Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
India has always been against war but “if it is imposed upon us, we will fight,” Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said in Arunachal Pradesh on January 3 as he inaugurated 28 infrastructure projects built by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO).
The projects built at a cost of ₹724 crore include 22 bridges, three roads and three miscellaneous projects spear across several States.
We are ensuring that the nation is protected from all threats. Our armed forces are ready and it is heartening to see that the BRO is walking shoulder-to-shoulder with them,” Mr. Singh said at a ceremony organised at Siyom Bridge on Along- Yinkiong road.
Highlighted the crucial role played by the BRO in infrastructure development in border areas, Mr. Singh said, “Recently, our forces effectively countered the adversary in the Northern sector and dealt with the situation with bravery and promptness.
This was made possible due to adequate infrastructural development in the region. This motivates us even more for the progress of far-flung areas.
The highlight of the event was inauguration of state of the art “100 metre-long, Class 70 steel arch superstructure Siyom bridge on Along-Yinkiong road over Siyom river”, the Defence Spokesperson Tezpur said in a statement.
This signature bridge is of strategic importance to our defence forces and will facilitate speedy induction of troops, heavy equipment and mechanised vehicles to forward areas of upper Siang district, Tuting and Yinkiong region and will also boost socio-economic development of the region.
Notably, the BRO completed the construction of these critical strategic projects in record time frame and many of these Projects have been constructed in a single working season using state-of-the-art technology, the Ministry said.
Out of these, eight have been constructed in Ladakh, four in Jammu and Kashmir, five in Arunachal Pradesh, three each in Sikkim, Punjab and Uttarakhand and two in Rajasthan.
Mr. Singh also virtually inaugurated three telemedicine nodes connected with Service hospitals through VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) satellite communications system, one at Mizoram and two in Ladakh and will provide prompt medical intervention for medical and surgical emergencies through telemedicine consultation. At the event, Mr. Singh also released a ‘compendium on new technologies’ that have been adopted by the BRO.
No need for extra curbs on free speech of Ministers: SC (Page no. 1)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Supreme Court on January 3, 2023 held there is no reason to impose “additional restrictions” on the right to free speech of Ministers, and the government is not vicariously liable for disparaging remarks made by them, even if the comments are traceable to state affairs or meant to protect the government.
“A statement by a Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protecting the government, cannot be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility,” Justice V. Ramasubramanian held in the main judgment of the Constitution Bench. The judgment was endorsed by Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna on the Bench.
It is not possible to extend this concept of collective responsibility to any and every statement orally made by a Minister outside the House of the People/Legislative Assembly.
The Prime Minister or the Chief Minister does not have disciplinary control over the members of the Council of Ministers... in a country like ours, where there is a multi-party system and where coalition Governments are often formed, it is not possible at all times for a Prime Minister/Chief Minister to take the whip whenever a statement is made by someone in the Council of Ministers,” Justice Ramasubramanian observed.
In a separate opinion, Justice Nagarathna differed with the leading judgment on the point, saying a Minister’s statement, if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the government, can be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility, “so long as such statement represented the view of the government too”.
Justice Ramasubramanian said the “reasonable restrictions” on free speech for citizens, including Ministers and public functionaries, were “exhaustive”.
Besides, the state has an affirmative duty to protect when there is a threat to personal liberty, even by a non-State actor. The fundamental right to free speech and right to dignity could be enforced against private parties.
Editorial
Preventing animal cruelty is a duty of the state (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 2, Government Policies and Interventions)
Soon, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India will deliver its verdict on the validity of Tamil Nadu’s law permitting the practice of jallikattu in the State. Usually held during the Pongal season, jallikattu is a sport where men compete against each other to hold on to the humps of agitated bulls that are released into an open arena.
In 2014, in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared jallikattu illegitimate.
The court found that the practice was cruel and caused the animal unnecessary pain and suffering. Since then, Tamil Nadu has made efforts to resurrect the sport’s legality. It is that act of revival which is now at stake.
Oral arguments made in the case showed us just how complicated some of the issues involved in the dispute are. In some ways, the hearings also underlined the deficiencies inherent in the Constitution when it comes to addressing questions of animal welfare.
Therefore, how the court chooses to resolve the questions posed to it could come to have a deep bearing on the future of animal rights and safety in our country.
None of the guarantees contained in Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights, are explicitly conferred on animals. Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) are bestowed on persons.
Until now, we have generally understood “persons” to mean human beings, or, in some cases, associations of human beings, such as corporations, partnerships, trusts, and the like.
No doubt, some of the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties, contained respectively in Parts IV and IVA of the Constitution, reflect a responsibility placed on the state and on human beings to protect and improve the natural environment. But these are unenforceable obligations.
Therefore, when efforts to legislate on animal welfare were first made, they did not emanate as much out of a belief that animals were vested with rights as they did from a more elementary ethical precept that our collective conscience ought to make it clear that it was morally wrong to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals. It was with this vision in mind that Parliament enacted the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA Act), 1960.
The PCA Act isn’t without its shortcomings. While it criminalises several types of actions that cause cruelty to animals, it exempts, for example, from its coverage the use of animals for experiments with a view to securing medical advancement.
It is crucial for India to embrace multi-domain operations (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 3, Defence)
The India-China skirmish on the Arunachal Pradesh border has brought the Chinese threat on the front burner again. The threat had never decreased, but faded in public consciousness due to electioneering, bridge collapses, yatras, G-20, etc.
Low-level and geographically restricted clashes will keep recurring. But what this should not do is to lull us into a complacent mindset that accepts such clashes, where the Indian jawan gives back more with sticks and fisticuffs than what he receives, as the likely future conflict scenario with China.
The threat, actually, is at the other extreme of technical advancement — in the concept of multi-domain operations (MDO).
The term MDO has entered India’s military lecture circuit big time; however, it is being bandied about loosely, with its true characteristics and import being understood by few.
MDO is not just actions on land, in sea, air, cyber, space and in the electromagnetic spectrum. It comprises operations conducted across multiple domains and contested spaces through convergence of capabilities to overcome an adversary’s strengths by presenting it with operational and/or tactical predicaments. This means having a common operating picture across all domains which forms the basis to decide the best tool to address a given task.
Hence, it is not one service using capabilities in multiple domains to do a task (as is happening now), but the best positioned and capable operator of any service doing it across any domain.
Thus, an Army coastal missile battery could be tasked to strike an enemy naval vessel detected by the radar of an Air Force aircraft; or an Air Force’s armed unmanned aerial vehicle on an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission could be diverted to use its weapons against an Army target detected by a naval/civilian satellite; alternatively, a cyber weapon could be used. In simple terms, the MDO architecture uses any sensor and the best positioned shooter to accomplish objectives; the technical complexity and the command, control and communication (C3) structure required can well be imagined.
MDO and its C3 structure would have inputs from all sensors to come up with an optimum engagement solution using artificial intelligence.
This demands three things. First, all sensors (and other information input sources) must be capable of being hosted on the MDO architecture. Second, all solution providers (executors) must be able to receive inputs and instructions from the MDO C3 structure and carry them out. And third, if the link to the main structure is not available (say, jammed by the enemy), the mission command characteristics of distributed control would come into play so that operations continue.
Overly deferential (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
It is an oft-repeated judicial view that courts must defer to the elected government’s judgment in matters of economic and social policy.
Their interventions are usually limited to instances where executive decisions are palpably arbitrary or patently illegal. In this backdrop, it is no surprise that four of the five judges on a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court deferred to the government’s wisdom in dramatically announcing the move on November 8, 2016 to demonetise all ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes that were then in circulation.
The scope of judicial intervention was only to examine the decision-making process, but the majority has given its uncritical endorsement to the process, terming it to be free of flaws.
It has upheld the government’s power to demonetise notes without quantitative restrictions and accepted the claim that there was adequate consultation between the Union government, which initiated the proposal, and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). What might seem distressing about the majority verdict is that it has made light of the enormous suffering of the people that demonetisation entailed.
While there are observations that recognise the possibility of hardship and that demonetisation may have ultimately been a failure, these are limited by context to say neither individual suffering nor errors of judgment can be cited to invalidate the action.
The majority has brushed aside substantial arguments based on proportionality, holding that demonetisation survives every test for proportionality: there was a legitimate purpose (unearthing fake currency and hoarded wealth and combating terror funding), there was a nexus between the action and the objectives, and the court did not have the expertise to suggest a less intrusive way of achieving these objectives.
However, it does not properly address the question on whether the adverse consequences could have been limited. It is unfortunate that the court had nothing critical to say about the government failing to anticipate the ruinous effect of extinguishing the value of 86% of available currency on the economy and the immense miseries it heaped on the population.
Explainer
On the legality of Israel’s occupation (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, International Relations)
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) ended 2022 by passing a resolution that asked the body’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), to render its opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian land.
The resolution was passed with 87 member countries voting favourably, as opposed to 26 countries, including the U.S. and Israel, voting against it. India was one of the 53 countries that abstained from the vote.
Official Israeli statistics show that Jewish settlers existed in historical Palestine even before the state of Israel was declared in 1948.
A UNGA resolution had earlier sought to partition British mandate Palestine. But as the UN partition plan was rejected by the Arabs and the British mandate was coming to an end, Zionists went ahead declaring independence, triggering the first Arab-Israel war.
When the war was over, Israel had captured more territories than what the UN plan had proposed and some 7,00,000 Palestinians were displaced. Historical Palestine was divided into the State of Israel (including West Jerusalem), the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) that was taken over by Jordan and the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt).
Tensions kept rising between Israel and three countries in the region — Egypt, Jordan, and Syria — which led to the six-day war of 1967.
The war resulted in Israel capturing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, along with Syria’s Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.
While the Sinai Peninsula was later returned to Egypt, other captured areas of Palestinian and Syrian territory remain under Israel’s military control.
Later, Israel also declared the whole of Jerusalem as its “eternal, undivided capital”. While Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it’s external borders are still controlled by Israel and Egypt.
While the UN Security Council passed a resolution in late 1967 stating that Israel must withdraw from the territories it seized in the war, it is yet to happen and the fate of Palestinian self-determination remains uncertain. Palestinians seek the West Bank as the heartland of a future independent State.
How is India moving to regulate online gaming? (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, Government Policies and Interventions)
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has released draft amendments in relation to online gaming.
The idea is to ensure that online games are in conformity with Indian laws and to safeguard users against potential harm.
The Minister of State at MeitY Rajeev Chandrasekhar stated that the draft proposes a self-regulatory mechanism which, in future, may also regulate the content of online gaming. Feedback is invited until January 17.
The proposals are aimed at safeguarding the interests of users by introducing set procedures and norms for verification and user engagement. More importantly, the draft proposal defines what constitutes an ‘online game’.
It is “a game that is offered on the internet and is accessible by a user through a computer resource if he makes a deposit with the expectation of earning winnings”.
‘Winning’ constitutes any prize, in cash or kind, intended to be given to the participant “on the performance of the user and in accordance with the rules of such online game”.
This addresses the discourse in the sector about the definitions of a ‘game of skill’ and ‘game of chance’. The proposal endeavours to provide for greater transparency.
The game operators would have to verify users on the platform and provide them with the terms of services. For the monetary aspect of it, operators would have to inform the user about the policy related to withdrawal or refund of their deposit, measures taken for its protection, the manner and distribution of winnings and the fees and other charges to be paid by the user.
They would also have to be informed about the risk of potential financial loss and addiction associated with the game. Addiction is to be combated using repeated warning messages should the user exceed a reasonable duration while playing a certain game.
Before hosting or publishing a game, the platform would have to verify it from the self-regulatory body it is associated with. It would then be required to carry a registration mark on all its recognised online games.
The platform is expected to appoint a key management personnel or senior employee as its Chief Compliance Officer who would be entrusted with coordinating with law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with their orders or requisitions.
Business
India said to eye $17 bn cut in food, fertilizer subsidy spend (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
India aims to cut spending on food and fertiliser subsidies to ₹3.7 trillion ($44.6 billion) in the fiscal year starting April, a 26% cut from this year, two government officials said, to rein in a fiscal deficit that ballooned during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Food and fertiliser subsidies alone account for about one-eighth of India's total budget spending of ₹39.45 trillion this fiscal year, but reductions in food subsidies in particular may prove politically sensitive with elections looming on the horizon.
The government expects to budget about ₹2.3 trillion for food subsidies in the coming fiscal year, compared with ₹2.7 trillion for the current year to March 31.
Spending on fertiliser subsidies will likely fall to about ₹1.4 trillion, according to one of the officials and a third government official. That compares with almost ₹2.3 trillion this year.The officials declined to be named because the information was not public.
The finance ministry declined to comment, while the food and fertiliser ministries did not immediately reply to requests for comment.
A large part of the savings will come from the end of a COVID 19-era free food scheme, which will be replaced with a lower-spending programme.
That will effectively halve the free rations available to the poor in a year with a series of State elections, while general elections loom in 2024.
The government is eager to tame its fiscal deficit, which is targeted at 6.4% of GDP for the current fiscal year.That is far above the average of 4% to 4.5% over the past decade, excluding the pandemic years when spending surged and the ratio peaked at 9.3%.
The government plans to shave at least half a percentage point from the ratio in 2023/24.The subsidy numbers will be announced on February 1, when Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presents the 2023/24 federal budget in Parliament.
The three officials said the latest subsidies estimates for 2023/24 may be adjusted when a final round of discussions takes place, by mid-January.
Govt. raises windfall tax on crude oil, export of diesel, ATF (Page no. 14)
(GS Paper 3, Economy)
The government has raised the windfall profit tax levied on domestically produced crude oil as well as on the export of diesel and ATF, in line with firming international oil prices.
The levy on crude oil produced by companies such as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has been increased to ₹2,100 per tonne from ₹1,700 per tonne, the order dated January 2.
Crude oil pumped out of the ground and from below the seabed is refined and converted into fuel like petrol, diesel and aviation turbine fuel (ATF).
The government has also raised the tax on the export of diesel to ₹6.5 per litre, from ₹5 and the same on overseas shipments of ATF to ₹4.5 a litre, from ₹1.5 a litre.
Tax rates were cut at the last fortnightly review on December 16, following a decline in global crude oil prices. International oil prices have since then firmed up, necessitating the raising of windfall tax.
India first imposed windfall profit taxes on July 1, joining a growing number of nations that tax super normal profits of energy companies.
At that time, export duties of ₹6 per litre ($12 per barrel) each were levied on petrol and ATF and ₹13 a litre ($26 a barrel) on diesel.
A ₹23,250 per tonne ($40 per barrel) windfall profit tax on domestic crude production was also levied.The export tax on petrol has since been scrapped.
The tax rates are reviewed every fortnight based on average oil prices in the previous two weeks.Reliance Industries Ltd., which operates India's largest only-for-export oil refinery at Jamnagar in Gujarat, and Rosneft-backed Nayara Energy are primary exporters of fuel in the country.
The government levies tax on windfall profits made by oil producers on any price they get above a threshold of $75 per barrel.
The levy on fuel exports is based on cracks or margins that refiners earn on overseas shipments. These margins are primarily a difference between the international oil price realised and the cost.