📰 Radio telescope floating in Karnataka waters throws light on nature of early stars and galaxies
•SARAS 3, a radio telescope designed and built at the Raman Research Institute (RRI) here, has provided clues to the nature of the universe’s first stars and galaxies.
•Using data from the telescope which has been deployed over the Dandiganahalli Lake and Sharavati backwaters since 2020, astronomers and researchers have been able to determine properties of radio luminous galaxies formed just 200 million years post the Big Bang, a period known as the Cosmic Dawn.
•Researchers Saurabh Singh from the RRI and Ravi Subrahmanyan from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, along with collaborators at the University of Cambridge and University of Tel Aviv, have used data from SARAS 3 to throw light on the energy output, luminosity, and masses of the first generation of galaxies that are bright in radio wavelengths.
Deeper insight
•“The results from the SARAS 3 telescope are the first time that radio observations of the averaged 21-centimetre line have been able to provide an insight into the properties of the earliest radio loud galaxies that are usually powered by supermassive black holes,” said Subrahmanyan, former Director of the RRI and currently with CSIRO. Explaining the findings, Professor Singh said SARAS 3 had improved the understanding of astrophysics of Cosmic Dawn by telling astronomers that less than 3% of the gaseous matter within early galaxies was converted into stars, and that the earliest galaxies that were bright in radio emission were also strong in X-rays, which heated the cosmic gas in and around the early galaxies.
•The results of the findings have been published in the journal Nature Astronomy.
•In March, the SARAS 3 team used the same data to reject claims of the detection of an anomalous 21-cm signal from Cosmic Dawn made by the EDGES radio telescope developed by researchers from Arizona State University and MIT, the U.S.
📰 Centre plans to document cultures, social practices of indigenous, tribal societies
Experts make a presentation before President Droupadi Murmu; plan is to encourage sociologists, anthropologists and researchers to research and document practices of their own communities
•The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), along with the Union government, is now pushing for the “re-documentation” of the cultures and social practices of indigenous and tribal societies in India, existing scholarly literature on which, it says, is heavily reliant on the body of knowledge created by colonising governments.
•The plan is to encourage more sociologists, anthropologists and researchers from India’s indigenous and tribal communities to research and document the cultural, social and historical practices of their own communities in a bid to replace the colonial-era body of work on this subject, NCST Chairperson Harsh Chouhan explained, adding that this will enable the government to understand tribal societies, identity and rights better.
•Professors, Tribal Research Institute (TRI) Directors, researchers and other academics who have been attending a two-day workshop this week on the way forward to achieve this goal, also met with President Droupadi Murmu on Monday night at the Rashtrapati Bhavan for a presentation to her, after which Ms. Murmu launched a book compiling unheard stories of the sacrifice and bravery with which tribal communities and leaders resisted British rulers.
•During the closing remarks of the workshop, Ms. Murmu said, “This should not be the end. It should be the beginning of efforts to hold similar events and workshops across the country.”
•She added that she hoped this workshop would inspire youth to research and write about the histories and cultures of their own communities.
Valuable knowledge
•From ways to treat illnesses and ways to make weapons to ways of protecting nature and ways of passing along knowledge through community songs, Ms. Murmu said that the knowledge of tribal communities needs to be included in the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) that the National Education Policy is now focusing on, and that this knowledge of tribal communities will play an important role in making India a “knowledge superpower”.
A delay in the provision of marriage rights to same-sex couples would fall foul of constitutional guarantees and judgments. It is time that India reviews its existing legal architecture in order to legalise marriages irrespective of gender identity and sexual orientation
•The Supreme Court on November 25 sought the government’s response to pleas to allow solemnisation of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In this article dated June 19, 2021, Manuraj Shunmugasundaram elaborates on the international precedents for same-sex marriage and calls for expanding the scope of marriage to include members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
•Last month, when the cases surrounding the question of same-sex marriages came up before the High Court of Delhi, the Union Government was found to be dithering. The Solicitor General of India made himself available only to request the court to have the matter adjourned on the ground that it was not urgent. Though the Union Government argued that the matter was not important in the context of the second wave of COVID-19 cases, it overlooked the basic notion that the plight of persons in same-sex and queer relationships looking after each other — without the legal protection of marital relationships — was exacerbated by the pandemic. In any case, it is a matter of some concern that the Union Government does not find urgency in a matter of extending civil rights to a class of persons who have approached a constitutional court. Nevertheless, given the march of law — both international and domestic — in the direction of expanding human rights, jurisprudence necessarily means that the provision of marriage rights to same-sex and queer couples is only a matter of time. Any further delay in doing so would fall foul of our constitutional guarantees, judgments rendered by various High Courts and evolving international jurisprudence. The last two decades have witnessed tremendous progress in establishing civil rights for the LGBTQIA+ community.
International jurisprudence
•In 2005, the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Minister of Home Affairs and Another vs Fourie and Another; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project and Eighteen Others vs Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2005] ZACC 19 , unanimously held that the common law definition of marriage i.e. “a union of one man with one woman” was inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Consequently, the Parliament of South Africa was given 12 months to amend the Marriage Act 25 of 1961, failing which the Marriage Act would stand amended, by virtue of the decision of the Constitutional Court, to include the words “or spouse” after the words “or husband”. As a result of the verdict, the Civil Union Act, 2006 was enacted, enabling the voluntary union of two persons above 18 years of age, by way of marriage.
•In 2007 in Australia, the reforms to civil rights of queer community were prompted by the Honourable Michael Kirby (then judge of the High Court of Australia) writing to the Attorney-General of Australia asking for the judicial pension scheme to be extended to his gay partner of 38 years (at that time). After initial opposition from the Federal Government, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – General Law Reform) Act 2008 came to be enacted to provide provide equal entitlements for same-sex couples in matters of, inter alia , social security, employment and taxation.
•Similarly, in England and Wales, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 enabled same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies or with religious rites.
•More recently, in 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. The case of Obergefell vs Hodges ushered in a landmark shift in the American position and allowing same-sex marriages to be recognised and treated on a par with opposite-sex marriages.
•While doing so, the Supreme Court of the United States held the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples to be a “grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians”. Across the world, the recognition of the unequal laws discriminating against the LGBTQIA+ community has acted as a trigger to reform and modernise legal architecture to become more inclusive and equal.
Courts and civil rights
•In India, marriages solemnised under personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 , Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and so on. At present, though same-sex and queer marriages are not clearly recognised in India, we are not bereft of judicial guidance.
•In the case of Arunkumar and Sreeja vs The Inspector General of Registration and Ors. [W.P.(MD)No. 4125 of 2019 & W.P.(MD)No. 3220 of 2019], the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras employed a beneficial and purposive interpretation holding that the term ‘bride’ under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 includes transwomen and intersex persons identifying as women. Therefore, a marriage solemnised between a male and a transwoman, both professing the Hindu religion, is deemed to be a valid marriage under the Act. The import of this judgment cannot be overstated as it expands the scope of a term used in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a progressive manner and sets the stage for re-imagining marriage rights of the LGBTQIA+ community.
•The judgment of the Madras High Court builds on the tenets laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. and Others AIR 2018 SC 1933 (Hadiya case), wherein the right to choose and marry a partner was considered to be a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. By doing so, the Supreme Court held that the “intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable” and that “society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners”.
•The only logical interpretation from reading these cases together, it is apparent that any legal or statutory bar to same-sex and queer marriages must necessarily be held to be unconstitutional and specifically violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. No longer can the position of the Union Government that marriage is a bond between “a biological man and a biological woman” be tenable.
Expanding scope of marriage
•The domain of marriages, including religious marriages, cannot be immune to reform and review. Self-respect marriages were legalised in Tamil Nadu (and subsequently, in Puducherry) through amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
•Self-respect marriages, commonly conducted among those who are part of the Dravidian Movement, have done away with priests and religious symbols such as fire or saptapadi . Instead, solemnisation of self-respect marriages only requires an exchange of rings or garlands or tying of the mangalsutra. Such reform of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to bring self-respect marriages under its very umbrella, is seen as a strong move towards breaking caste-based practices within the institution of marriage.
•Similarly, understanding the needs of the LGBTQIA+ community today, the law must now expand the institution of marriage to include all gender and sexual identities.
•At least 29 countries in the world have legalised same-sex marriage.
•It is time that India thinks beyond the binary and reviews its existing legal architecture in order to legalise marriages irrespective of gender identity and sexual orientation.
📰 Loss and Damage decisions, pitfalls and promises
•A major takeaway from COP27 in Egypt, as far as loss and damage (L and D) is concerned, is the decision relating to new funding arrangements focusing on L and D — those particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.
•The decision includes a transitional committee to prepare elements relating to the operationalisation of the new funding arrangements to be adopted at COP28. The decision restores the faith of countries, especially those vulnerable, in the process of multilateralism. The committee will aim to identify and expand sources of funding, which demonstrates a lack of clarity on the source of funding (adequate and predictable) accruing to the new fund only. There is a question mark over the new L and D fund with non-compliance by developed countries as far as climate finance commitment (mobilising $100 billion per year by 2020) is concerned. The new funding arrangements will complement the existing arrangements and include sources, funds, processes and initiatives under and outside the Convention and the Paris Agreement, which would assist in mobilising new and additional resources. This dilutes the consistent demand raised at COP27, and outside of it by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to set up a dedicated loss and damage response fund, which would be on top of existing climate finance commitments.
•The decision again recognises the mitigation-centric nature of the history of climate change negotiations to be suiting the agenda of developed countries. It says restricting the global average temperature rise to below 1.5° Celsius is essential to limiting future loss and damage.
•The mitigation-centric nature of the negotiation can be traced to Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1992. Adaptation as the second pillar of the climate change regime is possible once ‘stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations is achieved at a level that prevents dangerous human-induced interference with the climate system and allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change’. L and D could gain traction after two decades of climate change negotiations at Paris 2015. Article 8(1) only makes the party recognise the importance of averting, minimising, and addressing L and D associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events.
Past, present and the future
•In the entire climate change negotiations, the developed countries have consistently opposed being made liable for climate-change related adverse effects. The basis for their contribution to various funds so far is the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR). For global environmental degradation, they only acknowledge their responsibility in view of the pressures their societies place on the environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command, according to research papers.
•The compensation aspect involves a serious legal hurdle of establishing causal relations between the injurer and the victim since the adverse effects of climate change occur substantially later than the greenhouse gas emissions that cause them. During the negotiation process for the UNFCCC in 1991, AOSIS, which is at the forefront for the cause of loss and damage, “unsuccessfully” tried to include the establishment of an international insurance pool as a ‘collective loss-sharing scheme to compensate the most vulnerable small island and low-lying coastal developing countries for loss and damage arising from sea level rise’. Funding was to come from assessed contributions according to a ‘formula modelled on the 1963 Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, with 50% based on parties’ relative contributions to emissions in the year prior to a contribution year, and 50% based on parties’ relative shares of gross national product in the year prior to the contribution year’.
Taxing fossil fuel firms
•The realisation of the 1991 proposal would have addressed at least who pays for the L and D. But the concept of an international insurance pool requires more research and deliberation amongst major emitters in developed and developing countries. In Egypt, AOSIS, instead of insisting on an international insurance pool, demanded a dedicated L and D Response Fund. It wanted funding from governments on a grant basis, which would be on top of existing climate finance commitments. The fund would also draw upon other potential sources, which include, as UN Chief Antonio Guterres advocates, a windfall tax on oil and gas companies’ profits. The idea of taxing fossil fuel oil and gas companies needs more research as it indicates an alternative to the nation-state approach of climate change negotiations. The idea highlights that ‘substantial emissions have come from fossil fuels sourced from non-Annex I countries such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Iran, Brazil, and Mexico, and from nations that are not large-scale emitters, such as Nigeria, Venezuela, Kuwait, Angola, Malaysia, and Libya’.
•The German-backed “Global Shield Scheme against climate risks”, is a part of COP27’s decision. The Shield is aimed at increasing pre-arranged finance to be disbursed before or just after disasters happen. The AOSIS favours a dedicated L and D response fund which would help disburse funding from different propositions, including the Global Shield, and avoid a piecemeal approach. The other probable avenues to address L and D are litigation, but the issues of causation, attribution and standing appear to be potential obstacles, at the domestic and international levels.
📰 India, France discuss defence industrial ties, ‘Make in India’
Rajnath Singh and his French counterpart Sebastien Lecornu review military cooperation between the two countries and seek to increase maritime cooperation and bilateral exercises
•India and France on Monday discussed defence industrial cooperation with a focus on ‘Make in India’ and means to strengthen maritime cooperation and increase the scope and complexity of bilateral exercises. This was discussed during the fourth India-France annual defence dialogue chaired by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his French counterpart, Sebastien Lecornu, here.
•“During the dialogue, one of the key areas of discussion was defence industrial cooperation with a focus on ‘Make in India’. Future collaborations and potential co-production opportunities were discussed. The Ministers agreed that the technical groups from both the countries should meet early next year and take the key cooperation issues forward,” a Defence Ministry statement said. This is the first visit of Mr. Lecornu to India as French Minister of Armed Forces.
•“A wide range of bilateral, regional and defence industrial cooperation issues were discussed during the dialogue,” Mr. Singh said on Twitter.
•The Ministers reviewed the ongoing military-to-military cooperation, which has increased substantially in recent years, the statement said, also noting that they recognised their convergences on a number of “strategic and defence issues and shared the commitment to work together on enhancing cooperation in bilateral, regional and multilateral fora, with a focus on the Indo-Pacific region”.
•France is the current chair of the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) and Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) and both countries cooperate closely in these fora.
•During the two-day visit, Mr. Lecornu made a day-long trip to the headquarters of the Southern Naval Command in Kochi on Sunday and also went aboard the indigenously built aircraft carrier INS Vikrant. “The French Minister acknowledged India’s indigenous potential and self-reliance. The discussions ranged from enhancing cooperation in areas of mutual interest to the maritime challenges in the IOR,” the Navy said in a statement.
•The visiting French Minister also met External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.
•“The Armed Forces Minister’s visit to India reaffirms France’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific and India’s centrality in the French strategy for the region,” the French Embassy said in a statement. It comes in a year that has seen an acceleration of the French and Indian armed forces’ endeavours towards even greater interoperability through joint Air, Navy and Army exercises, such as IMEX 22 in March, Varuna in March-April, and the recently concluded Garuda in October-November, it noted.
•The two Air Forces recently held their bilateral Air Exercise ‘Garuda’ at Air Force Station, Jodhpur.
•Ahead of the dialogue, Mr. Lecornu visited the National War Memorial and paid tribute to India’s soldiers who have laid down their lives in the line of duty and also inspected a triservice guard of honour.
📰 Still a nightmare for domestic violence survivors
•Just ahead of the International Day for Elimination of All Forms of Violence against Women (November 25), the brutal murder and mutilation of a young woman by her partner has drawn attention to intimate partner violence, also recognised under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (PWDVA) as a kind of domestic violence. Many questions are being raised. Why did she choose him? Why did she not leave? As evidence of her help-seeking efforts surface, we should also be asking this: why were these not effective?
•Domestic violence is a punishable offence under Indian law. It is a violation of human rights. Yet, the latest round of the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-21) reveals that we live in a society where violence against women persists to such an extent that 32% of ever-married women aged 18-49 years have ever experienced emotional, physical, or sexual violence committed by their husband, with more rural than urban women reporting experiences of domestic violence. This does not even capture the prevalence of violence by other family members too.
•Over 17 years ago the PWDVA, a progressive legislation, was passed, promising a joined-up approach — involving civil and criminal protections — to support and protect women from violence within the household, not just from husbands. But despite the law existing on paper, women are still largely unable to access the law in practice. Its promise and provisions are unevenly implemented, unavailable and out of reach for most Indian women.
•The most disheartening reality is that despite almost a third of women being subject to domestic violence, the National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-21) reports that only 14% of women who have experienced domestic violence have ever sought help; and this number is much lower in the rural areas. In a country where domestic violence is a crime, where there are multiple laws explicitly designed to protect women against violence, why is it that most women survivors of domestic violence never seek help?
Questions and responses
•Our research in Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu aims to better understand ‘help seeking’ and the everyday realities, obstacles, prejudices and fears that women experience around sharing and reporting experiences of violence. Simple and well-meaning questions — “Why didn’t you leave earlier?” “Why didn’t you tell someone about the violence earlier?” — can have the most complicated and contradictory responses.
•Women were hopeful that things would change, that they could change their husband’s behaviour, that he would listen to them. Crucially women did not want to be a ‘burden’ on others, in particular their families. ‘My mother has a lot of worries, she has her own life so I didn’t want to add to her own worries, with mine.’ By naming the violence they experienced, women believed that they would become ‘a problem’ or a source of ‘tension’ for their families, in bringing them shame and dishonour, irrespective of the survivor’s level of education, caste, or class. For migrant women, transpeople or those with several sisters, or ill, older or deceased parents, it was felt even more acutely that the perpetrator’s violence was their individual responsibility to manage.
On seeking help
•When it comes to help seeking, we found two main groups of women — those who shared experiences of violence within six months, and those who shared after five years or more. The first group of women mainly turned to their parents who, in a majority of cases, insisted on their daughter preserving the family environment which they should do by ‘adjusting’ to, or accommodating their husband’s (and his family’s) needs better. In a minority of cases, the daughter’s welfare was prioritised over the well-being of the ‘the family’ and steps were taken to help mediate or exit the relationship, and much more infrequently approach the police and lawyers.
•For survivors who took longer to seek help, the actions of relatives or neighbours who witnessed the violence were often pivotal in transforming their situations. So were key ‘turning’ or ‘tipping’ points such as a survivor’s heightened concerns for their children’s safety, the discovery of a husband’s affair or when violence became “too much” and required medical assistance. Waiting until such a point before seeking help was more likely for survivors who struggled to imagine exiting a relationship due to financial insecurity and/or patriarchal norms concerning property ownership.
•So ingrained are social norms about gender inequality that NFHS-5 data reports that women are more likely than men to justify a scenario in which it is acceptable for a husband to beat or hit his wife. As one interviewee explained, ‘the way we are conditioned, it was hard to complain about any suffering’. Though survivors who did (finally) confide in relatives and friends about domestic violence described feeling a ‘sense of a relief’ and that a ‘burden had been lifted’, giving them new ‘hope’ that things might change.
•Whilst sharing experiences of violence was an incredibly powerful step for women, actually transforming their violent domestic experiences and accessing services and support provided by the state and non-state actors proved to be an arduous roller coaster of emotions, promises, uncertainty, fear and disappointment. With few safe houses across India, the simple reality was that many women have nowhere else to go, and access to legal justice through the courts was a material possibility only for women with independent wealth and connections or those supported by specialist non-governmental organisations.
•So, for many survivors, transforming their situation depended on securing their economic self-sufficiency by pursuing new skills and livelihood opportunities.
Role of the police
•Women who reported experiences of violence to the police were cynical about the outcome. Though a small minority had positive experiences, for the majority of those we interviewed, the police were part of the problem rather than a solution to violence. Across the States, we heard that the police were more likely to send women back to violent households to reconcile with the perpetrator or use violence against perpetrators as a deterrent instead of filing an official complaint or connecting women to protection officers and other service providers, as the PWDVA outlines they should. Several States are yet to implement Protection officers. And where they are in post, they are under resourced, under-skilled and overworked, making their remit impossible.
•While sharing experiences of violence was a powerful step for women, accessing services and support often resulted in uncertainty, fear and disappointment.
•Women know all too well that the state serves patriarchal and heteronormative interests first. The state is failing women. Even whilst its legislature recognises that domestic violence is a crime, and civil remedies exist through protection orders, managing the fallout of domestic violence is still being subcontracted to survivors and the family. That is the biggest crime being committed against women today.
📰 Why was Google sued for its location tracking practices?
How did Google’s settlement with the Attorney-Generals of 40 U.S. States make history? How is the tech giant planning to improve its privacy features with respect to location tracking disclosures?
•On November 14, Google reached an agreement with the Attorney-Generals of 40 U.S. States to pay a historic $391.5 million settlement, over its location tracking practices, Associated Press reported. The multi-million dollar settlement, which was led by Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum and Nebraska AG Doug Peterson, is the largest attorney general-led consumer privacy settlement.
What is the lawsuit about?
•Google was found to violate state consumer protection laws by misleading its users about its location tracking practices since at least 2014. The company misled consumers into thinking they had turned off location tracking, when, in fact, the company continued to collect their location information and use that for advertising. “They have been crafty and deceptive,” Oregon Attorney-General Rosenblum said in a release. “For years Google has prioritised profit over their users’ privacy,” she added. Location data is a key part of Google’s digital advertising business. The company uses the personal and behavioural data it collects to build detailed user profiles and target them with ads. In fact, location data is among the most sensitive and valuable personal information Google collects. Even a limited amount of location data can expose a person’s identity, routines, and can be used to infer personal details, the release noted.
When was it sued?
•The states’ investigation was triggered by an Associated Press story in 2018, which found that Google continued to track people’s location data even after they turned off location tracking by disabling a feature called “location history.” Arizona Attorney-General Mark Brnovich filed the first state action against Google in May 2020 when he slammed the company for misleading its users. Google settled the case with Arizona for $85 million last month. Yet by then, Attorney-Generals of other states and the District of Columbia filed their individual lawsuits against the search giant for deceiving users.
What does this mean for Google?
•As part of the settlement, Google has agreed to significantly improve its location tracking disclosures and user controls starting next year. The company has also been asked to be more transparent about its practices. Google must show additional information to users whenever they turn a location-related account setting ‘on’ or ‘off’. The company is not allowed to hide any key information about location tracking to its users and it must give them details about the types of location data it collects and how it is used, at an enhanced “Location Technologies” webpage.
Will Google make any changes?
•The company is creating a single, comprehensive information hub to highlight key location settings and help people make informed choices about their data. Google will put additional disclosures on their Activity controls and Data & Privacy pages. “We will be making updates in the coming months to provide even greater controls and transparency over location data,” Google said in a blog post. The search giant will also allow its users to easily turn off their Location History and Web & App Activity settings and delete their past data. The company will continue to delete Location History data for users who have not recently contributed new Location History data to their account. For users setting up new accounts, the company will provide a more detailed explanation of what Web & App Activity is, what information it includes, and how it helps their Google experience, the company said in the blog.
