with trade reaching $649 billion.
•Despite the trade war with the U.S. and the pandemic, two-way trade was up 8.3% to $586 billion, with Chinese exports up 7.9% to reach a record $451 billion. The trade surplus with the U.S. was $317 billion in 2020, higher than the $288 billion figure at the end of President Donald Trump’s first year in office in 2017, underlining the limited impact of his tariff and trade war as he ends his presidency.
📰 Private space: On public notices under Special Marriage Act
Making public notices optional under Special Marriage Act is a relief for inter-faith couples
•The Allahabad High Court ruling that people marrying under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, can choose not to publicise their union with a notice 30 days in advance may not exactly be a judicial pushback against problematic anti-conversion laws enacted by several BJP-ruled States. But it serves to get a major irritant out of the way of couples wanting to marry against the wishes of their parents or their immediate community. Many intercaste and inter-faith marriages have faced violent opposition from those acting in the name of community pride or those raising the bogey of ‘love jihad’. Hindutva activists have been targeting Muslim men marrying Hindu women, especially if the women have converted to Islam prior to the marriage. The court said that mandatorily publishing a notice of the intended marriage and calling for objections violates the right to privacy. According to the new order, if a couple gives it in writing that they do not want the notice publicised, the Marriage Officer can solemnise the marriage. Under Section 5 of the Act, which enables inter-faith marriages, the couple has to give notice to the Marriage Officer; and under Sections 6 and 7, the officer has to publicise the notice and call for objections. But, in his order, Justice Vivek Chaudhary said the Act’s interpretation has to be such that it upholds fundamental rights, not violate them. Laws should not invade liberty and privacy, he said, “including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned”.
•The HC ruling came on the plea of a Muslim woman who converted to Hinduism for marriage as the couple saw the notice period under the Special Marriage Act as an invasion of their privacy. Justice Chaudhary’s remarks on ‘state and non-state actors’ will undoubtedly be read in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, that particularly targets inter-faith marriages. This new law declares conversion of religion by marriage to be unlawful, mandates a 60-day notice to the District Magistrate and also requires the Magistrate to conduct a police inquiry to find out the explicit reason for the conversion. Enacted last November, there have been 54 arrests till date by the U.P. police. The HC ruling can now be cited across India to prevent public notices under the Special Marriage Act. Inter-faith couples will hope that when the Supreme Court hears pleas on the U.P. conversion law, it will be guided by progressive verdicts, such as the 2017 Aadhaar ruling, on the right to privacy as a basic right, and the 2018 judgment on Hadiya, upholding the student’s right to choose a partner, a Muslim man in Kerala, as an essential freedom.
📰 Vaccine optimism and the scientific uncertainty link
Amidst the vaccine rollout, there is a critical need for a climate of transparency and data sharing for scrutiny and debate
•With its robust domestic vaccine industry and strong fundamentals of the Universal Immunisation Programme, India is now embarking on the world’s largest COVID-19 vaccination programme, on January 16, 2021. This represents the forging of a novel public-private collaboration wherein the vaccine supply is under the responsibility of Indian pharma companies and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the implementation of the vaccination programme.
•The vaccine development programme has received unstinted support from the government, and two vaccines (Covishield and Covaxin) have been granted permission for restricted use in an emergency situation subject to certain regulatory conditions. The clinical trial ongoing within the country by the firms will continue. These vaccines are thus deemed to be market ready while regulatory processes and logistic requirements are being laid out.
•The expedited development was guided by the “adaptive and seamless” approach advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO) for public health emergencies and promoted by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, and some of the current discourse of regulatory issues is focused on the authorisation process.
•Traditional clinical trials follow a straightforward but mandatory three-step approach: designing, conducting and analysing the collected data, according to a pre-specified analysis plan. Seamless adaptive designs add a ‘review-adapt’ loop to the linear design-conduct-analysis sequence, with a pre-defined one primary endpoint and several secondary endpoints. An adaptation is referred to a change made to the trial procedure, such as eligibility criteria, study dose, treatment duration or study endpoints, and/or statistical procedures such as randomisation, study design, study hypothesis or statistical analysis plan, while a clinical trial is at the design stage. These are a priori planned adaptations and should be based on data collected from the study itself, and different from unplanned ad hoc modifications that are common in traditional trials.
Impact of modifications
•In the current situation, where the clinical trial of both vaccines shall continue, community engagement is critical to establish community acceptability of control arms, placebo, and blinding and should adhere to WHO’s guidelines on good participatory practice (GPP). Acceptability may impact whether trials are individually or cluster randomised, blinded or unblinded, and have use of a placebo or other comparator. Unique cultural considerations such as drawing of blood may impact the study design, and in turn the choice of endpoints collected in the study.
•There are some key regulatory concerns and the challenge of communicating them to the users and beneficiaries of research including policymakers. What is the level of adaptation that is agreed to by the regulatory agencies? What are the regulatory standards for the review and approval process of data obtained from adaptive trials with different levels of modifications? And, most critically, has the trial become a totally different trial after the modifications for addressing the study objectives of the originally planned clinical trial?
Need for more caution
•The European Medicines Agency cautions that while the increased flexibility of this option may well fit the needs in early phases of drug development, their use in late Phase II or confirmatory Phase III trials deserves a more cautionary approach. Pharmacology experts thus opine that “not every trial can be rescued by adaptation and adaptive designs... these should not be a cure for poor planning”. While adaptive designs do have a risk of introducing bias in a trial, that is not to be construed as a reason for staying away from these designs. The challenge is to minimise operational bias by rigorous planning and transparency. There is also a need to build and sustain trust through clear and comprehensive sharing of the adaptive design protocols in scientific journals for peer guidance, particularly in projects with major translational relevance. These challenges are as critical to the regulators as to those designing communication strategies and messages, with obvious implications for vaccine confidence.
•Given the conditions under which the vaccines are being rolled out, there is considerable debate among scientists, the medical community and the public at large. Among these diverse constituencies, there are optimists and sceptics about the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines. According to WHO, vaccine confidence encompasses trust in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine as much as in the system that delivers.
Adequacy of processes
•An important aspect is also the perceived motivations of policymakers making decisions about the vaccine. Given the fact that data are still awaited on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine, the rollout decisions may well add to the scepticism. In addition, there is a need for imaginative social and behavioural research that takes on board the scientific uncertainties and helps to build trust in the health service system and the community. Trust-building in the vaccine and its rollout is important for a robust communication strategy. The lack of this does not augur well for programme implementation even while efforts are being made to promote and sustain vaccine demand.
•Therefore, it is critical at this stage for the government and establishment scientists to communicate how the regulatory processes and authorisation are adequate and appropriate. Are we, as a community of researchers and policymakers, making adequate and appropriate efforts to communicate these uncertainties? Communicating uncertainty entails identifying facts that are specifically relevant to potential vaccinees, characterising the relevant uncertainties, assessing their magnitude, drafting possible messages and evaluating their success. Underlying the vaccine optimism is the search for a strong signal that the evidence is certain enough and how far the predictions of valued outcomes can be relied upon.
Needed, openness
•Scientists are trained and professionalised in dealing with doubt and uncertainty, given that all scientific knowledge is uncertain. To quote Richard Feynman, “... to solve any problem that has never been solved before, you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar. You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right. Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.” The task, particularly in the current context, is to be able to communicate scientific uncertainty — both to policymakers and the public at large. This requires a climate of transparency and data sharing that allows for public scrutiny and a healthy debate.
