Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Union Home Minister said that a judicial commission would be set up to conduct a probe into the violence in Manipur. The commission, headed by a retired High Court Chief Justice, would find the “causes” of violence and “fix responsibility”.
Addressing a press conference in Imphal on the fourth day of his trip to Manipur, the Home Minister termed the ongoing tension in the State as “ethnic violence”. Mr. Shah said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) would also conduct its own probe. Of all the cases registered so far, the CBI would select five and register a general case of conspiracy. “The special CBI team will probe the cases without any bias,” he said.
More than 2,000 first information reports (FIR) have been registered since the violence broke out on May 3. With many security agencies now at work in Manipur and to bring them on a common ground, an inter-agency unified command would be set up, Mr. Shah said.
It will be headed by retired Central Police Reserve Force Director Kuldiep Singh, who was appointed security adviser by the Manipur government soon after the violence began.
Editorial
At the root of India’s manufacturing challenge (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
The issue of manufacturing or services as the desirable path for India’s economy makes the rounds in public fora periodically. In the early part of this century, when India’s software exports were booming, it had been asked why India’s services sector should not leapfrog over manufacturing to propel the economy forward.
This proposal challenged the standard model of economic development, for, in most successful economies, industrial expansion had come first. The frustration of the Indian economic policy maker can be well understood.
The economic reforms of 1991 had almost exclusively focused on manufacturing, but the significant scaling down of tariffs and the dismantling of the ‘licence-permit Raj’ did not lead to an increase in the share of manufacturing in the economy.
Of course, India’s manufacturing sector ought not to be seen only in terms of its size. There has been a qualitative change after 1991. The range and quality of products manufactured in India have undergone an impressive increase.
The rising quality and variety of the goods produced, without the expansion of manufacturing in relation to the economy, suggests a rising inequality of income.
After the economic reforms of 1991, the next time manufacturing came into the government’s view was after 2014, when ‘Make in India’, with its emphasis on foreign direct investment, was launched.
More recently, there has been the Production-Linked Incentive scheme, which essentially subsidises production of certain products.
Though announced with fanfare, the first within months of the Narendra Modi government assuming office, the record of these schemes has not been impressive.
The first advance estimates of the national income for 2022-23 show manufacturing growth to be 1.3% for the year, less than that for agriculture and all main segments of services.
While the data unambiguously point to the role of the demonetisation of 2016 in the slowing of the manufacturing sector, the persistence of low rates of growth in the presence of policy initiatives that were focused on manufacturing point to something ‘structural’ holding back the sector in India.
Central Asian foreign policy multi-vectorism pays off (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
Between May 18 and 19, China hosted what was called the “C+C5 summit”, in the city of Xi’an (the first of its kind), which saw the participation of the leaders of five Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan).
The six countries then jointly signed the ‘Xi’an Declaration’ and issued a blueprint for the future development of China-Central Asia relations.
In their discussions, the six countries focused on the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road cooperation to be a ‘new starting point’.
In focus also were people-to-people exchanges, a ‘Cultural Silk Road’ programme, and issues of regional terrorism and extremism.
Importantly, the China-Central Asia Summit mechanism was officially inaugurated, which paves the way for future biennial summits between these countries. The next summit will be held in Kazakhstan in 2025.
Some may view this summit as testament to an ever-expanding Chinese influence in the region, which poses a challenge to Russia’s ambitions. Despite being a valid argument, it only partly reflects regional complexities and shifting dynamics.
In 2022, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that in the same year, Russian President Vladimir Putin had held more than 50 meetings (both online and in person) with Central Asian leaders.
The fact that all five Central Asian Presidents visited Moscow for the May 9 Victory Day parade indicates that these former Soviet republics intend to maintain balanced regional and international engagements.
To their credit, the Central Asian countries have been able to successfully implement a multi-vectored foreign policy that stretches beyond the Russia-China axis.
In the context of the post-Soviet states, this policy has been traditionally associated with their sovereignty vis-à-vis Russia, since it implies stronger economic and political ties with other centres of power.
Explainer
Who should own the world’s lithium? (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
The news of potentially significant reserves of lithium, an element needed to manufacture batteries used in electric cars and other renewable energy infrastructure, in Jammu and Kashmir has been welcomed universally.
Commentators have called this a boost for national prosperity and security without dismissing concerns about the potential social and environmental impacts.
India’s electric-vehicle (EV) market was valued at $383.5 million in 2021, and is expected to expand to $152.21 billion in 2030. India imported 450 million units of lithium batteries valued at $929.26 million (₹6,600 crore) in 2019-2020, which makes the development of the country’s domestic lithium reserves a matter of high stakes.
Scholars have argued that the ongoing global transition to low-carbon economies, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI), and 5G networks will greatly reshape global and regional geopolitics.
The access to and control over rare minerals, such as lithium and cobalt, will play a crucial role in these epochal changes.
In July 2013, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that the owner of the land has rights to everything beneath, “down to the centre of the earth”.
Yet, large areas of land, including forests — which make up more than 22% of India’s landmass — hills, mountains, and revenue wasteland are publicly owned.
The Supreme Court also recalled that the Union government could always ban private actors from mining sensitive minerals, as is already the case with uranium under the Atomic Energy Act 1962. In today’s context, lithium is as important as, if not more than, uranium.
The stories of two South American countries, Chile and Bolivia — which have the largest known reserves of lithium — are particularly instructive.
In Chile, the government has designated lithium as a strategic resource and its development has been made the exclusive prerogative of the state. The state has licensed only two companies — SQM and Albemarle — to produce lithium in the country.
In April 2023, Chile’s president Gabriel Boric announced a new “National Lithium Strategy”, which many in the corporate sector took to be a declaration of his intention to nationalise the industry.
News
India, Nepal sign pacts on energy, transport (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
The border between India and Nepal should not become a barrier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said as the two sides signed a series of agreements on energy and transport, including export of Nepal’s hydropower to Bangladesh through Indian territory.
Welcoming Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, who is on a four-day visit to India, Mr. Modi said the two countries should fast-track projects related to the Ramayana circuit.
Mr. Modi said India would take forward the 2022 India-Nepal vision document for cooperation in the power sector that sets an ambitious goal in India-Nepal power trade and transmission.
“Taking this forward, a long-term Power Trade Agreement has been signed between India and Nepal today. Under this agreement, we have set a target of importing 10,000 MW of electricity from Nepal in the coming years,”. Focusing on energy cooperation, Mr. Modi said that a “new pipeline will be constructed from Siliguri to Jhapa in eastern Nepal”.
The two sides signed a number of agreements, including an MoU between NHPC and VUCL (Vidyut Utpadan Company Ltd.) of Nepal, for the development of Phukot Karnali Hydroelectric Project and a Project Development Agreement for Lower Arun Hydroelectric Project between SJVN (India) and Investment Board of Nepal. Foreign Secretary Vinay Mohan Kwatra said the two PMs agreed to “achieve tangible and time-bound progress on the Pancheshwar multipurpose project”.
The two Prime Ministers participated through a video link in the ground breaking ceremony of the Gorakhpur-Bhutwal Transmission Line — on the Indian side. Mr. Kwatra announced that the two countries signed the revised Treaty of Transit under which Nepal will get to access to India’s inland waterways. He described it as a “once in a generation” pact.
India and China hold talks on LAC issue in New Delhi (Page no. 13)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
The impasse in negotiations to disengage along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) continued at the first in-person India-China border talks in more than four years, held in New Delhi.
Readouts from both sides following the 27th meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC) suggested no major headway in the slow-moving talks.
The last time New Delhi hosted WMCC talks was for the 13th round in January 2019. In February, both sides met in Beijing for the first in-person talks in China since the 14th round held in July 2019.
Joint Secretary (East Asia) of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Shilpak Ambule led the Indian delegation, while the Chinese side was led by Hong Liang, Director-General of the Boundary and Oceanic Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Mr. Hong also called on Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra.
A statement from the MEA said “the two sides reviewed the situation along the LAC in Western Sector of India-China border areas and discussed proposals for disengagement in remaining areas in a frank and open manner”.
A statement from the Chinese MFA made no mention of restoration of peace and normalising relations. Beijing has sought to delink the border from the rest of the relationship and called on India to put it in “the proper place”, a stand India has rejected describing current ties as “abnormal”.
Sedition law can be retained but with safeguards: Law Commission (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 2, Governance)
The Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with sedition needs to be retained but certain amendments could be made for greater clarity regarding its usage, the 22nd Law Commission has said in its report to the government.
The commission said sedition being a “colonial legacy” is not a valid ground for its repeal but in view of the misuse of Section 124A, the panel has recommended that the Centre issue model guidelines to curb any misuse.
In this context, it is also alternatively suggested that a provision analogous to Section 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] may be incorporated as a proviso to Section 154 of CrPC, which would provide the requisite procedural safeguard before filing of an FIR with respect to an offence under Section 124A of IPC,” chairman of the 22nd Law Commission Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (retired) said in his covering letter to Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.
According to the note to the Law Minister, the Law Commission received a reference from the Home Ministry through a letter dated March 29, 2016, addressed to the Department of Legal Affairs in the Law Ministry for a study of the usage of the provision of Section 124A and suggest amendments.
The Law Commission said the existence of laws such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Security Act (NSA) does not by implication cover all elements of the offence envisaged under Section 124A of the IPC.
In the absence of a provision like Section 124A of IPC, any expression that incites violence against the government would invariably be tried under the special laws and counter-terror legislation, which contain much more stringent provisions to deal with the accused.
World
U.S. and Taiwan ink trade deal as China issues warning (Page no. 15)
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
The United States and Taiwan signed a trade deal aimed at deepening economic relations between both sides — in a move that has sparked a warning from Beijing.
The U.S.-Taiwan Initiative on 21st Century Trade looks to boost trade by streamlining customs checks, improving regulatory procedures, and establishing anticorruption measures between the U.S. and the self-governing island of Taiwan, which China claims as part of its territory.
While the U.S. and Taiwan do not have official diplomatic relations, they maintain unofficial ties through the de facto U.S. embassy on the island, the American Institute in Taiwan.
The first agreement under the latest initiative was signed by representatives of the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, said the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) press office on Thursday.
But Beijing detests any hint of diplomatic relations between Taiwan and other governments. Relevant tasks are yet to be completed.... Taiwan will continue to move towards a comprehensive FTA (free trade agreement) with the United States to ensure Taiwan’s economic security.
Taiwan’s government has described the deal as “the most comprehensive” trade agreement signed with Washington since 1979.
China warned Washington earlier against signing any pact “with connotations of sovereignty or of an official nature with China’s Taiwan region.” The U.S. must not send the wrong signals to Taiwan independence forces in the name of trade.