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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Goan politician accorded Lifetime Rank of Cabinet Minister

    Recently a politician in Goa was accorded the lifetime status of the rank of Cabinet Minister who was, a six-time Chief Minister of Goa and a legislator for a full 50 years. Hence a PIL has been filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

    What is the “Lifetime Status of the rank of Cabinet minister”?

    • The former Chief Minister and former Speaker (of the Goa Legislative Assembly) had completed 50 years as a legislator.
    • The Cabinet decided that in future also, those who complete 50 years and hold posts like CM and Speaker will be given the Cabinet status even after their retirement.

    What is the PIL against this designation?

    • The PIL has urged the High Court to quash the notification of the government under which the person was conferred with the “lifetime status”.
    • It has contended that Goa has a 12-member Cabinet, and the conferment of Cabinet status results in the number of Cabinet ranks rising to 13, which exceeds the ceiling mandated by the Constitution.
    • This ceiling was mandated by the 91st Amendment which aimed to prevent jumbo Cabinets and the resultant drain on the public exchequer.

    How the 91st Amendment Act does relates here?

    • The Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003 inserted clause 1A in Article 164.
    • It says the total number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of Ministers in a State shall not exceed 15% of the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly of that State.
    • It provided a condition that the number of Ministers, including the Chief Minister in a State shall not be less than twelve.
    • There are 40 seats in the unicameral Goa Assembly.

    Why is the designation problematic?

    • A cabinet minister for life would be entitled to 12 staff members – OSDs, support staff, peons, driver – which would cost the exchequer Rs 90 lakh a year.
    • The ‘Cabinet’ rank would also entitle him to government accommodation, vehicle and unlimited free travel for him and his spouse.
    • This is just none other case but political self-appeasement.

    Back2Basics: 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003

    • It made the provisions to limit the size of Council of Ministers, to debar defectors from holding public offices, and to strengthen the anti-defection law.
    • The total number of ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Central Council of Ministers shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the Lok Sabha.
    • A member of either house of Parliament belonging to any political party who is disqualified on the ground of defection shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a minister.
    • The total number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in the Council of Ministers in a state shall not exceed 15% of the total strength of the legislative Assembly of that state.
    • But, the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, in a state shall not be less than 12.
    • A member of either House of a state legislature belonging to any political party who is disqualified on the ground of defection shall also be disqualified to be appointed as a minister.
    • The provision of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) pertaining to exemption from disqualification in case of split by one-third members of legislature party has been deleted.
    • It means that the defectors have no more protection on grounds of splits.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • India’s CPC designation by the USCIRF

    In its 2022 Annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has recommended that India be designated a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ (CPC).

    What is the USCIRF and how is it constituted?

    • The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan body created by the International Religious Freedom Act, 1998 (IRFA) of the US.
    • It has a mandate to monitor religious freedom violations globally and make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and the Congress.
    • It is a congressionally created entity and not an NGO or advocacy organisation.
    • It is led by nine part-time commissioners appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the House and the Senate.

    Why in news now?

    • USCIRF wants India to be designated under the CPC category of governments performing most poorly on religious freedom criteria.
    • It has called for “targeted sanctions” on individuals and entities responsible for severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’ or entities’ assets and/or barring their entry” into the US.

    What does a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ (CPC) designation mean?

    • IRFA requires the USCIRF to annually identify countries that merit a CPC designation.
    • As per IRFA, CPCs are countries whose governments either engage in or tolerate “particularly severe violations” of religious freedom.
    • Such freedoms are defined as systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.
    • The other designation, for less serious violations, is Special Watch List (SWL)

    Which other countries have been designated as CPCs?

    • For 2022, based on religious freedom conditions in 2021, a total of 15 countries have been recommended for the CPC designation.
    • They include India, Pakistan, Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria and Vietnam.
    • Countries recommended for a SWL designation include Algeria, Cuba, Nicaragua, Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan.

    Why does USCIRF want India to be designated as a CPC?

    • The USCIRF, in its annual report, states that in 2021, religious freedom conditions in India significantly worsened.
    • It has noted that the Indian government escalated its promotion and enforcement of policies —including those promoting a Hindu-nationalist agenda.
    • This negatively affects Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits, and other religious minorities.
    • It highlighted the use of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against those documenting religious persecution and violence.
    • It also criticised the spate of fresh anti-conversion legislations, noting that “national, State and local governments demonised and attacked the conversion of Hindus to Christianity or Islam.”

    Are USCIRF recommendations binding on the US government?

    • No, they are not. The USCIRF typically recommends more countries for a CPC label than the State Department will designate.
    • This happens because the USCIRF is concerned solely with the state of religious freedom when it makes a recommendation.
    • However, the US State Department also takes into account other diplomatic, bilateral and strategic concerns before making a decision on a CPC designation.

    Is this the first time India is being designated as a CPC by the USCIRF? What has been India’s reaction?

    • This is the third year in a row that India has received a CPC recommendation.
    • India has in the past pushed back against the grading, questioning the locus standi of USCIRF.
    • In 2020, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar called the Commission an “Organisation of Particular Concern.”
    • US needs to introspect itself on the HR violations by the state authorities on the basis of racism, ethnocentrism and religion (particularly Sikhs).

    What is the likely impact of the USCIRF’s recommendation?

    • The US State Department hasn’t acted on such recommendations so far.
    • But India may come under greater pressure this time, given its divergence from the American position on the Ukraine war and refusal to endorse US-backed resolutions against Russia at the UN.
    • Hence the USCIRF is another force of Anti-India lobby in the US to bully other nations by countering an accusation with another.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Countries will have to ‘justify’ Veto Votes at UN

    The 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution requiring the five permanent members of the Security Council to justify their use of the veto.

    Why such move?

    • The push for reform was driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
    • The measure is intended to make veto-holders United States, China, Russia, France and Britain “pay a higher political price” when they use the veto to strike down a Security Council resolution.
    • For years Russia (and the US) has used its veto power to block UNSC resolutions — which, unlike General Assembly resolutions, are enforceable under international law.

    What is the Veto Power at the UN?

    • The UN Security Council veto power is the power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto any “substantive” resolution.
    • They also happen to be the nuclear-weapon states (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
    • However, a permanent member’s abstention or absence does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.
    • This veto power does not apply to “procedural” votes, as determined by the permanent members themselves.
    • A permanent member can also block the selection of a Secretary-General, although a formal veto is unnecessary since the vote is taken behind closed doors.

    Issues with Veto Power

    • The veto power is controversial. Supporters regard it as a promoter of international stability, a check against military interventions, and a critical safeguard against US domination.
    • Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN, as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
    • It effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.

    Back2Basics: United Nations Security Council

    • The UNSC is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security.
    • Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action through Security Council resolutions.
    • It is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states.
    • The Security Council consists of fifteen members. Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States—serve as the body’s five permanent members.
    • These permanent members can veto any substantive Security Council resolution, including those on the admission of new member states or candidates for Secretary-General.
    • The Security Council also has 10 non-permanent members, elected on a regional basis to serve two-year terms. The body’s presidency rotates monthly among its members.

    Also read

    Explained: India at United Nations Security Council

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • The goal of an energy-secure South Asia

    Context

    Given that a 0.46% increase in energy consumption leads to a 1% increase in GDP per capita, electrification not only helps in improving lifestyle but also adds to the aggregate economy by improving the nation’s GDP.

    Widening electricity coverage in South Asian nations

    • The electricity policies of South Asian countries aim at providing electricity to every household.
    • The issues these policies address include generation, transmission, distribution, rural electrification, research and development, environmental issues, energy conservation and human resource training.
    • Bangladesh has achieved 100% electrification recently while Bhutan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka accomplished this in 2019.
    • For India and Afghanistan, the figures are 94.4% and 97.7%, respectively, while for Pakistan it is 73.91%.
    • Bhutan has the cheapest electricity price in South Asia (U.S.$0.036 per kilowatt hour, or kWh) while India has the highest (U.S.$0.08 per kWh.) 
    • South Asia is reinforcing its transmission and distribution frameworks to cater to growing energy demand not only through the expansion of power grids but also by boosting green energy such as solar power or hydroelectricity.

    Adapting to renewable

    • Geographical differences between these countries call for a different approach depending on resources.
    •  India leads South Asia in adapting to renewable power, with its annual demand for power increasing by 6%.
    • India’s pledge to move 40% of total energy produced to renewable energy is also a big step.
    • Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his ‘net-zero by 2070’ pledge at COP26 in Glasgow asserted India’s target to increase the capacity of renewable energy from 450GW to 500GW by 2030.
    • The region is moving towards green growth and energy as India hosts the International Solar Alliance.
    • South Asia has vast renewable energy resources — hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and biomass — which can be harnessed for domestic use as well as regional power trade.

    Steps toward SDGs

    • Solar power-driven electrification in rural Bangladesh is a huge step towards Sustainable Development Goal 7.
    • Access to electricity improves infrastructure i.e., SDG 9 (which is “build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”).
    • Energy access helps online education through affordable Internet (SDG 4, or “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”), more people are employed (SDG 1: “no poverty”), and are able to access tech-based health solutions (SDG 3, or “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”).

    Regional energy trade

    • The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) prepared the regional energy cooperation framework in 2014, but its implementation is questionable.
    • Energy trade agreements: There are a number of bilateral and multilateral energy trade agreements such as the India-Nepal petroleum pipeline deal, the India-Bhutan hydroelectric joint venture, the Myanmar-Bangladesh-India gas pipeline, the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) sub-regional framework for energy cooperation, and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, rumoured to be extended to Bangladesh.
    • Challenges: ‘South Asia’s regional geopolitics is determined by the conflation of identity, politics, and international borders.
    • The current participation in cross-border projects has been restricted to respective tasks, among Bhutan and India or Nepal and India.
    • It is only now that power-sharing projects among the three nations, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh, have been deemed conceivable.

    Way forward

    • Energy framework: Going forward, resilient energy frameworks are what are needed such as better building-design practices, climate-proof infrastructure, a flexible monitory framework, and an integrated resource plan that supports renewable energy innovation.
    • Public-Private Partnership: Government alone cannot be the provider of reliable and secure energy frameworks, and private sector investment is crucial.

    Conclusion

    While universal coverage can catalyse the region’s economic growth, energy trade must be linked to peace building.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • India, Europe and the Russian complication

    Context

    The re-election of Emmanuel Macron as the president of France on Sunday has sent a sigh of relief across Europe and North America. Delhi too is pleased with the return of Macron, who laid a strong foundation for India’s strategic partnership with France.

    Why France election matters to the regional and domestic order in Europe

    • Unlike the Soviet Union, which sought to shape European politics though left-wing parties, Russia today influences European politics through right-wing parties.
    • Victory for Marine Le Pen, Macron’s opponent, would have dramatically complicated the geopolitics of Europe.
    • Le Pen, like so many other right-wing leaders in Europe, has close ties to Vladimir Putin.
    • Le Pen’s victory would have not only altered France’s international trajectory, but also shaken the EU to its political core.

    Three factors shaping the transformation of India’s ties with Europe

    • Russia’s threat to the regional and domestic order in Europe is among multiple factors shaping Delhi’s intensifying engagement with Brussels.
    • Three major external factors are facilitating the transformation of India’s ties with Europe.

    1] Russian Question

    • For India, a normal relationship between Russia and the West would have been ideal.
    • But Russia’s confrontation with the West comes during India’s rapidly expanding economic and political ties to Europe and America.
    • Delhi might be sentimental about India’s historic Russian connection but it is not going to sacrifice its growing ties to the West on that altar.
    • Russia’s declining economic weight and growing international isolation begins to simplify India’s choices.
    • During the last few weeks, Delhi has insisted that its silence is not an endorsement of Russian aggression.
    • India’s position has continued to evolve.
    • Delhi’s repeated emphasis on respecting the territorial integrity of states is a repudiation of Russia’s unacceptable aggression.
    • Meanwhile, geographic proximity and economic complementarity have tied Europe even more deeply to Russia.
    • The EU’s annual trade with Russia at around $260 billion is massive in comparison to India’s $10 billion.
    • Putin’s reckless invasion of Ukraine has compelled Europe to embark on a costly effort to disconnect from Russia.
    • The war in Ukraine has certainly presented a major near-term problem that needs to be managed by Delhi and Brussels.

    2] China Question

    •  Moscow has been deepening ties with Beijing for more than two decades triggering many anxieties in Delhi.
    •  In February, Putin travelled to Beijing to announce a partnership “without limits”.
    • India has no option but to manage the consequences of the Russian decision.
    • In the last two decades, China has emerged as a great power and now presents a generational challenge for Indian policymakers.
    • That challenge has been made harder by Putin’s alliance with Xi Jinping.
    • As Delhi strives to retain a reasonable relationship with Moscow, Europe emerges as an important partner in letting India cope with the China challenge.
    •  Thanks to the growing problems of doing business with Xi’s China, Beijing’s geopolitical alliance with Moscow, and the rapid deterioration of Sino-US relations, Brussels is ready to invest serious political capital in building purposeful strategic ties with India.

    3] American Question

    • Until recently it appeared that Europe’s calls for “strategic autonomy” from the US were in sync with India’s own worldview.
    • But the Ukraine crisis has underlined the US’s centrality in securing Europe against Russia.
    • In Asia, Chinese assertiveness has brought back the US as a critical factor in shaping peace and security.
    • Washington wants a strong Europe taking greater responsibility for its own security; it would like Delhi to play a larger role in Asia and become a credible provider of regional security.
    • Above all, America wants India and Europe to build stronger ties with each other.

    Conclusion

    For the first time since independence, India’s interests are now aligning with those of Europe. Together, Delhi and Brussels can help reshape Eurasia as well as the Indo-Pacific.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • EU member states agrees on Digital Services Act (DSA)

    The European Parliament and European Union (EU) Member States announced that they had reached a political agreement on the Digital Services Act (DSA).

    What is DSA?

    • DSA is a landmark legislation to force big Internet companies to act against disinformation and illegal and harmful content, and to “provide better protection for Internet users and their fundamental rights”.
    • The Act, which is yet to become law, was proposed by the EU Commission (anti-trust) in December 2020.
    • As defined by the EU Commission, the DSA is “a set of common rules on intermediaries’ obligations and accountability across the single market”.
    • It seeks to ensure higher protection to all EU users, irrespective of their country.
    • The proposed Act will work in conjunction with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which was approved last month.

    Whom will the DSA apply?

    • Intermediaries: The DSA will tightly regulate the way intermediaries, especially large platforms such as Google, Facebook, and YouTube, function when it comes to moderating user content.
    • Abusive or illegal content: Instead of letting platforms decide how to deal with abusive or illegal content, the DSA will lay down specific rules and obligations for these companies to follow.
    • Ambit platforms: The legislation brings in its ambit platforms that provide Internet access, domain name registrars, hosting services such as cloud computing and web-hosting services.
    • Very large platforms: But more importantly, very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large online search engines (VLOSEs) will face “more stringent requirements.”
    • 45 million monthly users-base: Any service with more than 45 million monthly active users in the EU will fall into this category. Those with under 45 million monthly active users in the EU will be exempt from certain new obligations.

    Key features

    A wide range of proposals seeks to ensure that the negative social impact arising from many of the practices followed by the Internet giants is minimised or removed:

    1. Faster removal of illicit content: Online platforms and intermediaries such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc will have to add “new procedures for faster removal” of content deemed illegal or harmful. This can vary according to the laws of each EU Member State.
    2. Introduction of Trusted Flaggers: Users will be able to challenge these takedowns as well. Platforms will need to have a clear mechanism to help users flag content that is illegal. Platforms will have to cooperate with “trusted flaggers”.
    3. Imposition of duty of care: Marketplaces such as Amazon will have to “impose a duty of care” on sellers who are using their platform to sell products online. They will have to “collect and display information on the products and services sold in order to ensure that consumers are properly informed.”
    4. Annual audit of big platforms: The DSA adds an obligation for very large digital platforms and services to analyse systemic risks they create and to carry out risk reduction analysis. This audit for platforms like Google and Facebook will need to take place every year.
    5. Promoting independent research: The Act proposes to allow independent vetted researchers to have access to public data from these platforms to carry out studies to understand these risks better.
    6. Ban ‘Dark Patterns’ or “misleading interfaces: The DSA proposes to ban ‘Dark Patterns’ or “misleading interfaces” that are designed to trick users into doing something that they would not agree to otherwise.
    7. Transparency of Algorithms: It also proposes “transparency measures for online platforms on a variety of issues, including on the algorithms used for recommending content or products to users”.
    8. Easy cancellation of subscription: Finally, it says that cancelling a subscription should be as easy as subscribing.
    9. Protection of minors: The law proposes stronger protection for minors, and aims to ban targeted advertising for them based on their personal data.
    10. Crisis mechanism clause: This clause will make it “possible to analyse the impact of the activities of these platforms” on the crisis, and the Commission will decide the appropriate steps to be taken to ensure the fundamental rights of users are not violated.
    11. Others: Companies will have to look at the risk of “dissemination of illegal content”, “adverse effects on fundamental rights”, “manipulation of services having an impact on democratic processes and public security”, “adverse effects on gender-based violence, and on minors and serious consequences for the physical or mental health of users.”

    Bar over Social Media

    • It has been clarified that the platforms and other intermediaries will not be liable for the unlawful behaviour of users.
    • So, they still have ‘safe harbour’ in some sense.
    • However, if the platforms are “aware of illegal acts and fail to remove them, they will be liable for this user behaviour.
    • Small platforms, which remove any illegal content they detect, will not be liable.

    Are there any such rules in India?

    • India last year brought the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
    • These rules make the social media intermediary and its executives liable if the company fails to carry out due diligence.
    • Rule 4 (a) states that significant social media intermediaries — such as Facebook or Google — must appoint a chief compliance officer (CCO), who could be booked if a tweet or post that violates local laws is not removed within the stipulated period.
    • India’s Rules also introduce the need to publish a monthly compliance report.
    • They include a clause on the need to trace the originator of a message — this provision has been challenged by WhatsApp in the Delhi High Court.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Explained: Arunachal-Assam Boundary Dispute

    Less than a month after the Union government gave the seal of approval to an agreement to partially resolve the disputed sectors on the Assam-Meghalaya border, Arunachal Pradesh CM and his Assam counterpart decided to form district-level committees for settling their inter-state boundary disputes.

    Arunachal-Assam Boundary Dispute

    • Assam has had boundary disputes with all the north-eastern states that were carved out of it.
    • While Nagaland became a State in 1963, Meghalaya first became an Autonomous State in 1970 and a full-fledged State in 1972.
    • Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram were separated from Assam as Union Territories in 1972 and as States in 1987.
    • None of the new States accepted the “constitutional boundary” that they said was dictated by the partisan administration of undivided Assam without consulting the tribal stakeholders.
    • They also claimed that the disputed areas were traditionally under the control of tribal chieftains before Assam, post-India’s independence, inherited the “imaginary boundaries” drawn during British rule.
    • The issue with Arunachal Pradesh has more to do with a 1951 report prepared by a sub-committee headed by Assam’s first Chief Minister, Gopinath Bordoloi.

    Genesis of the dispute

    • Arunachal Pradesh and Assam have disputes at about 1,200 points along their 804 km boundary.
    • The disputes cropped up in the 1970s and intensified in the 1990s with frequent flare-ups along the border.
    • However, the issue dates back to 1873 when the British government introduced the inner-line permit vaguely separating the plains from the frontier hills.
    • This area became the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in 1954, three years after a notification based on the 1951 report saw 3,648 sq. km of the “plain” area of Balipara and Sadiya foothills being transferred to the Darrang and Lakhimpur districts of Assam.
    • Arunachal has been celebrating its statehood with an eye on China since 1987, but what has been causing resentment is the inability of the people living in the transferred patches.
    • Leaders in Arunachal Pradesh claim the transfer was done arbitrarily without consulting its tribes who had customary rights over these lands.
    • Their counterparts in Assam say the 1951 demarcation is constitutional and legal.

    Earlier attempts for resolving dispute

    • There were several efforts to demarcate the boundary between Assam and NEFA/Arunachal Pradesh between 1971 and 1974.
    • To end the stalemate, a high-powered tripartite committee involving the Centre and the two States was formed in April 1979 to delineate the boundary based on Survey of India maps.
    • About 489 km of the inter-state boundary north of the Brahmaputra River was demarcated by 1984, but Arunachal did not accept the recommendations and staked claim to much of the areas transferred in 1951.
    • Assam objected and approached the Supreme Court in 1989, accusing Arunachal Pradesh of “encroachment”.
    • The apex court-appointed a local boundary commission in 2006 headed by one of its retired judges.
    • In its September 2014 report, this commission recommended that Arunachal Pradesh should get back some of the areas transferred in 1951. However, this did not work out.

    Way forward

    • Following the model adopted in the exercise to resolve the dispute with Meghalaya, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh have agreed to form district-level committees.
    • They will be tasked with undertaking joint surveys in the disputed sectors to find tangible solutions to the long-pending issue based on historical perspective, ethnicity, contiguity, people’s will and administrative convenience.
    • The two States have decided to form 12 such committees involving the districts sharing the boundary. Assam has eight districts touching the boundary with Arunachal Pradesh, which has 12 such districts.

    Conclusion

    • The Assam-Meghalaya boundary agreement has raised hopes of the Assam-Arunachal boundary dispute being resolved.
    • This is especially in light of egging the north-eastern States to end their territorial issues once and for all by August 15, 2022, when the country celebrates 75 years of independence.
    • Moreover, there is a general belief that the region’s sister-States are in a better position to fast-track the resolution since they are ruled by the present regime with the same dispensation at the Centre.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • TN clips Governor’s power to appoint VCs

    The Tamil Nadu Assembly has adopted two Bills that seek to empower the government to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) to 13 State universities under the aegis of the Higher Education Department by amending the respective Acts.

    Role of Governors in State Universities

    • In most cases, the Governor of the state is the ex-officio chancellor of the universities in that state.
    • Its powers and functions as the Chancellor are laid out in the statutes that govern the universities under a particular state government.
    • Their role in appointing the Vice-Chancellors has often triggered disputes with the political executive.

    Who is a Chancellor of a University?

    • In India, almost all universities have a chancellor as their titular head whose function is largely ceremonial.
    • The governor of the state, appointed as the union’s representative of state by the president, is the honorary chancellor of all State owned universities.
    • The de facto head of any government university is the vice-chancellor.
    • In private non-profit universities, normally the head of the foundation who has established the university is the chancellor of the university and is the head of the university.

    What about Central Universities?

    • Under the Central Universities Act, 2009, and other statutes, the President of India shall be the Visitor of a central university.
    • With their role limited to presiding over convocations, Chancellors in central universities are titular heads, who are appointed by the President in his capacity as Visitor.
    • The VCs too are appointed by the Visitor from panels of names picked by search and selection committees formed by the Union government.
    • The Act adds that the President, as Visitor, shall have the right to authorize inspections of academic and non-academic aspects of the universities and also to institute inquiries.

    What are the highlights of the TN Bills?

    • The Bills passed in Tamil Nadu stress that “every appointment of the Vice-Chancellor shall be made by the Government from out of a panel of three names” recommended by a search-cum-selection committee.
    • Currently, the Governor, in his capacity as the Chancellor of state universities, has the power to pick a VC from the shortlisted names.
    • The Bills also seek to empower the state government to have the final word on the removal of VCs, if needed.
    • Removal will be carried out based on inquiries by a retired High Court judge or a bureaucrat who has served at least as a Chief Secretary, according to one of the Bills.

    Are other states trying to curtail the Governor’s role in appointing VCs?

    • In December, the Maharashtra Assembly passed a Bill amending the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
    • Under the original Act, the Maharashtra government had no say in the appointment of VCs.
    • If the changes take effect, the Governor will be given two names to choose from by the state government.
    • In 2019, the West Bengal government took away the Governor’s authority in appointing VCs to state universities.
    • It has also hinted at removing the Governor as the Chancellor of the universities.
    • But all such motives have been challenged by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

    What is at the root of the differences?

    • In West Bengal, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the elected governments have repeatedly accused the Governors of acting at the behest of the Centre on various subjects, including education.
    • The regulations, which differ from state to state, are often open to interpretation and disputes are routine.
    • In fact, the TN Bills make a case for giving the state government the upper hand in the VC appointment process by citing the examples of Gujarat and Telangana.
    • In Karnataka, Jharkhand and Rajasthan, state laws underline the need for concurrence between the state and the Governor.
    • The terms “concurrence” or “consultation” are absent from state legislation in most cases.

    What is the UGC’s role in this?

    • Education comes under the Concurrent List.
    • But entry 66 of the Union List states — “coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions”.
    • This gives the Centre substantial authority over higher education.
    • The UGC plays that standard-setting role, even in the case of appointments in universities and colleges.
    • According to the UGC Regulations, 2018, the “Visitor/Chancellor” — mostly the Governor in states — shall appoint the VC out of the panel of names recommended by search-cum-selection committees.
    • Higher educational institutions, particularly those that get UGC funds, are mandated to follow its regulations.
    • These are usually followed without friction in the case of central universities, but are sometimes resisted by the states in the case of state universities.

    Judicial observations in this regard

    • A Bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said “any appointment as a VC contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto”.
    • It said every subordinate legislation of the UGC, in this case the one on minimum standards on appointments, flows from the parent UGC Act, 1956.
    • Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part of the Act.
    • In case of any conflict between state legislation and central legislation, central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution.
    • It reiterated that the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Places in news: Kuril Islands

    Japan has recently described the Kuril Islands (which Japan calls the Northern Territories and Russia as the South Kurils) as being under Russia’s “illegal occupation”.

    Note the Islands of Japan in North to South Direction:  Hokkaido, Honshu , Shikoku, and Kyushu

    What are the Kuril Islands/ Northern Territories?

    • These are a set of four islands situated between the Sea of Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean near the north of Japan’s northernmost prefecture, Hokkaido.
    • Both Moscow and Tokyo claim sovereignty over them though the islands have been under Russian control since the end of World War II.
    • The Soviet Union had seized the islands at the end of World War II and by 1949 had expelled its Japanese residents.
    • Tokyo claims that the disputed islands have been part of Japan since the early 19th century.

    Why in news?

    • This is the first time in about two decades that Japan has used this phrase to describe the dispute over the Kuril Islands.
    • Japan had been using softer language since 2003, saying that the dispute over the islands was the greatest concern in Russia-Japan bilateral ties.

    What lies behind the dispute?

    • Japan’s sovereignty over the islands is confirmed by several treaties since 1855.
    • Russia, on the other hand, claims the Yalta Agreement (1945) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945) as proof of its sovereignty.
    • It argues that the San Francisco Treaty of 1951 is legal evidence that Japan had acknowledged Russian sovereignty over the islands.
    • Under Article 2 of the treaty, Japan had “renounced all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands.”
    • However, Japan argues that the San Francisco Treaty cannot be used here as the Soviet Union never signed the peace treaty.

    Continuing the WW2

    • In fact, Japan and Russia are technically still at war because they have not signed a peace treaty after World War II.
    • In 1956, during Japanese PM Ichiro Hatoyama’s visit to the Soviet Union, it was suggested that two of the four islands would be returned to Japan once a peace treaty was signed.
    • However, persisting differences prevented the signing of a peace treaty though the two countries signed the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration, which restored diplomatic relations between the two nations.
    • The Soviet Union later hardened its position, even refusing to recognise that a territorial dispute existed with Japan.
    • It was only in 1991 during Mikhail Gorbachev’s visit to Japan that the USSR recognised that the islands were the subject of a territorial dispute.

    Have there been attempts at resolution?

    • Since 1991, there have been many attempts to resolve the dispute and sign a peace treaty.
    • The most recent attempt was under PM Shinzo Abe when joint economic development of the disputed islands was explored.
    • In fact, both countries had agreed to have bilateral negotiations based on the 1956 Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration.
    • Russia was even willing to give back two islands, the Shikotan Island and the Habomai islets, to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty as per the 1956 declaration.
    • Japan’s attempt to improve ties with Russia was driven by its need to diversify energy sources and Russia by its need to diversify its basket of buyers and bring in foreign investments.
    • But nationalist sentiments on both sides prevented resolution of the dispute.

    Implications for Japan

    • Soon after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Japan made its unhappiness with Russia clear.
    • Japan has been among the most steadfast of Western allies in denouncing Russian aggression and punishing it with sanctions.
    • Japan has probably been spurred by its fears of a Russia-China alliance as Japan itself has territorial disputes and an uneasy history with China.
    • Secondly, Japan might have felt that this is a good opportunity to further isolate Russia and paint it as a “habitual offender” of international law.
    • Finally, Tokyo might have been prompted to take this position as it feels that the invasion of Ukraine proves that getting back the Kuril Islands is a lost cause.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Settling India’s COVID-19 mortality data

    Context

    Over the last year, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been busy, in an unprecedented effort, to calculate the global death toll from COVID-19.

    Revision of Covid-19 death toll by WHO

    • Globally from an estimated six million reported deaths, WHO now estimates these deaths to be closer to almost triple the number.
    • The new estimates also take into account formerly uncounted deaths, but also deaths resulting from the impact of COVID-19.
    • For example, millions who could not access care, i.e., diagnosis or treatment due to COVID-19 restrictions or from COVID-19 cases overwhelming health services.
    • India’s stand: India is in serious disagreement with the WHO-prepared COVID-19 mortality estimates.
    • The argument being made by India’s health establishment through a public clarification is that this is an overestimation, and the methodology employed is incorrect.

    India’s Covid response

    • India’s COVID-19 response has been replete with delays and denials.
    • For instance, for the longest time that India’s COVID-19 number rose, the health establishment continued to insist that community transmission was not under way.
    • It took months and several lakh cases before they agreed that COVID-19 was finally in community transmission.
    • The devastation of the second wave showed how unprepared we were to combat the deadly Delta variant.
    •  By the time the wave subsided, India’s population was devastated, and helpless, seeing dignity neither in disease nor in death.

    Conclusion

    The figures ratchet up not only issues of administrative but also moral accountability for governments that they have been previously side stepped.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)