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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Israel-Palestine conflict explained

    Context

    The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s most enduring hostilities, with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip reaching 53 years. Various attempts have been made to resolve the conflict as part of the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.

    British Palestine & Jew Migration

    • The British, after the First World War, established a colony in Palestine maintaining that they would rule the area until the Palestinians were ready to govern themselves. This was called Mandatory Palestine as it was according to the League of Nations mandate.
    • Even before this time, there was a massive influx of Jews from Europe into Palestine in the hope of creating their homeland after being expelled from it for centuries.
    • Meanwhile, in the 1920s and 1930s, the Jewish population in Palestine increased by hundreds of thousands, facilitated by the British (who were honouring the Balfour Declaration).
    • During this time, tensions between the growing Jewish communities and the Arabs were increasing.
    • In 1936, the Palestinian Arabs revolted against the British as a result of the Palestinian Arabs viewing themselves increasingly as a nation.
    • This revolt was suppressed by the British with help from Jewish militias.
    • After the revolt, however, the British issued a white paper that limited Jewish immigration into Palestine and called for the establishment of a joint Jewish-Arab state in Palestine within ten years.
    • During the course of World War II, many Jews escaping Europe from the Holocaust were brought to Palestine illegally (because of the immigration limit) by Jewish organisations.
      Tensions escalated and the British handed over the problem to the newly established United Nations.
    • In 1947, the UN voted to establish separate Palestinian and Jewish states in the region dividing Palestine. This plan was rejected by the Arabs.

    Background of the Israel Palestine conflict

    Following the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Arab League decided to intervene on behalf of Palestinian Arabs, marching their forces into former British Palestine, beginning the main phase of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

    1948 Arab Israel War

    • The overall fighting, leading to around 15,000 casualties, resulted in cease-fire and armistice agreements of 1949, with Israel holding much of the former Mandate territory, Jordan occupying and later annexing the West Bank and Egypt taking over the Gaza Strip, where the All-Palestine Government was declared by the Arab League on 22 September 1948.
    • Through the 1950s, Jordan and Egypt supported the Palestinian Fedayeen militants’ cross-border attacks into Israel, while Israel carried out reprisal operations in the host countries.
    • Over the following years, tensions rose in the region, particularly between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Following the 1956 Suez Crisis and Israel’s invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria signed mutual defense pacts in anticipation of a possible mobilization of Israel troops.
    • The 1956 Suez Crisis resulted in a short-term Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and exile of the All-Palestine Government, which was later restored with Israeli withdrawal.
    • The All-Palestine Government was completely abandoned by Egypt in 1959 and was officially merged into the United Arab Republic, to the detriment of the Palestinian national movement. Gaza Strip then was put under the authority of the Egyptian military administrator, making it a de facto military occupation.
    • In 1964, however, a new organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was established by Yasser Arafat.[29] It immediately won the support of most Arab League governments and was granted a seat in the Arab League.

    1967 Six day War

    • The 1967 Six-Day War exerted a significant effect upon Palestinian nationalism, as Israel gained military control of the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt.
    • The PLO was unable to establish any control on the ground and established its headquarters in Jordan, home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and supported the Jordanian army during the War of Attrition, which included the Battle of Karameh.
    • However, the Palestinian base in Jordan collapsed with the Jordanian–Palestinian civil war in 1970. The PLO defeat by the Jordanians caused most of the Palestinian militants to relocate to South Lebanon, where they soon took over large areas, creating the so-called “Fatahland”.

    Camp David Accords 1978

    1)  The Camp David Accords were a pair of political agreements signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on 17 September 1978.

    2)  The Camp David Accords established the so framework for peace in the Middle East and brought about the end of simmering conflict between Egypt and Israel.

    3)  They also called for the creation of Palestinian state in the area known as Gaza and on the West Bank of river Jordan.

    4)  However since the Palestinians were not represented at the talks, the resulting agreement was not formally recognized by the United Nations.

    • In 1982, following an assassination attempt on one of its diplomats by Palestinians, the Israeli government decided to take sides in the Lebanese Civil War and the 1982 Lebanon War commenced. The initial results for Israel were successful. Most Palestinian militants were defeated within several weeks, Beirut was captured, and the PLO headquarters were evacuated to Tunisia in June by Yasser Arafat’s decision.
    • First Intifada: The tension between Israel and Palestine escalated with Israel’s increased settlement in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip fomented the riots begun in 1987, known as the first intifada.
    • Second Intifada (2000-05): In 2000, a more violent Palestine Uprising started and a large number of civilians died on both sides. This is known as the second intifada. As a defensive measure, Israel constructed a West Bank Barrier along West Bank to separate Israel and Palestine settlements.

    Road Map for Peace

    • 1993 OSLO Accord: The Oslo Accords are a pair of peace agreements between the     Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO

    1) Oslo 1 Accord: It was officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. It was signed in Washington, D.C., in 1993.

    • The accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority.
    • Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which “permanent status negotiations” would commence in order to reach a final agreement.
    • Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases.
    • Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition—the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.
    • In order that the Palestinians govern themselves according to democratic principles, free and general political elections would be held for the council.
    • Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except for issues that would be finalized in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides viewed the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.
    • The five-year transitional period would commence with Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. There would be a transfer of authority from the Israel Defense Forces to the authorized Palestinians, concerning education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation, and tourism. The council would establish a strong police force, while Israel would continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats.

    2) Oslo 2 Accord: It was called The Interim Agreement on the             West Bank and the Gaza Strip and was signed on the 28th    September, 1995 in Taba (Egypt).

    • Oslo I also set the agenda for the follow-up agreement that became known as Oslo II, which would include discussion of the future governance of the city of Jerusalem (both sides claim it as their respective capital) as well as issues concerning borders, security and the rights, if any, of Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
    • A protocol for free elections for Palestinian Authority leadership was also established.
    • Oslo II, which was signed two years later, gave the Palestinian Authority, which oversees Gaza and the West Bank, limited control over part of the region, while allowing Israel to annex much of the West Bank, and established parameters for economic and political cooperation between the two sides.
    • As part of the treaty, both sides were prohibited from inciting violence or conflict against the other.
    • Israel was to collects taxes from Palestinians who work in Israel but live in the Occupied Territories, distributing the revenue to the Palestinian Authority.
    • Israel was also to oversee the trade of goods and services into and out of Gaza and the West Bank.

    3) Aftermath of the Oslo Accords

    • Unfortunately, any momentum gained from the ratification of the Oslo Accords was short-lived.
    • In 1998, Palestinian officials accused Israel of not following through on the troop withdrawals from Gaza and Hebron called for in the Oslo Accords.
    • After initially slowing down settlement construction in the West Bank, at the request of the United States, the building of new Israeli housing in the region began in earnest again in the early 2000s.
    • Conversely, critics of the Accords said that Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens increased in their aftermath, coinciding with the increasing power of the Palestinian Authority.
    • These critics felt that the Palestinian Authority was failing to adequately police Gaza and the West Bank, and identify and prosecute suspected terrorists.
    • With these disagreements providing the backdrop, negotiators from both sides reconvened, once again at Camp David, with the hope of following up on the Oslo Accords with a comprehensive peace treaty.
    • In September 2000, Palestinian militants declared a “Second Intifada,” calling for increased violence against Israelis after Sharon, who as prime minister visited the Temple Mount—a site sacred to both Jews and Muslims.

    Camp David Accord 2000

    • The 2000 Camp David Summit was a summit meeting at Camp David between United States president Bill Clinton, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat. The summit took place between 11 and 25 July 2000.
    • Barak put forward the following as “bases for negotiation”, a non-militarized Palestinian state split into 3–4 parts containing 87–92% of the West Bank including only parts of East Jerusalem, and the entire Gaza Strip.
    • The offer also included that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank’s Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel, no right of return to Israel, no sovereignty over the Temple Mount or any core East Jerusalem neighbourhoods, and continued Israel control over the Jordan Valley.
    • Arafat rejected this offer. According to the Palestinian negotiators the offer did not remove many of the elements of the Israeli occupation regarding land, security, settlements, and Jerusalem.

    Taba Summit (2001)

    • The Israeli negotiation team presented a new map at the Taba Summit in Taba, Egypt in January 2001. The proposition removed the “temporarily Israeli controlled” areas, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation.
    • The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections.
    • The following month the Likud party candidate Ariel Sharon defeated Ehud Barak in the Israeli elections and was elected as Israeli prime minister on 7 February 2001. Sharon’s new government chose not to resume the high-level talks.

    Arab Peace Initiative

    • The Arab Peace Initiative was first proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Beirut Summit (2002). The peace initiative is a proposed solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict as a whole, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in particular.
    • The initiative was initially published on 28 March 2002, at the Beirut Summit, and agreed upon again in 2007 in the Riyadh Summit.
    • Unlike the Road Map for Peace, it spelled out “final-solution” borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967 Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to recognize “an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital” in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a “just solution” for the Palestinian refugees.
    • The Israeli government has expressed reservations on ‘red line,’ issues such as the Palestinian refugee problem, homeland security concerns, and the nature of Jerusalem.

    What led to Recent Crash

    •  In October 2020, an Israeli court ruled that several Palestinian families living in Sheikh Jarrah—a neighborhood in East Jerusalem—were to be evicted by May 2021 with their land handed over to Jewish families.
    • In February 2021, several Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah filed an appeal to the court ruling and prompted protests around the appeal hearings, the ongoing legal battle around property ownership, and demanding an end to the forcible displacement of Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem.
    • In late April 2021, Palestinians began demonstrating in the streets of Jerusalem to protest the pending evictions and residents of Sheikh Jarrah—along with other activists—began to host nightly sit-ins.  In early May, after a court ruled in favor of the evictions, the protests expanded with Israeli police deploying force against demonstrators.
    • On May 7, following weeks of daily demonstrations and rising tensions between protesters, Israeli settlers, and police during the month of Ramadan, violence broke out at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem, with Israeli police using stun grenades, rubber bullets, and water cannons in a clash with protestors that left hundreds of Palestinians wounded.
    • On May 10, after several consecutive days of violence throughout Jerusalem and the use of lethal and nonlethal force by Israeli police, Hamas, the militant group which governs Gaza, and other Palestinian militant groups launched hundreds of rockets into Israeli territory.
    • Israel responded with air strikes and later artillery bombardments against targets in Gaza, including launching several air strikes that killed more than twenty Palestinians. While claiming to target Hamas, other militants, and their infrastructure—including tunnels and rocket launchers—Israel has expanded its aerial campaign and struck targets including residential buildings, media headquarters, and refugee and healthcare facilities.

    Rival claims over Jerusalem

    • Both Israel and Palestine have declared Jerusalem their capital.
    • In July 1980, the Israeli Parliament passed the Jerusalem Law declaring it the country’s capital.
    • Palestinians declared Jerusalem the capital of the putative state of Palestine by a law passed by the Palestinian Authority in 2000.
    • The 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence also declared Jerusalem as the capital.
    • For the present, the Palestinian Authority has its headquarters in Ramallah.

    Hamas and Fatah

    • In 1987, Hamas (Islamic Militant group) for the liberation of Palestine through Jihad came into existence. It refused to recognize Israel as a country. It has received support from Iran and Syria.
    • On the other hand, Fatah, a faction of PLO under Yasser Arafat received support from Western nations.

    (Palestinians run for cover from tear gas during clashes with Israeli security forces near the border between Israel and the Gaza)

    What is happening in GAZA

    • Gaza is a densely populated strip of land that is mostly surrounded by Israel and peopled almost exclusively by Palestinians. Israel used to have a military presence, but withdrew unilaterally in 2005. It’s currently under Israeli blockade.
    • Egypt controlled Gaza until 1967, when Israel occupied it (along with the West Bank) in the Six-Day War.
    • Until 2005, Israeli military authorities controlled Gaza in the same way they control the West Bank, and Jews were permitted to settle there. In 2005, then–Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pulled out Israeli troops and settlers unilaterally.
    • Gaza is governed by the Islamist group Hamas, which formed in 1987 as a militant “resistance” group against Israel and won political power in a 2006 US-based election.
    • Hamas’s takeover of Gaza prompted an Israeli blockade of the flow of commercial goods into Gaza, on the grounds that Hamas could use those goods to make weapons to be used against Israel.
    • Israel has eased the blockade over time, but the cutoff of basic supplies like fuel still does significant humanitarian harm by cutting off access to electricity, food, and medicine.
    • Hamas and other Gaza-based militants have fired thousands of rockets from the territory at Israeli targets.
    • Israel has launched a number of military operations in Gaza, including an air campaign and ground invasion in late 2008 and early 2009, a major bombing campaign in 2012, and another air/ground assault in the summer of 2014.

    International Scenario

    Stand of USA

    • For decades, the U.S. has played a partisan role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    • It became involved shortly after World War II, joining the United Kingdom in a 1946 inquiry that recommended one hundred thousand Holocaust survivors relocate to Palestine, which would be neither a Jewish nor an Arab state.
    • The United States then became the first country to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation in 1948.
    • Shortly after the 1967 war, Israel began building settlements in some of the territories it had seized. For years, the United States officially condemned these settlements—branding them an obstacle to peace—but avoided outright calling them illegal to avoid the possibility that Israel would face international sanctions.
    • After the failed 2000 Camp David summit, Washington never made any meaningful attempt to push the Israelis to accept the two-state proposal.
    • The 2007 Annapolis conference was a failure too. The previous U.S. administration launched a peace bid which also collapsed at an early stage.
    • In 2018, the Trump administration canceled funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees, and relocated the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a reversal of a longstanding U.S. policy.  The decision to move the U.S. embassy was met with applause from the Israeli leadership but was condemned by Palestinian leaders and others in the Middle East and Europe.
    • Biden has said he will continue the nearly two decades of , which calls for separate Israeli and Palestinian states with borders resembling those that existed before the 1967 war; this territory includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and parts of East Jerusalem.

    Stand of Arab Countries

    a)   EGYPT

    • Egypt wants a unified Palestinian leadership. Therefore, it invests a lot in supporting a Palestinian reconciliation.
    • Egypt wants Gaza, the branches of Hamas and Fatah in Gaza, and other forces in Gaza, to have a bigger say in the Palestinian decision-making process.
    • Egypt wants to eradicate terror cells in Sinai.
    • Egypt wants Hamas to be less dependent (at least) on Iran, Turkey and Qatar. The Saudis and the Emiratis concur, and they can fund Gaza.

    b) Turkey

    • In December 1987, Turkey had already declared support for the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.  It described Israeli policy in the Gaza Strip as “state-sponsored terrorism”
    • The Turkish government’s condemnation of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict strained relations between the two countries.

    c) Syria

    • Syria announced its complete support to Palestine after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out, and had sent troops to fight against newly-formed Israel Defense Forces
    • Syria also joined the Six-Day War hoping to expel Israeli Army in order to restore Palestinian state, in which ended with a complete failure.

    d)  Lebanon

    • Lebanon did take a formal part in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War against Israel, but Lebanon was the first Arab league nation to signal a desire for an armistice treaty with Israel in 1949.
    • Israel also supported the secessionist Free Lebanon State during 1979-1984 and its successor South Lebanon Army.
    • In all Lebanon has maintained a pro Israeli stance.

    e)   Jordan

    • Jordan was not a member of the United Nations when the vote on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was taken in November 1947, but following the establishment of the state of Israel on 14 May 1948, Jordan, then known as Transjordan, was one of the Arab League countries that invaded the former Palestinian Mandate territory precipitating the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
    • By war’s end, Jordan was in control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (including the Old City). It expelled its Jewish population, and formally annexed the territories in 1950.
    • Promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is a major priority for Jordan. It supports U.S. efforts to mediate a final settlement, which it believes should be based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, proposed by Saudi Arabia.

    f)    Saudi Arabia

    • Israel and Saudi Arabia do not have any official diplomatic relations.
    • Saudi Arabia played an active role in attempting to bring the Palestinians towards a self-governing condition which would permit negotiations with Israel. It has done so primarily by trying to mend the schism between Fatah and Hamas, most notably when King Abdullah invited the two factions to negotiations in Mecca resulting in the Mecca Agreement of 7 February 2007. The agreement soon failed, but Saudi Arabia has continued to support a national unity government for the Palestinians, and strongly opposed the war in Gaza in early 2009.

    3)   Stand of India

    • India was one of the few countries to oppose the UN’s partition plan in November 1947, echoing its own experience during independence a Few Months Earlier.
    • In the decades that followed, the Indian political leadership actively supported the Palestinian cause and withheld full diplomatic relations with Israel.
    • India recognised Israel in 1950 but it is also the first non-Arab country to recognise Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole representative of the Palestinian. India is also one of the first countries to recognise the statehood of Palestine in 1988.
    • In 2014, India favoured UNHRC’s resolution to probe Israel’s human rights violations in Gaza. Despite supporting the probe, India abstained from voting against Israel in UNHRC IN 2015.
    • As a part of Link West Policy, India has de-hyphenated its relationship with Israel and Palestine in 2018 to treat both the countries mutually independent and exclusive.
    • In June 2019, India voted in favour of a decision introduced by Israel in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) that objected to granting consultative status to a Palestinian non-governmental organization

    Way Forward

    • Though not a shining example, Israel can learn a lesson from its neighbour, Lebanon. The sectarian model of power sharing, where Christians, Shias, Sunnis, Druze, Armenians etc. are offered government positions demographically, did help enable Lebanon transition to some degree of stability after the civil war ended in 1990.
    • There must be change in leadership in both the countries. Leaders are that are ready mentally and physically for a truce must be brought to power.

    To start a peace process following steps must be taken:

    • Israel must  end settlement expansion beyond the wall.
    • Easing restrictions on Gaza
    • Redesignating parts of the West Bank currently falling under full Israeli administration (Area C) as areas that fall under partial or full Palestinian administration (Areas B or A)
    • Removing impediments to Palestinian economic development
    • Ending home demolitions and other forms of collective punishment
    • Removing impediments to Palestinian elections in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza
    • Alleviating restrictions on movement and access
    • Gradually releasing Palestinian prisoners
    • Allowing the reopening of Palestinian institutions, such as the Orient House, in East Jerusalem

  • China’s 17+1 Cooperation Forum

    Lithuania has decided to quit China’s 17+1 cooperation forum with central and eastern European states that include other EU members, calling it “divisive”.

    About 17+ 1 Forum

    • The forum is an abbreviation for Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries.
    • It is an initiative by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to promote business and investment relations between China and 16 countries of CEE (CEEC).
    • The countries are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
    • The format was founded in 2012 in Warsaw to push for the cooperation of the “17+1” (the 17 CEE countries and China).
    • Its goals are to promote the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and enhance cooperation in the fields of infrastructure, transportation, and logistics, trade and investment”.

  • What is Vaccine Tourism?

    A couple of days ago, reports emerged of a Dubai-based tour operator offering a 24-day package tour from Delhi to Moscow that has included two shots of the Russian Sputnik-V vaccine.

    What is vaccine tourism?

    • In India, the term “vaccine tourism” became popular late last year when reports emerged of several tour operators offering packages to the US with the additional benefit of a vaccine shot.
    • Meanwhile, South Africans are said to be flying to Zimbabwe, Canadians and South Americans are traveling to the US for jabs, while tour operators in Europe are offering trips to Russia for Sputnik V shots.
    • It is said that Russia and the Maldives are already working on programs to offer people abroad the chance to get vaccinated during a visit; similar offerings are sprouting in the US as well.

    Why is it gaining popularity?

    • In fact, vaccine tourism is an emerging trend in countries where vaccines are in short supply, or where certain groups are still restricted from being inoculated.
    • Still, there are only a few countries in the world (parts of the US, Russia, Slovakia, Zimbabwe, etc) that don’t restrict their vaccination policy to local residents.
    • Currently, it is not illegal to travel to a foreign country to get vaccinated if air travel is allowed.
    • Recently, Seychelles announced that only vaccinated visitors from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who have completed two weeks after their second dose are permitted to travel to and enter the island nation, with proof.

    Can Indians go abroad to get vaccinated for Covid-19?

    • There may be no need for anyone from India to go abroad for vaccination since all eligible Indians will be vaccinated in the country by the end of this year – that too, at the most reasonable rates possible.
    • However, the idea of vaccine tourism is gaining momentum in India.
    • Many Indians, who fled to Dubai just before the international flight ban came into effect last month, are said to be availing of the Chinese vaccine Sinopharm shots in the UAE.

    Not to be confused with Vaccine Passport

    • Sometimes, vaccine tourism is confused with vaccine passports, which is a more regulated practice gaining currency around the world.

  • Maratha quota judgment could lead to a federal crisis on reservation

    The article highlights the issues with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 102nd amendment depriving the States of power to identify the SEBCs.

    How 102nd Constitution Amendment was interpreted by the SC?

    • Supreme Court held that the 102nd Constitution Amendment has taken away the power of the states to identify and prepare a list of Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs).
    • The Supreme Court has interpreted the 102nd constitutional amendment to the effect that only the President can publish a list of backward classes in relation to each state and that only Parliament can make inclusions and exclusions in that list.
    • The Supreme Court has also directed the central government to notify the list of SEBCs for each state and Union Territory.
    • Until such lists are prepared, the court directed that the present state list would continue to be in operation.

    Time-honoured authority of the States

    • The states have been exercising the power to identify the list of SEBCs from the beginning of the 20th century.
    • In states like the Madras Presidency, Mysore, Bombay, Travancore-Cochin, reservation and other benefits to OBCs were in practice since the 1920s.
    • The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and the insertion of Article 15(4), empowered the states to make “special provision for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens”.
    • In states like Bihar, 26 per cent reservation to OBCs in jobs and educational institutions were provided in 1978 on the recommendations of the Mungeri Lal Commission.
    • Similarly, in more than a dozen states, reservation in jobs and educational institutions were provided on recommendations of the respective state commissions.

      Central list of SEBC after Indra Sawhney judgment

    • Till 1992, there was no central list of SEBCs and no reservation in jobs and educational institutions in the central government.
    • In the Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992, the Supreme Court upheld 27 per cent reservation in central government jobs for SEBCs.
    • After Indra Sawhney, the Union government was authorised to prepare a central list for reservation of SEBCs in central government jobs and take other affirmative actions.
    • Acting on the directions of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney, the central and several state governments enacted laws for setting up commissions to ascertain and identify the backward class of citizens.
    • Therefore, after 1992, there was a “central list” for central government services and a “state list” that was prepared by state governments for state-specific jobs.

    Intention of the Union government

    • The intention was not to change the status quo and to take away the power of the state governments to prepare and notify a separate state list of SEBCs.
    • Even during the discussion in the select committee of Parliament on the 102nd Constitution Amendment, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment clarified that the proposed insertion of Article 342A (1) and (2) did not interfere with the power of state governments to identify SEBCs.
    • In the affidavit filed by the central government before the Supreme Court, it was submitted that the power of Parliament to identify SEBCs lay with reference to the central list and states would have a separate list of SEBCs for reservation.

    Way forward

    • If the review petition fails to convince the Supreme Court, the central government would have to expeditiously bring a constitutional amendment to resolve this crisis.

    Consider the question “Examine the issues with the Supreme Courts interpretation of the 102nd constitutional amendment regarding the States’ right to identify the socially and economically backward class.” 

    Conclusion

    The majority judgement by 3:2 has failed to appreciate that Article 15 empowers the states to identify socially and economically backward classes of citizens and that this power has not been changed by the 102nd Constitution Amendment.

  • Pardoning powers of the President

    Tamil Nadu CM has written to the President requesting him to accept the State Government’s to remit the life sentences of all the seven convicts in the Ex-PM’s assassination case.

    Story so far

    • Tamil Nadu government had recommended to the state Governor for the remission of the rest of the sentence for all convicts and their early release.
    • The Governor has then decided that the President was the competent authority to decide on the plea of remission of sentence.

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q.Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule
    2. Appointing the Ministers
    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India
    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 1 and 3 only

    (c) 2, 3 and 4 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

    Pardon

    • A pardon is a government/executive decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense as if the act never occurred.

    Why need Pardon?

    • Pardons can be granted when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have “paid their debt to society”, or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them.
    • Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted.
    • Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted.

    Pardoning powers in India

    • Under the Constitution of India (Article 72), the President of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment.
    • A similar and parallel power vests in the governors of each state under Article 161.

    [1] President

    1. Article 72 says that the president shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense.
    2. The pardoning powers of the Indian President are elucidated in Art 72 of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of pardoning that are mandated by law.
    • Pardon: means completely absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The pardoned criminal will be like a normal citizen.
    • Commutation: means changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsh one, for example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence.
    • Reprieve: means a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence, usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time to apply for Presidential Pardon or some other legal remedy to prove his innocence or successful rehabilitation.
    • Respite: means reducing the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition etc.
    • Remission: means changing the quantum of the punishment without changing its nature, for example reducing twenty year rigorous imprisonment to ten years.

    Cases as specified by art. 72

    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial;
    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
    • in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

    [2] Governor

    • Similarly, as per article 161: Governor of a State has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law.
    • It must be relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
    • Please note that President can grant pardon to a person awarded death sentence. But a governor of a state does not enjoy this power.

    Nature of the Pardoning Power

    • The question is whether this power to grant pardon is absolute or this power of pardon shall be exercised by the President on the advice of Council of Ministers.
    • The pardoning power of the president is not absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • This has not been discussed by the constitution but is the practical truth.
    • Further, the constitution does not provide for any mechanism to question the legality of decisions of President or governors exercising mercy jurisdiction.
    • But the SC in Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of President and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness.
    • The court has earlier held that court has retained the power of judicial review even on a matter which has been vested by the Constitution solely in the Executive.

    Some traditions

    • It is important to note that India has a unitary legal system and there is no separate body of state law.
    • All crimes are crimes against the Union of India.
    • Therefore, a convention has developed that the governor’s powers are exercised for only minor offenses.
    • While requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the UTs are deferred to the President.

  • E-way bill integrated with FASTag, RFID

    GST officers have been armed with real-time data of commercial vehicle movement on highways with the integration of the e-way bill (EWB) system with FasTag and RFID.

    Why such a move?

    • The integration of e-way bill, RFID, and FASTag will enable tax officers to undertake live vigilance in respect of EWB compliances by businesses and will help curb tax evasion.
    • It will aid in preventing revenue leakage by real-time identification of cases of recycling and/or non-generation of EWBs.

    What are E-way bills (EWB)?

    • Under the GST regime, transporters should carry the eWay Bill when moving goods from one place to another when certain conditions are satisfied.
    • EWBs are mandatory for inter-state transportation of goods valued over Rs 50,000 from April 2018, with the exemption to precious items such as gold
    • In this system, businesses and transporters have to produce before a GST inspector the e-way bill, if asked.
    • On average, 25 lakh goods vehicle movements from more than 800 tolls are reported on a daily basis to the e-way bill system.

    Benefits of the move

    • Tax officers can now access reports on vehicles that have passed the selected tolls without EWBs in the past few minutes.
    • Also, vehicles carrying critical commodities specific to the state and having passed the selected toll can be viewed.
    • Any suspicious vehicles and vehicles of EWBs generated by suspicious taxpayer GSTINs, that have passed the selected toll on a near real-time basis, can also be viewed in this report.
    • The officers can use these reports while conducting vigilance and make the vigilance activity more effective.
    • Also, the officers of the audit and enforcement wing can use these reports to identify fraudulent transactions like bill trading, recycling of EWBs.

  • Places in news: Paracel Islands

    A United States warship sailed through the Paracel Islands in the disputed South China Sea.

    Paracel Islands

    • The Paracel Islands, also known as the Xisha Islands are a disputed archipelago in the South China Sea.
    • The archipelago includes about 130 small coral islands and reefs, most grouped into the northeast Amphitrite Group or the western Crescent Group.
    • They are distributed over a maritime area of around 15,000 square kilometers with a land area of approximately 7.75 square kilometers.
    • The archipelago includes Dragon Hole, the deepest underwater sinkhole in the world.
    • It is surrounded by productive fishing grounds and a seabed with potential, but as yet unexplored, oil and gas reserves.

  • The outdated nature of bureaucracy

    The second wave of Covid has exposed the inherent weakness of the bureaucracy in India. The article highlights the necessity for reforms in the way bureaucracy functions in India.

    Features of traditional bureaucracy

    • Preference to generalist: Weberian bureaucracy still prefers a generalist over a specialist.
    • Preference to leadership of position: The leadership of position is preferred over leadership of function in the traditional bureaucracy.
    • The leadership of function is when a person has expert knowledge of a particular responsibility in a particular situation.
    • The role of the leader is to explain the situation instead of issuing orders.
    •  Every official involved in a particular role responds to the situation rather than relying on some dictation from someone occupying a particular position.
    • Lack of innovation: The rigid adherence to rules has resulted in the rejection of innovation.

    Covid exposed limits of traditional bureaucracy

    • A generalist officer IAS and State civil service officials are deemed an expert and as a result, superior in traditional bureaucracy.
    • Specialists in every government department have to remain subordinate to the generalist officers.
    • The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the weakness of this system.
    • Healthcare professionals who are specialists have been made to work under generalist officers and the policy options have been left to the generalists when they should be in the hands of the specialists.
    • The justification is that the generalist provides a broader perspective compared to the specialist.

    Is privatisation and private sector managerial techniques an answer?

    • The reform often suggested in India is new public management.
    • This as a reform movement promotes privatisation and managerial techniques of the private sector as an effective tool to seek improvements in public service delivery and governance.
    • But this isn’t a viable solution in India where there is social inequality and regional variations in development.
    • It renders the state a bystander among the multiple market players with a lack of accountability.
    • Further, COVID-19 has shown that the private sector has also failed in public service delivery.

    Way forward: Collaborative governance

    • The most appropriate administrative reform is the model of new public governance.
    • Work together: In collaborative governance, the public sector, private players and civil society, especially public service organisations (NGOs), work together for effective public service delivery.
    • As part of new public governance, a network of social actors and private players would take responsibility in various aspects of governance with public bureaucracy steering the ship rather than rowing it.
    • As part of new public governance, the role of civil society has to be institutionalised.
    • It needs a change in the behaviour of bureaucracy.
    • Openness to reforms: It needs flexibility in the hierarchy, a relook at the generalist versus specialist debate, and an openness to reforms such as lateral entry and collaboration with a network of social actors.
    • All major revolutions with huge implications on public service delivery have come through the collaboration of public bureaucracy with so-called outsiders.
    • These include the Green Revolution (M.S. Swaminathan), the White Revolution (Verghese Kurien), Aadhaar-enabled services (Nandan Nilekani) and the IT revolution (Sam Pitroda).

    Consider the question “What are the weaknesses of bureaucracy in India? Suggest the measures to improve the quality of public service delivery in India.”

    Conclusion

    New public governance is the future of governance, especially public service delivery.

    Back2Basics: The Weberian Model of bureaucracy

    • The classic model of bureaucracy is typically called the ideal Weberian model, and it was developed by Max Weber, an early German sociologist.
    • Weber argued that the increasing complexity of life would simultaneously increase the demands of citizens for government services.
    • Therefore, the ideal type of bureaucracy, the Weberian model, was one in which agencies are apolitical, hierarchically organized, and governed by formal procedures.
    • Furthermore, specialized bureaucrats would be better able to solve problems through logical reasoning.
    • Such efforts would eliminate entrenched patronage, stop problematic decision-making by those in charge,, impose order and efficiency, create a clear understanding of the service provided, reduce arbitrariness, ensure accountability, and limit discretion.

  • The fault line of poor health infrastructure

    The poor public health infrastructure in India hits the poor hard. The article examines the factors responsible for poor public health infrastructure and suggests the measures to deal with it.

    Poor state of health infrastructure

    • World Bank data reveal the poor state of India’s health infrastructure.
    • It reveals that India had 85.7 physicians per 1,00,000 people in 2017.
    • In contrast, it is 98 in Pakistan, 58 in Bangladesh, 100 in Sri Lanka and 241 in Japan.
    • India had 53 beds per 1,00,000 people.
    • It is 63 in Pakistan, 79.5 in Bangladesh, 415 in Sri Lanka and 1,298 in Japan.
    • India had172.7 nurses and midwives per 1,00,000 people in contrast to 220 in Sri Lanka, 40 in Bangladesh, 70 in Pakistan, and 1,220 in Japan.

    What are the factors responsible for poor health infrastructure?

    • Stagnant expenditure: Analysis by the Centre for Economic Data and Analysis (CEDA), Ashoka University, shows that health expenditure has been stagnant for years.
    • Lack of expertise with states: Despite health being a state subject, the main bodies with technical expertise are under central control.
    • The States lack corresponding expert bodies such as the National Centre for Disease Control or the Indian Council of Medical Research.
    • Inter-State variation: States also differ a great deal in terms of the fiscal space to deal with the novel coronavirus pandemic because of the wide variation in per capita health expenditure.
    • Kerala and Delhi have been close to top in years from 2011 to 2019-20.
    • Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, States that have been consistently towards the bottom of the ranking in the same years.

    Out-of-pocket expenditure and its impact on the poor

    • Due to low levels of public health provision, the World Health Organization estimates that 62% of the total health expenditure in India is OOP, among the highest in the world.
    • Some of the poorest States, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Odisha, have a high ratio of OOP expenditures in total health expenditure.
    • Impact on the poor: High ratio of OOP means that the poor in the poorest States, the most vulnerable sections, are the worst victims of a health emergency.

    Way forward

    1) Coordinated national plan

    • The inter-State variation in health expenditure highlights the need for a coordinated national plan at the central level to fight the pandemic.
    • The Centre already tightly controls major decisions, including additional resources raised specifically for pandemic relief, e.g. the PM CARES Fund.
    • The need for a coordinated strategy on essential supplies of oxygen and vaccines is acute.
    • The Centre can bargain for a good price from vaccine manufacturers in its capacity as a single large buyer like the European Union did for its member states.
    • Centre will also benefit from the economies of scale in transportation of vaccines into the country.
    • Once the vaccines arrive in India, these could be distributed across States equitably in a needs-based and transparent manner.
    • Another benefit of central coordination is that distribution of constrained resources like medical supplies, financial resources can internalise the existing disparities in health infrastructure across States.

    2) Form Pandemic Preparedness Unit

    • There is a need for the creation of a “Pandemic Preparedness Unit” (PPU) by the central government.
    • PPU would streamline disease surveillance and reporting systems; coordinate public health management and policy responses across all levels of government.
    • It will also formulate policies to mitigate economic and social costs, and communicate effectively about the health crisis.

    Consider the question “India has among the highest out-of-pocket expenditure in the world, which is the result of poor public health infrastructure. Examine the factors responsible for poor public health infrastructure and suggest the ways to deal with it.”

    Conclusion

    As and when we emerge on the other side of the pandemic, bolstering public health-care systems has to be the topmost priority for all governments: the Centre as well as States.

  • Centre’s decision to provide security to MLAs raises questions

    The article deals with the issue of the Home Ministry’s decision to provide security to BJP MLAs in West Bengal.

    Context

    Recently, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) decided to provide security cover to 77 MLAs of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who were elected earlier this month after the West Bengal Assembly poll.

    Issues with the decision

    1) Threat perception discussed for a group and not one by one person

    • Decisions to provide security to persons under threat is taken by a committee in the MHA.
    • The committee comprises officials from the MHA, the Intelligence Bureau, Delhi Police and senior officials of the Central Armed Police Forces.
    • In the meetings of the committee, the threat perception of each of the person to be secured is discussed one by one and not collectively for any group as such.
    • However, in the decision to deploy CAPF personnel for the 77 MLAs, threat perception for each of the persons was not discussed.

    2) Law and order is a state subject

    • Law and order being a State subject, West Bengal is duty-bound to protect every citizen of the State, more so the MLAs.
    • By deploying central forces, the Centre has sent a clear signal that it does not rely upon the State government to provide fool-proof security to the BJP MLAs.
    • This is not a good sign for Centre-State relations.
    • The Central government’s distrust of officers who are considered close to a State’s ruling dispensation does not bode well for police officers across the country.

    3) Burdening the security forces

    • The number of protected persons has increased in recent years.
    • In 2019, as many as 66,043 police and CAPF personnel were deployed to protect 19,467 persons against the sanctioned strength of 43,556 personnel, as per the Data on Police Organisations.
    • Constant deployment of CAPF personnel on protection duties impacts their training schedule.

    Curbing the tendency to have security as status symbol

    • To curb the tendency of demanding security personnel around themselves, leaders and prominent persons should be asked to bear the expenditure.
    • Similarly, Members of Parliament and leaders with criminal records should be charged a fee for the security personnel deployed to protect them.

    Conclusion

    The Centre’s decision to provide security to the MLAs would set a wrong precedent and does not bode well for federalism.