💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Governance, Transparency & Accountability, Citizens Charters

  • A pandemic in an unequal India

    Context

    The official strategies to deal with the virus place the responsibility on citizens, a majority without privilege, to fight the virus.

    The poor disproportionately affected

    • If the COVID-19 pandemic lashes India with severity, it will not be just the middle class who will be affected.
    • India’s impoverished millions are likely to overwhelmingly bear the brunt of the suffering which will ensue.
    • Inequality and impact of a pandemic: The privileged Indian has been comfortable for too long with some of the most unconscionable inequalities in the planet.
    • But with the pandemic, each of these fractures can decimate the survival probabilities and fragile livelihoods of the poor.

    Inadequate capacity of the health system  

    • Low investment in public health: India’s investments in public health are among the lowest in the world, and most cities lack any kind of public primary health services.
    • A Jan Swasthya Abhiyan estimate is that a district hospital serving a population of two million may have to serve 20,000 patients, but they are bereft of the beds, personnel and resources to do this. Few have a single ventilator.
    • The poor left with meagre services: India’s rich and middle-classes have opted out of public health completely, leaving the poor with unconscionably meagre services.
    • The irony is that a pandemic has been brought into India by people who can afford plane tickets, but while they will buy private health services, the virus will devastate the poor who they infect and who have little access to health care.

    No planning and preparation by the state

    • Official strategies placing responsibility on citizens: Most of the official strategies place the responsibility on the citizen, rather than the state, to fight the pandemic.
    • No preparation by the states: The state did too little in the months it got before the pandemic reached India for expanding greatly its health infrastructure for testing and treatment.
    • This includes planning operations for food and work; security for the poor; for safe transportation of the poor to their homes; and for special protection for the aged, the disabled, children without care and the destitute.

    What must be done?

    • 25 day’s minimum wage: For two months, every household in the informal economy, rural and urban, should be given the equivalent of 25 days’ minimum wages a month until the lockdown continues, and for two months beyond this.
    • Pensions must be doubled and home-delivered in cash.
    • There should be free water tankers supplying water in slum shanties throughout the working days.
    • Double the PDS entitlement: Governments must double PDS entitlements, which includes protein-rich pulses, and distribute these free at doorsteps.
    • Provide cooked and packed food: In addition, for homeless children and adults, and single migrants, it is urgent to supply cooked food to all who seek it, and to deliver packed food to the aged and the disabled in their homes using the services of community youth volunteers.
    • Ensure prisons are safe: To ensure jails are safer, all prison undertrial prisoners, except those charged with the gravest crimes, should be released.
    • Likewise, all those convicted for petty crimes. All residents of beggars’ homes, women’s rescue centres and detention centres should be freed forthwith.

    Way forward

    • Commit 3% of GDP on health: India must immediately commit 3% of its GDP for public spending on health services, with the focus on free and universal primary and secondary health care.
    • Nationalise private healthcare: Since the need is immediate, authorities should follow the example of Spain and New Zealand and nationalise private health care.
    • An ordinance should be passed immediately that no patient should be turned away or charged in any private hospital for diagnosis or treatment of symptoms which could be of COVID-19.

    Conclusion

    While one part of the population enjoys work and nutritional security, health insurance and housing of globally acceptable standards, others survive at the edge of unprotected and uncertain work, abysmal housing without clean water and sanitation, and no assured public health care. Can we resolve to correct this in post-COVID India? Can we at least now make the country more kind, just and equal?

  • Lock, don’t shut

    Context

    Economy is a living machine — cannot be simply turned off and on. Even in lockdown, it needs to be kept alive.

    Movement of goods exempted

    • Essential and non-essential distinction removed: It is, welcome that the Centre has now exempted transportation of all goods from the lockdown’s provisions, without distinction of “essential” and “non-essential”.
    • When goods aren’t the culprit — it didn’t make sense, in any case, to allow bureaucrats and local authorities to decide what is essential and hold up trucks carrying material deemed non-essential.
    • One cannot expect officials or state border police to have intimate knowledge of production processes and inputs that go into every good, essential or otherwise.
    • The purpose of a lockdown is to minimise physical human interaction and maintain social distancing even if people have to meet.
    • Blocking movement of goods, far from achieving that objective, only results in overcrowding and snarls at check posts.

    How allowing Industrial establishment to operate matters?

    • Allowing industrial establishment to operate: There’s no reason why even industrial establishments cannot be permitted to run during the lockdown.
    • Again, it shouldn’t matter whether these units are producing essential or non-essential goods. What matters is only social distancing.
    • Right step by the Punjab government: The Punjab government has taken the right step of permitting all factories in the state to resume operations, subject to their being able to provide in-house lodging, food and medical facilities to workers and ensure no overcrowding at the plant.
    • Mass exodus could have been avoided: Most factories today, whether in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi or Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, are manned by migrant labourers from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and other eastern states.
    • Had measures to retain this workforce within or close to the premises of factories been in place — instead of a blanket order to shut down — the current situation of a mass exodus of labourers and the attendant risk of COVID-19 transmission may have been avoided.
    • Difficulty in getting the labour back: It isn’t going to be easy for the closed units to get this labour back even when the lockdown ends.

    Conclusion

    • The economy needs to be kept alive: An economy is ultimately a living machine — one that cannot simply be turned off and on. Even in lockdown, it needs to be kept alive and whirring.
    • Difficulty in resumption: The danger from mechanically ordered closure of activities is that resumption becomes difficult. Rebuilding broken supply chains is easier when things are allowed to run even if at low key so that the system can respond when demand returns.
    • Lockdown is not an end in itself: Combating COVID-19 should obviously be the government’s top priority now. Lockdown is a necessary part of that strategy, but cannot be an end in itself. It is necessary primarily for social distancing, which can also be achieved without bringing the wheels of commerce to a complete halt.

  • Home and nation

    Context

    A 21-day lockdown is extraordinary. Government, people must come together to ensure that supply chains and social trust must not break.

    An unprecedented move

    • A 21-day nationwide lockdown: The way we conduct ourselves in these 21 days will be critical in our fight against the coronavirus.” With these words, Prime Minister announced a measure unprecedented in India’s 72-year-old history.
    • Never have the people of the country been asked to stay within the confines of their homes for this long a period, not even when the country has fought wars.
    • Yet extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. As the PM underlined, “stringent social distancing and staying within the Lakshman Rekha of our homes is the only prevention against the coronavirus”, the only way to break its transmission cycle.

    Challenges and consequences

    • There will be social and economic consequences and the PM did not equivocate on the challenges. He spoke of the vulnerable sections, and, as in last week’s speech, emphasised the imperative to be compassionate.
    • He lauded the frontline workers, doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers, expressed gratitude to safai karamcharis and praised the private sector and civil society.
    • A reworked social compact — more compassionate — will be necessary to confront the challenges posed by the lockdown.
    • It is now up to civil society, government agencies, the healthcare and corporate sectors to take their cues from the PM’s speech and ensure that the burden of fighting the pandemic does not fall too heavily on those at the margins, the migrant and daily wage labourers, the rickshaw pullers and others for whom these 21 days could prove to be the toughest.
    • Centre and state to work together: The Centre and state governments will need to work together, setting aside their political differences, to ensure that there is no shortage of essential commodities and the supply chains are not broken.

    Measures to mitigate the impact

    • Earlier in the day, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had announced a slew of measures that could soften the blow of a 21-day lockdown.
    • The deadline for filing of income taxes for the financial year 2018-19 has been extended, as has the last date for filing GST returns.
    • Sitharaman also announced that the threshold for taking companies through the insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings has been increased from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 1 crore.
    • This will prevent creditors from taking small and medium-sized companies, who may be facing temporary cash flow management issues due to the lockdown, and hence are unable to meet their obligations, through the IBC process.
    • The Centre has also advised state governments to transfer funds to construction workers from the cess fund collected by the labour welfare boards.

    Conclusion

    As the PM said, “21 days is a long period”. It’s now up to the authorities and the people to own and implement his message — to ensure that not just supply chains, but also social trust, isn’t broken.

  • Breach of trust

    Context

    In bypassing established protocol to seek call details of citizens en masse, the government violates SC guidelines.

    What is the issue?

    • Departure from stringent protocol: The Cellular Operators Association of India has reported mass requests from the government for mobile call detail records (CDRs).
      • Which is a serious departure from the stringent protocol established by the UPA government following an uproar in 2013 after prominent politicians were found to be under unauthorised surveillance.
    • Records of all customers: Records have been sought for all consumers on certain dates in parts of Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Kerala, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab.
      • In the case of Delhi, records were sought for the last three days of campaigning before assembly elections, while the anti-CAA protests were at their peak.
    • How the data was requested? Requests were delivered by local offices of the Department of Telecommunications, taking advantage of a condition in licences granted to operators, which permits the DoT to inspect their CDRs, which go back one year.

    Breach of many requirements and norms

    • A serious breach of privacy: These requests depart from established protocol and international expectations on multiple counts, and amount to a serious breach of privacy.
    • What is the protocol for requesting CDR information? A CDR request is supposed to be sanctioned by the home secretary and handled by a police officer of the rank of SP or above,
      • But in this case DoT offices were used.
    • The requirement of informing magistrate was not fulfilled: The requirement to report CDR requests on a monthly basis to the district magistrate was not complied with.
    • No reason was offered: Most importantly, no reason was offered for snooping on the traffic of citizens.
    • Surveillance must be specific and purposive: It is generally understood that communications surveillance must be specific and purposive, and must not trespass on the privacy of the innocent.
    • Invasion of privacy of all citizens: Indiscriminate mass surveillance of communications invades the privacy of all citizens to the detriment of public trust. In this case, it was for purposes which are not verifiably honourable, since the government has chosen not to reveal them.

    Why the CDR data matters if it is metadata only?

    • Combining CDR with other data gives more information: CDRs are all metadata and no content. They do not reveal any words uttered or messaged.
      • But combining the metadata with phone location data reveals a lot about connections between specific people and the actions that they take.
    • Multi-dimensional map of human activity: If data is available at scale, as was the case here, it is possible to build a multi-dimensional map of human activity, and correlate it with real events.
    • This would disturb the balance of information power between the citizen and the state, and amount to a breach of privacy.

    Conclusion

    If the government needs CDR data for a legitimate purpose, it should have no objection to following the rule-book scrupulously. And if there is a reason for sidestepping protocol in a sensitive matter, it should explain why.

  • [pib] Unnat Bharat Abhiyan 2.0

    The Union Minister for Human Resource Development has informed Lok Sabha about the progress of the Unnat Bharat Abhiyan (UBA).

    Unnat Bharat Abhiyan 2.0

    • Unnat Bharat Abhiyan 2.0 is the upgraded version of Unnat Bharat Abhiyan 1.0.
    • The scheme is extended to all educational institutes; however, under UBA 2.0 Participating institutes are selected based on the fulfilment of certain criteria.

    About UBA

    • It is a flagship programme of the Ministry of HRD, which aims to link the Higher Education Institutions with a set of at least 5 villages so that these institutions can contribute to the economic and social betterment of these village communities using their knowledge base.
    • It is a significant initiative where all Higher Learning Institutes have been involved for participation in development activities, particularly in rural areas.
    • It also aims to create a virtuous cycle between the society and an inclusive university system, with the latter providing knowledge base; practices for emerging livelihoods and to upgrade the capabilities of both the public and private sectors.
    • Currently under the scheme UBA, 13072 villages have been adopted by 2474 Institutes.

  • What is an ‘Essential Commodity’?

    Following reports of shortage and irrational pricing of hand sanitisers and masks, the union government has declared these items “essential commodities” until the end of June. It has notified an Order under the Essential Commodities Act to declare these items as Essential Commodities up to 30th June, 2020 by amending the Schedule of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

    Why such move?

    • The coronavirus pandemic has triggered panic buying of masks and hand sanitisers at many places around the world, including in India.
    • The government’s order has come in the wake of reports of a shortage of these commodities and a sudden and sharp spike in their prices, and the alleged hoarding of stocks by manufacturers.

    What does the government’s declaration mean?

    • The Essential Commodities Act provides, “in the interest of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce, in certain commodities”.
    • The law was passed in 1955 to essentially protect consumers from unreasonable and exploitative increases in prices of commodities in times of shortage.
    • It has been amended several times over the years, and made more stringent.
    • Under the Act, the government can also fix the maximum retail price (MRP) of any packaged product that it declares an “essential commodity”.

    What kinds of items or products are generally classified as essential commodities?

    • The government has sweeping powers in this regard. The Act defines an “essential commodity” as simply “a commodity specified in the Schedule”.
    • The Act empowers the central government to add new commodities to the list of Essential Commodities as and when the need arises, and to remove them from the list once the crisis is over or the situation improves.
    • Over the years, a long list of items has been designated as essential commodities, including various drugs, fertilisers, cereals, pulses, sugar, edible oils, petroleum and petroleum products, and certain crops.
    • In the present situation, the government can intervene to regulate the supply and pricing of masks and hand sanitisers, and also notify their stock-holding limits.

    How do states and UTs implement these orders?

    • They act on the notification issued by the Centre and implement the regulations.
    • Anybody trading or dealing in the essential commodity, including wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers, and importers, is barred from stocking it beyond the specified quantity.

    What if the retailers/traders/manufacturers do not comply?

    • The purpose of designating any commodity as “essential” is to prevent profiteering at a time of extraordinary demand.
    • Violators are, therefore, termed as illegal hoarders or black-marketeers who can be prosecuted.
    • Besides penalties, the violation may lead to imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years.
    • Agencies of state governments and UT administrations are empowered to conduct raids to catch violators.
    • The government can confiscate excess stock hoarded by retailers/traders/manufacturers, and either auction it or sell it through fair-price shops.

    Impact on Corona curbing

    • It is important to note that the designation of masks and hand sanitisers as “essential commodities” does not mean that the government considers them to be ‘essential’, in the literal sense, in the fight against COVID-19.
    • Doctors and health experts have underlined that the use of masks is helpful only if you have symptoms yourself, or if you are caring for someone who has symptoms.
    • The infection is spreading mostly through infected surfaces — and masks, especially the cheap surgical ones, can’t actually block the virus out.

  • Donation to Political Parties from unknown sources

     

     

    As much as 67% of donations to national parties in 2018-19 came from “unknown sources,” an increase from 53% in the previous financial year, said a report released by the Association for Democratic Reforms.

    About ADR

    • The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is an Indian non-partisan, non-governmental organization which works in the area of electoral and political reforms.
    • Along with National Election Watch (NEW), ADR is striving to bring transparency and accountability in Indian politics and reducing the influence of money and muscle power in elections.
    • The ambit and scope of work in this field are enormous, hence, ADR has chosen to concentrate its efforts in the following areas pertaining to the political system of the country:
    1. Corruption and Criminalization in the Political Process
    2. Empowerment of the electorate through greater dissemination of information relating to the candidates and the parties, for a better and informed choice
    3. Need for greater accountability of Indian Political Parties
    4. Need for inner-party democracy and transparency in party-functioning

    income sources of Political Parties

    • The total income of the parties was ₹3,749.37 crore, of which ₹951.66 crore was from known donors.
    • Electoral bonds accounted for 78% of the ₹2,512.98 crore, or 67%, income from unknown sources.
    • While parties are required to give details of all donations above ₹20,000, donations under ₹20,000 and those via electoral bonds remain anonymous.
    • Out of the total income from unknown sources, 64% went to the BJP and 29% to Congress.

  • Supreme Court upholds 2018 order on land acquisition

    • The Supreme Court reaffirmed its February 2018 ruling on Section 24 on land acquisition compensation awards given by a three-judge bench led by Justice Arun Mishra in the Indore Development Authority.
    • It also has overruled an earlier co-ordinate Bench ruling in the Pune Municipal Corporation case of 2014 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Act of 2013.

    What is the provision and why it needed interpretation?

    • The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (2013 Act) replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act).
    • The new Act provides for higher compensation to those deprived of land by the government for both public and private sector projects.
    • It also mandates consent of a majority of land-owners, and contains provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement.
    • Under Section 24(2) land acquisition made under the old law of 1894 lapses if the award of compensation had been made five years before the new Act came into force, but has not been paid.
    • In such cases, the process will have to be gone through afresh under the new Act, which mandates higher compensation.

    Issue over compensation

    • There are cases in which farmers and other land-owners have refused the compensation, leading to delay in the government taking possession.
    • In this situation, the compensation amount is deposited in the government treasury. According to one interpretation, if this is done, the acquisition process is saved.
    • Then again, others contend that such cases will fall under the new Act because compensation has not been paid to the land-owners, and the lapsing clause in Section 24 should be applied.
    • If, through interpretation, a long-pending land acquisition process is closed under the old law and fresh acquisition proceedings started under the new one, the land-owners stand to benefit, but project proponents will have to pay higher compensation.
    • Therefore, the provision concerned is often a subject of litigation.

    What happened in the case before the Supreme Court?

    • On January 24, 2014 the court ruled that the acquisition of a piece of land had “lapsed” because the compensation awarded had neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court.
    • The deposit of the compensation amount in the government treasury was held to be “of no avail” as it was not equivalent to the compensation being “paid”.
    • Based on this judgment, subsequent cases were decided on the same principle: acquisition that had taken place earlier than five years before the new Act commenced would lapse if compensation amount was not paid to the land-owners or, in cases in which the owners refused to accept compensation, deposited in court.

    How was this precedent dealt with in another case in 2018?

    • The same question arose in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra. Another Bench did not accept the earlier Bench’s view.
    • On February 8, 2018, the majority, consisting of the first two judges, ruled that the acquisition would not lapse merely because the compensation amount was not deposited in court, but was instead deposited in the treasury.
    • It ruled that the past practice of more than a century, under which the amount was deposited in the treasury, was not taken into account by the earlier Bench.
    • Some provisions and orders that allowed this practice were not placed before that Bench. Further, the land acquisition in that particular case had been quashed by a High Court in 2008.
    • Since it was not a subsisting process, the question under Section 24(2), whether the acquisition lapsed because of non-payment of compensation or non-deposit in the court, did not arise at all.
    • On these grounds, Justice Mishra and Justice Goel overruled the earlier judgment and held that it was per incuriam, that is a verdict passed in disregard of law and, therefore, wrong.

    What does the controversy mean for land-owners and project proponents?

    • A ruling that old acquisitions lapse for non-deposit of compensation will be more beneficial to land-owners and farmers as they stand to get higher compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement measures.
    • On the other hand, project proponents feel such an interpretation would mean that those who refused to take compensation, even after it had been fixed and the money deposited in the government treasury, would be taking advantage of their own wrong.

    Present ruling

    On Acquisition

    • The provision said that in such cases if the physical possession has not been taken “or” the compensation is not paid, the acquisition proceeding is “deemed to have lapsed”.
    • The court held that a land acquisition proceeding under Section 24(2) would only lapse if the authorities have neither taken physical possession nor paid the compensation due to the landowner for five or more years prior to January 1, 2014.
    • For this an “or” in the Section was “interpreted” as an “and”.
    • Further, the Bench held that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.

    On compensation

    • The government if it so wishes would have to initiate “fresh acquisition proceedings” under the new Act of 2013 which provides for “fair-compensation”.
    • The judgment however said compensation would be considered paid if the amount is put in the Treasury.
    • There was no obligation that the amount should be deposited in the court in order to sustain the land acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
    • Thus there is no lapse if possession has been taken and compensation has not been paid. Similarly, there is no lapse if compensation has been paid and possession not taken of the land.

  • Aadhaar, no standout performer in welfare delivery

    Context

    Aadhaar-based biometric authentication did not reduce PDS leakages, finds Jharkhand-based empirical study

    What was the rationale behind Aadhaar?

    • What did the UIDAI’s report say? Aadhaar has curtailed leakages of government subsidies. Through Aadhaar, savings worth ₹90,000 crores have accrued to the government– UIDAI’s2017-18 annual report.
    • Plugging the leakages in the schemes: When Aadhaar was conceived a decade ago, the rationale postulated was: India spends nearly three trillion rupees a year across several core welfare programmes such as Public Distribution System (PDS), LPG, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act etc.
      • Huge leakage due to duplications: Roughly 30-40% of this three trillion is lost in leakages.
      • Leakages are largely due to ‘ghost’ and ‘duplicate’ beneficiaries using fake identities to avail these benefits; a unique identity biometric scheme can eliminate these leakages and vastly improve efficiency in welfare delivery.
    • Improve welfare delivery efficiency: In fact, the former Union Minister, Arun Jaitley, even renamed the Aadhaar Bill to ‘Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services’ Bill, making it amply clear that Aadhaar’s primary, if not sole purpose, was to improve welfare delivery efficiency.

    What are the findings of study?

    • How was the study carried out?
      • Use of RCT and sample of 15 million people: They conducted a scientifically designed study of the PDS system in Jharkhand covering 15 million beneficiaries using the technique of randomised control trials (RCT).
      • In the study, one set of beneficiaries went through the Aadhaar-based biometric authentication while the other group used the old system of procuring their ration.
    • The results were then compared to see if Aadhaar-based biometric authentication had any impact in reducing leakages.
    • What were the findings of the study?
    • No measurable benefit: The study concluded that Aadhaar-based biometric authentication had no measurable benefit.
      • No reduction in leakages: Aadhaar-based biometric authentication did not reduce leakages due to elimination of ghosts and duplicates, as widely perceived.
    • Increase in transaction costs for beneficiary: On the other hand, they found that Aadhaar-based biometric authentication increased transaction costs for beneficiaries.
      • 17% extra cost: That is, to claim ration worth ₹40, beneficiaries in the Aadhaar system incurred an additional ₹7 of costs than those in the old system, because of multiple trips to authenticate themselves and the opportunity cost of time spent.
      • This is a whopping 17% extra cost burden of the value of the benefit they were entitled to receive.
    • Type 1 error of exclusion: To make matters worse, Aadhaar-based biometric authentication also introduced what empirical scientists call Type I error of exclusion.
      • Aadhaar authentication falsely rejected genuine PDS beneficiaries who were then denied their ration supplies.
      • The study finds that nearly 10% of legitimate beneficiaries were denied their ration either because they did not have their Aadhaar linked to their ration card or due to an exclusion error.
    • Summary of the finding: In summary, the study states that there was-
      • No direct impact of Aadhaar in reducing leakages.
      • 2. It denied ration to 10% of genuine beneficiaries and increased costs by 17% to those that were forced to get their ration using Aadhaar.
      • Pain with no gain: They conclude that Aadhaar authentication for PDS in Jharkhand caused “some pain with no gain”.

    What premises were wrong about Addhaar?

    • No testing of empirical belief: There was a widespread belief among the policy elite that ghosts and duplicates were the scourge of India’s welfare delivery and that Aadhaar would eliminate this.
      • But this belief was never empirically tested.
      • Based on this belief, an entire story was concocted about improving welfare efficiency by eliminating ghosts and duplicates with Aadhaar and a whole new law was enacted to this effect.
    • The pilot project not carried out: Many studies now establish that ghosts and duplicates are not the significant cause of leakages.
      • It would have been better to have undertaken a robust pilot project of scale to test the belief about ghosts and duplicates, before embarking on it nationwide.

    Conclusion

    In a sociologist’s world and in a liberal society, a policy that could run the risk of denying welfare to just a few people, putting their lives at risk, is not worth implementing regardless of how many millions it benefits.

     

     

     

     

  • Debating water quality

    Context

    The competitive politics of Delhi election has brought the issue of drinking water to centre stage.

    Controversy over BIS water status report

    • Politicising of the report: The controversy started with the release of the BIS report for 21 major Indian cities, in keeping with the objectives of the ‘Jal Jeevan Mission’.
      • The mission aims to provide safe piped water to all households by 2024.
      • The fact that drinking water in Delhi was ranked the most unsafe, as the samples failed in 19 out of 28 parameters, was challenged by the Government of Delhi and the Delhi Jal Board (DJB).
    • Compilation of information on the existing status: The study is scheduled to cover all districts in the country within a year. Supply of potable water obviously requires first compilation of information on the existing status
    • Water as an urgent concern: The fact that water should be treated as an urgent concern for public health and the ecosystem of the country cannot be denied.
    • Imperceptible threat: The threats to human health due to poor water quality, except when they appear as an epidemic, are largely imperceptible.
      • This generally subjects the population to subtle health problems without its knowledge or consent.

    Pollution and water crisis in India

    • Pollution contributing to water crisis: India is on the throes of a severe water crisis, not only because of a gradual reduction in per capita availability of water due to a rising population but also because of rising and unchecked pollution in the country’s rivers and water bodies.
      • It is a fact which is mostly overlooked in the deliberations on water resources management.
    • Only 30% sewage treatment capacity in major cities: As per published estimates of the Central Pollution Control Board, the country has a treatment capacity of only about 30% of sewage generated in the major cities.
      • Not to talk of other urban and rural areas where the sewage finds its way to local water bodies or rivers without treatment.

    Impending water stress in the country

    • NITI Aayog report: A 2018 Report of the NITI Aayog has observed that currently, 600 million Indians face high to extreme water stress.
      • The report also states that about two lakh people die every year due to inadequate access to safe water.
    • Demand twice the supply by 2030: The crisis is only going to get worse.
      • By 2030, the country’s water demand is projected to be twice the available supply, implying severe water scarcity for hundreds of millions of people.
    • High methane in Yamuna water in Delhi: For the water coming from the Yamuna released from Haryana, the DJB has to often stop the supply for a few days if the concentration of methane goes up beyond a certain level.
      • This is because the tri-chloromethane that may be produced during the disinfection process is highly carcinogenic.
      • The effect may surface on human health not immediately but over a period of time.

    The capital’s high pollutant load and need for improvement in governance

    • Contributing 50% pollutant: Delhi, which constitutes less than 1% of the total catchment of the Yamuna, contributes more than 50% of total pollutant load in the river.
      • Delhi has 7,000 km of sewer line as on date, against a requirement of 24,000 km.
      • The 17 sewage treatment plants being operated by the DJB are able to take care of not more than 30% of sewage treatment.
    • There is no sewerage system at all for over 45% of the population in unauthorised and even regularised colonies and rural areas.
    • As of now, there are 18 major drains carrying sewage, garbage and industrial effluents into the Yamuna.
    • Solid waste dumping in Yamuna: It is not only the untreated sewage water and industrial effluents, but also the solid wastes and construction material discharged by individuals, companies and municipal bodies that have caused the suffocation of the Yamuna.
      • Also, floodplains have been encroached upon by settlements.
    • Challenge of supplying quality water: Ensuring the supply of quality drinking water is not only expensive, but it also needs improvement in governance.
      • It needs technical knowledge on measurement and regulation of water quality.
      • It is not the fault of the DJB or the Delhi government alone that they have not been able to ensure a 100% supply of quality water to the citizens of Delhi.
      • Given the constraints they face, especially those concerning the water resources management and laws in the country.

    Conclusion

    The Jal Jeevan Mission, even if it has not been so far structured, conceptualised and funded adequately, has begun the important work of gathering information on the scale and scope of the problem and making it available in an open and transparent manner. The best outcome is that the competitive politics of the Delhi election has ensured a political debate on water quality.