📰 ISRO places Brazil’s Amazonia-1, 18 other satellites in orbit
53rd flight of PSLV-C51 marks first dedicated mission for New Space India Ltd, the commercial arm of ISRO.
•ISRO on Sunday successfully launched Brazil’s optical earth observation satellite, Amazonia-1, and 18 co-passenger satellites from India [5] and the U.S.A. [13] from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SHAR) at Sriharikota.
•The satellites were carried on board the PSLV-C51, the 53rd flight of India’s workhorse launch vehicle and the first dedicated mission for New Space India Ltd (NSIL), the commercial arm of ISRO. The mission was undertaken under a commercial arrangement with Spaceflight Inc., USA.
•The PSLV-C51, equipped with two solid strap-on boosters, the third such launch of the PSLV-DL variant, lifted off at 10.24 a.m. from the first launch pad at Sriharikota.
DRDO pay-load
•Of the 13 satellites from the U.S., one was a technology demonstration satellite and the remaining for 2-way communications and data relay. Among the five Indian satellites, one belongs to DRDO.
•Five satellites belong to India including the Satish Dhawan SAT (SDSAT) built by Space Kidz India, a nano-satellite intended to study the radiation levels, space weather and demonstrate long range communication technologies, and the UNITYsat, a combination of three satellites intended for providing radio relay services. The other satellite belongs to DRDO.
•The SDSAT developed by SpaceKids India has an engraving of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the top panel of the satellite to show solidarity and gratitude for the atmanirbhar initiative and space privatisation, SpaceKidz said. The Bhagavad Gita was also sent on-board an SD card to give the scripture, which teaches oneness as the highest form of humanity, the highest honour, it said.
•The UNITYsat was designed and built as a joint development by the Jeppiar Institute of Technology, Sriperumbudur, G.H. Raisoni College of Engineering, Nagpur and Sri Shakthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore.
Watching the Amazon
•Roughly 16 minutes after lift-off, the PS-4 engine was cut-off and the Amazonia-1, weighing 637 kg, belonging to the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE), was separated a minute later. The satellite will further strengthen the existing structure by providing remote sensing data to users for monitoring deforestation in the Amazon region and for analysis of diversified agriculture across the Brazilian territory, according to ISRO. The Amazonia-1 was injected into its precise orbit of 758 km in a sun-synchronous polar orbit.
•“This moment represents the top of all this effort made by so many people in our National Institute for Space Research and our Space agency. This is a very important mission for Brazil and it represents a new era for Brazilian industry for satellites. This is one positive step of our partnership that is going to grow. Congratulations on a beautiful launch. We are going to work together and this is the beginning of our partnership,” Brazil’s Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Marcos Cesar Pontes said.
•Following that, the other 18 customer satellites were placed into their intended orbits. The entire operation of the mission took about 1 hour and 55 minutes to completion.
•“This particular mission is special because these five Indian satellites are coming under the new space reform announced by the Government of India. These institutes have done an excellent job. ISRO has promoted, handheld and all along helped them to build these satellites technically correctly to launch them,” ISRO Chairman, K. Sivan said.
•He said ISRO has 14 missions planned this year, including the first unmanned mission around the end of the year.
Made of logs of a tree that irritates the skin, these cages are prescribed by customary laws for shaming law-breakers
•Some villages in Nagaland are trying to revive a traditional form of punishment that seeks to check crime with an itch in time.
•Social offenders or violators of Naga customary laws have over the ages dreaded a cramped, triangular cage made from the logs of an indigenous tree that irritates the skin.
•The dread is more of humiliation or loss of face within the community or clan than of spending at least a day scratching furiously without any space to move.
•Such itchy cages are referred to as khujli ghar in Nagamese — a pidgin lingua franca — but each Naga community has its own name. The Aos, one of the major tribes of Nagaland, call it Shi-ki that means flesh-house.
•“A few villages where traditional practices are very strong still prescribe this form of punishment, a deterrent for offenders of various shades, including robbers and drug addicts. Many villages are trying to revive it,” Sanen Pongen, the chairman of Chuchuyimlang village council in Mokokchung district told The Hindu.
•The cage is usually placed at a central spot in the village, usually in front of the morung or bachelor’s dormitory, for the inmate to be in full public view.
•“The cage is made of the logs of Masang-fung, a local tree that people avoid because of the irritation it causes. It does not affect the palm but people who make the cages have to be careful,” Mr. Pongen said.
•A prickly cage usually accommodates one offender —invariably a male — who barely has space to sit for 24 hours or more than a week, depending on the gravity of the offence. He can be fed by relatives periodically and let out to answer nature’s call during the punishment term.
•“Some local modifications aside, customary laws of all the Naga tribes are similar. The khujli ghar too used to be common until lock-ups came up in police stations to house the offenders and some forms of punishment began clashing with those prescribed by Constitutional laws,” said Hesheto Chishi, a customary law and Naga folklore researcher based in Dimapur town.
•As the founder of Indigenous Cultural Society, the only such in the northeast affiliated to the UNESCO, he has been working on codifying the customary laws and has co-authored Oral Narrative, a book on Sumi Naga laws published by the Ministry of Human Resources Development.
•“It is not proper to view the itchy cages from the prism of modern laws. They have served a purpose for ages and have often proved to reform offenders, as identity and family or clan reputation is very important to a Naga,” Mr. Chishi, also a community chieftain, said.
•Article 371(A) of the Constitution guarantees the preservation of the Naga customary laws. The State also funds the customary courts in villages and towns where cases — mostly dealing with land litigation, money-lending and marital disputes — have a high rate of prompt disposal.
📰 A wolf in watchdog’s clothing: On government’s move to regulate digital media
Instead of soft-touch monitoring, the government has opted for predatory new rules
•The new rules introduced by the Centre last week to regulate all types of digital platforms, with the idea of redressing user grievances and ensuring compliance with the law, are deeply unsettling as they will end up giving the government a good deal of leverage over online news publishers and intermediaries. This holds troubling implications for freedom of expression and right to information. Electronics and IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, while launching The Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, presented it as a “soft-touch oversight mechanism”. A government press note termed it “progressive” and “liberal”. It also claimed the rules seek to “address people’s varied concerns while removing any misapprehension about curbing creativity and freedom of speech and expression”. The soft tone notwithstanding, these rules force digital news publishers and video streaming services to adhere to a cumbersome three-tier structure of regulation, with a government committee at its apex. This, in itself, is unprecedented in a country where the news media have been given the space all along to self-regulate, based on the mature understanding that any government presence could have a chilling effect on free speech and conversations. That the new rules pertain only to digital news media, and not to the whole of the news media, hardly provides comfort, as the former is increasingly becoming a prime source of news and views. Further, it is of significant concern that the purview of the IT Act, 2000, has been expanded to bring digital news media under its regulatory ambit without legislative action, which digital liberties organisations such as the Internet Freedom Foundation have flagged.
•The three-tier regulatory mechanism will seek to redress complaints with respect to the digital platforms’ adherence to a Code of Ethics, which among other things includes the ‘Norms of Journalistic Conduct’, compiled by the Press Council of India, the Programme Code of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, as also a negative list of content that shall not be published (essentially what one would encounter under law as reasonable restrictions to free speech). While there is not much that is wrong with the Code of Ethics per se, what is problematic is that it will take little to bring this regulatory mechanism to vicious life. According to the rules, “Any person having a grievance regarding content published by a publisher in relation to the Code of Ethics may furnish his grievance on the grievance mechanism established by the publisher.” So, literally anyone could force a digital platform to take up any issue. It has to be taken up first, under the new rules, by the digital platform’s grievance officer. If there is no resolution or if the complainant is dissatisfied, this can be escalated to a “self-regulating” body of publishers. This can then be escalated to the highest level, the government’s Oversight Mechanism, according to which an inter-departmental committee will be set up to address the grievance. Apart from imposing a compliance burden on digital publishers — many are small entities — this also opens the floodgates for all kinds of interventions. The potential for misuse is enormous.
•The new rules have increased the compliance burden for social media platforms too. The bigger of these platforms will have to appoint chief compliance officers, to ensure the rules and the laws are adhered to, and a nodal officer, with whom the law enforcement agencies will be coordinating, apart from a grievance officer. Such platforms in the messaging space will have to “enable the identification of the first originator of the information on its computer resource” based on a judicial order. Thus, the rules require messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal to trace problematic messages to the originator. While the triggers for a judicial order that require such an identification are serious offences, it raises uneasy questions about how such apps will be able to adhere to such orders, as their messages are encrypted end-to-end. There is no denying that there are problems with online content, which the government has rightly highlighted now. Its release has referred to a 2018 Supreme Court observation that the government “may frame necessary guidelines to eliminate child pornography, rape and gangrape imageries, videos and sites in content hosting platforms and other applications”, besides making a mention of discussions in Parliament about social media misuse and fake news.
•Some amount of tightening of policy is inevitable given new challenges. But it would be wrong to imagine that by implanting itself in the grievance redress process or by making platforms share more information, the government can solve these problems. It could prove counterproductive in a country where the citizens still do not have a data privacy law to guard themselves against excesses committed by any party. Regulation has an important place in the scheme of things, and no one advocates giving a free pass to the digital platforms. But then, as this newspaper argued earlier, the laws to combat unlawful content are already in place. What is required is their uniform application. It is also far from reassuring that this government has had an uneasy, sometimes unpleasant, relationship with media in general. The appetite for criticism, so vital in a democracy, is just not there. Some weeks ago, the government had a run-in with Twitter after it defied orders to ban certain hashtags and handles. And given an environment where people are sensitive to content, the regulatory mechanism could become an operational nightmare. Worse, the casualties could be creativity and freedom of expression. The government would like to see itself as a watchdog of digital content in the larger public interest, but it comes across as a predator.
📰 Spurring a reawakening with National Science Day
Collectively, Indians have a responsibility to take forward the country’s rich and varied legacy of science
•National Science Day, which fell on February 28, commemorates a path-breaking discovery at the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Calcutta in 1928, that came to be known as the Raman Effect. Three more physicists from Calcutta, namely Jagadish Chandra Bose who was C.V. Raman’s senior, Satyendra Nath Bose and Meghnad Saha, both of whom were Raman’s juniors, had by then made major contributions that were globally acclaimed.
•But Raman’s discovery marks the pinnacle for which he would win the Nobel Prize in physics two years later, making him the most visible face of Indian science.
Pursuing scientific truth
•It seems very thoughtful and rational that our National Science Day celebrates a discovery and not the birthday of its discoverer. Raman, as a person, was not beyond criticism. The circumstances of his exit from Calcutta where he spent his most productive years, the reasons for his relinquishing the post of Director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore before completion of his term, differences with Meghnad Saha, and non-sharing of credit for his discovery with K.S. Krishnan make him appear as arrogant, and not above common human foibles.
•But none of these can diminish Raman’s unquestioned scientific prowess and his life-long devotion to the pursuit of scientific truth (through physics).
Objective assessment
•It is thanks to the untiring efforts of Dr. Rajinder Singh, noted historian of science from the University of Oldenburg, Germany, who has authored six books and 28 essays on Raman, that a clear picture of Raman and his time emerges.
•While Dr. Singh has dispelled with supporting evidence many myths such as Raman’s breaking into tears while accepting the Nobel Prize because he felt humiliated as the honour had to be received under the British flag, or that Raman had worked with very little equipment and insufficient support, these books, read together, (most of which are available in digital version) provide an objective assessment of Raman, the man and the scientist. Two books in particular, Nobel Laureate C.V. Raman’s Work on Light Scattering (Logos Verlag, Berlin, 2004) and C.V. Raman’s Laboratory and Discovery of the Raman Effect (Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 2018) analyse the process, essence and significance of his work. Since history judges a person by the peaks of his achievement, Raman’s standing as an outstanding physicist remains unscathed.
•India has progressed a great deal in about a century after the major advances made by the Bose(s), Saha and Raman. Even though none so far, working in India, has personally scaled those heights, our achievements, on the whole, on the application of science and technology in fields such as atomic energy, space research, agriculture and biotechnology have been impressive. Noted historians of science and practising scientists have also been articulating their views on how India can develop as a hub for world-class scientific and technological innovation.
•Two recent developments, namely the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) and the draft National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2020 (draft STIP), despite having limitations that characterise any government publication, underscore some of the pathways to this direction. The importance of languages has been highlighted in the NEP. S.N. Bose and others had been advocating from the 1940s for the use of the mother languages for science teaching and popularisation. This is an area that requires serious attention. Similarly, the setting up of the National Research Foundation, for instance, to encourage and fund research and development activities, hopefully with much greater and intensive involvement of our university system than hitherto, seems to be a step in the right direction.
Fostering research
•The draft STIP has also mooted substantial ideas in order to promote research and innovation and develop ‘a robust system for evidence and stakeholder-driven STI planning … and policy research in India’. The proposal for a Research Excellence Framework for higher educational institutions, once reconciled with the relevant provisions of the NEP, can make a qualitative difference. Likewise, fostering science and technology-enabled entrepreneurship and mainstreaming grassroot innovation and traditional knowledge systems (validated by modern scientific methods of evaluation and assessment) are proposals worth pursuing. It is hoped that the final document would seriously take cognisance of the comments and criticisms on the draft STIP and facilitate India transforming itself to a forward-looking, science-enabled and science-respecting nation.
•Though the state has a key role to play in this process, science requires to be handled with a light hand. The revised guidelines of the Education Ministry this January, about prior permission to be taken, under certain circumstances, before conducting even online/virtual conferences, etc., caused anxiety among some scientists and academics who had voiced their displeasure. Fortunately, this revision has been withdrawn.
Keeping the flame burning
•The celebration of National Science Day with the basic objective of spreading the message of science and its importance in improving the lives of people, must be taken forward in the days ahead and should spur a national reawakening instead of being just a ritual. India has a long history of secular enquiry and free thoughts. From Aryabhata, Varāhamihira and Bhāskarācārya to the great scientists of modern India, the tradition of illuminating the world of science continues. Illustrious women like Janaki Ammal (botanist), Asima Chatterjee (chemist), Bibha Chowdhuri (physicist) and Gagandeep Kang (medical scientist) have kept this flame burning. Collectively, we have to take forward the legacy instead of wasting our time indulging in obscurantism, unscientific and unsubstantiated claims. It is only then that the purpose of observing the Day will be fulfilled and the spirit of Raman’s unswerving dedication to science be honoured.
📰 More about Big Government than Big Tech
Under the IT Act new rules, it appears that the interest is largely about trying to force technologists to fall in line
•Last week, the Union Government issued a set of rules under the Information Technology Act, noting that it was superseding rules issued under Section 79 of that statute in 2011. Those earlier rules had specified the due diligence obligations that Internet intermediaries had to follow in order to qualify for the limited immunity for legal liability regarding user content, which Parliament had strengthened in 2008 when it amended that law.
Without discussion
•The notification of these new rules, however, do not merely represent the executive branch superseding previous subordinate rules under a law with newer regulation. They represent a dramatic, dangerous move by the Union Government towards cementing increased censorship of Internet content and mandating compliance with government demands regarding user data collection and policing of online services in India. This has happened in the absence of open and public discussion of the full swathe of regulatory powers the government has sought to exercise, and without any parliamentary study and scrutiny.
•Indeed, these rules at the outset appear unlawful even with respect to whether they could have been issued under the Information Technology Act in the manner chosen by the government, leave alone their constitutionality with respect to fundamental rights. The Union Government has chosen to pass these rules under the requirement to outline the due diligence that Internet intermediaries — ranging from telecom providers, search engines, Internet platforms hosting user generated content to cloud providers — have to follow in order to be able to claim their qualified legal immunity under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Curious stand
•The government’s gazette notification has further claimed that the rules were also issued under the legal authority to specific procedure for blocking web content under Section 69A of the IT Act. This is curious, given that rules overseeing government web content blocking powers have already been issued for that section in 2009, and not superseded. Indeed, they form the core of the increasing number of web content censorship orders issued by the Union Government in recent years, including the most recent controversial stand-off with Twitter following the farmer protests.
•The ability to issue rules under a statute — i.e. to frame subordinate legislation — is by its nature a limited, constrained power. When the Union Government issues subordinate rules, it is limited to the substantive provisions laid out by Parliament in the original act passed by the latter — the executive branch is subordinate to what Parliament has permitted it and cannot use its rule-making power to seek to issue primary legislation by itself.
Directives and mandates
•Unfortunately, with the present Internet content and social media rules, the Union Government has done precisely that. Instead of specifying the basic due diligence requirements intermediaries had to perform in order to make use of the Section 79 safe harbour provision, the executive branch has created new rules that apply only to “significant social media intermediaries” — a term that appears nowhere in the Information Technology Act.
•It has included mandates for retention of user data by such intermediaries for use by government agencies and clauses on how popular messaging services have to enable the tracing of the original creator of a message (which is regarded as not possible for end-to-end encrypted messaging services without introducing flaws in their systems) even though the sections in the law cited by the government do not give them that power.
•The rules have grown to include a chapter on how digital news sites have to be registered before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and further laid out a mechanism by which streaming video sites featuring original content (which are generally not regarded as intermediaries for the purposes of Internet law) have to agree to a government-supervised “self regulatory system”. This, even though digital news service registration is not required under the IT Act and streaming video content has not been included under the ambit of the Cinematograph Act. In any other situation, the package contained in this gazette notification last week would be instead included in a bill sent to Parliament for its consideration — and which would be regarded as ambitious and controversial for any administration.
The message is clear
•Why has the Union Government created this legally uncertain, sprawling house-of-cards-like regulatory instrument? To understand these new Internet content control rules — for that is what they essentially are — you need to not only see what they directly give to the government, but what the government is seeking to get done behind a shadow of regulatory pressure. It appears that the government wants to send a message to all Internet ecosystem players that they desire compliance with their desires — formal or informal — regarding what content should be taken down, along with a removal of any push back against over broad demands for user data and other surveillance orders by government agencies.
•The Government of India already has significant legal powers, with practically no institutionalised oversight or true checks and balances, to force censorship and surveillance on Internet platforms and other web services in India.
•However, the increasing public discussion of concerns regarding the usage of these powers and challenges being made by firms and impacted individuals against their abuse is something that the Union Government would like to avoid. Why issue direct formal orders when one can instead force compliance in less visible, more institutionalised ways? Indicating that the government has made up its mind to force these mandates by notifying them, even with doubtful legal validity, is a key signalling effect to Internet ecosystem players, especially firms keen to avoid public battles and smaller entities who do not have the resources or political position to be able to contest overboard government directives.
•The Union Government, when issuing these rules, made reference to increased global interest in regulating Big Tech. However, in advancing Internet content control interests and increased requirements around government demands for user data, while not advancing surveillance law reform or enacting a strong statutory data protection framework, it appears that the interest is more in advancing Big Government and trying to force technologists to fall in line, no matter the cost to our fundamental rights in our Internet age.
