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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • India needs to engage with U.S. progressives

    The artcle highlights the role played by the progressive section in the US politics in influencing U.S. governments decision on TRIPS waiver and providing aid to India. Incidentally, these progressives include names such as Pramila Jayapal whose comment on human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir had annoyed India.

    What led to change in U.S.’s approach on aid

    • There was a shift in the U.S.’s approach on providing COVID-19-related aid to India as well as on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) waiver on COVID-19 vaccines.
    • It is tempting to surmise the shift as being driven by the Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership with New Delhi.
    • But it is more than just that.
    • The development was a result of the determined push by some sections of the political and business class, civil society, and Indian Americans.
    • Besides them, the progressives in the Democratic Party made a big difference.

    Role of the progressives

    • Days ahead of the May 5 decision of the Biden administration on the TRIPS waiver, 110 members of the U.S. Congress wrote to President Biden urging him to support the waiver.
    • Thus, the Biden administration’s decision on the waiver and the vaccines, characterised as courageous by many, was a result of the push by the progressives.
    • Joining in this effort, the co-chair of the Congressional India Caucus, and over 50 colleagues wrote last week to President Biden seeking supply of specific items.
    • The overall approach is to work with India in its battle against the second wave and prepare for subsequent ones.

    Conclusion

    It is evident that the progressives have a grip on policymaking. India will have to remain engaged with this section instead of offering a cold shoulder as it did in the recent past. As the adage goes, all politics is local.

  • Explained: India, Israel and Palestine Ties

    Recently India’s permanent representative to the UN made a carefully crafted statement at the UN Security Council “open debate” on the escalating Israel-Palestine violence.

    Must read:

    [Burning Issue] West Asia Peace Plan

    The story so far

    • The violence started on 6 May, when Palestinian protests began in Jerusalem over an anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Israel on the eviction of six Palestinian families a neighbourhood of occupied East Jerusalem.
    • Israel’s operation “Guardian of the Walls” began with attacks on Hamas (a fundamentalist Palestinian group) tunnels close to the border fence with Israel.
    • India has adopted a balanced approach to the current Israeli-Palestine conflict that has pushed the volatile region into yet another cycle of violence.

    India’s long-standing position

    • India has since long been maintaining that the Israel-Palestine conflict should be resolved through negotiation resulting in sovereign, independent, viable and united State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
    • India has urged both countries to “engage with each other, including on the recent proposals put forward by the United States, and find an acceptable two-state solution for peaceful coexistence”.

    The dilemma

    • India seems to strive to maintain a balance between India’s historic ties with Palestine and its blossoming relations with Israel.
    • The request that both sides refrain from “attempts to unilaterally change the existing status quo including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhoods” seems to be a message to Israel about its settler policy.
    • The statement was also emphatic that “the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem including the Haraml al-Sharif/Temple Mount must be respected”.

    Ties with spikes

    • India’s policy on the longest-running conflict in the world has gone from being unequivocally pro-Palestine for the first four decades, to a tense balancing act with its three-decade-old friendly ties with Israel.
    • In recent years, India’s position has also been perceived as pro-Israel.

    From Nehru to Rao

    • The balancing began with India’s decision to normalize ties with Israel in 1992, which came against the backdrop of the break-up of the Soviet Union.
    • There were massive shifts in the geopolitics of West Asia on account of the first Gulf War in 1990.
    • That year, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) lost much of its clout in the Arab world by siding with Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the occupation of Kuwait.
    • The opening of an Indian embassy in Tel Aviv in January 1992 marked an end to four decades of giving Israel the cold shoulder, as India’s recognition of Israel in 1950 had been minus full diplomatic ties.
    • PM Nehru’s reasoning for the decision to recognise Israel was that it was “an established fact”, and that not doing so would create bitterness between two UN members.

    Why did India then support Palestine?

    • In 1948, India was the only non-Arab-state among 13 countries that voted against the UN partition plan of Palestine in the General Assembly that led to the creation of Israel.
    • Scholars ascribe various reasons for this India’s own Partition along religious lines; as a new nation that had just thrown off its colonial yoke; solidarity with the Palestinian people who would be dispossessed; and to ward off Pakistan’s plan to isolate India over Kashmir.
    • Later, India’s energy dependence on the Arab countries also became a factor, as did the sentiments of India’s own Muslim citizens.

    India and Palestine

    • The relationship with Palestine was almost an article of faith in Indian foreign policy for over four decades.
    • At the 53rd UN session, India co-sponsored the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.
    • In the 1967 and 1973 wars, India lashed out at Israel as the aggressor.
    • In the 1970s, India rallied behind the PLO and its leader as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
    • In 1975, India became the first non-Arab country to recognise the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people and invited it to open an office in Delhi.
    • In 1988, when the PLO declared an independent state of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem, India granted recognition immediately.

    Continuity for the cause

    • India voted in favour of the UN General Assembly resolution in October 2003 against Israel’s construction of a separation wall.
    • It voted for Palestine to become a full member of UNESCO in 2011, and a year later, co-sponsored the UNGA resolution that enabled Palestine to become a “non-member” observer state at the UN without voting rights.
    • India also supported the installation of the Palestinian flag on the UN premises in September 2015.

    Changes after 2014

    • For two-and-a-half decades from 1992, the India-Israel relationship continued to grow, mostly through defence deals, and in sectors such as science and technology and agriculture.
    • But India never acknowledged the relationship fully.
    • There were few high-profile visits, and they all took place when the PM Vajpayee was in office.
    • Israel was perceived as an ideal of a “strong state” that deals “firmly” with “terrorists”.
    • It was during NDA-2 that the government under PM Modi decided to take full ownership of the relationship with Israel.

    Balancing act

    • Meanwhile, India continues to improve ties with Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE and feels vindicated by the decision of some Arab states to improve ties with Israel.
    • For instance, even as it abstained at UNESCO in December 2017, India voted in favour of a resolution in the UNGA opposing Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.

  • Creating a new District

    Punjab CM has recently declared Malerkotla the 23rd district of the State.

    How are new districts carved?

    • The power to create new districts or alter or abolish existing districts rests with the State governments.
    • This can either be done through an executive order or by passing a law in the State Assembly.
    • Many States prefer the executive route by simply issuing a notification in the official gazette.

    How does it help?

    • States argue that smaller districts lead to better administration and governance.
    • For example, in 2016, the Assam government issued a notification to upgrade the Majuli sub-division to the Majuli district for “administrative expediency”.

    Are there are any exceptions?

    • The State government has been vested with unfettered powers under Section 5 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 to create new districts.
    • This power is generally held temporarily in abeyance only during active census operations or during the delimitation exercise of Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha constituencies.

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q. The Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act, 1992, which aims at promoting the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the country, provides for which of the following?

    1. Constitution of District Planning Committees.
    2. State Election Commissions to conduct all panchayat elections.
    3. Establishment of State Finance Commissions.

    Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

    (a) Only 1

    (b) 1 and 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    Does the Central government have a role to play here?

    • The Centre has no role to play in the alteration of districts or creation of new ones. States are free to decide.
    • The Home Ministry comes into the picture when a State wants to change the name of a district or a railway station.
    • The State government’s request is sent to other departments and agencies such as the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Intelligence Bureau, Department of Posts, Geographical Survey of India Sciences and the Railway Ministry seeking clearance.
    • A no-objection certificate may be issued after examining their replies.

    What has been the trend?

    • According to the 2011 Census, there were 593 districts in the country.
    • The Census results showed that between 2001-2011, as many as 46 districts were created by States.
    • Though the 2021 Census is yet to happen, Know India, a website run by the Government of India, says currently there are 718 districts in the country.
    • The surge in number is also due to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into A.P and Telangana in 2014. Telangana at present has 33 districts and A.P has 13 districts.

  • West Bengal government to set up a Legislative Council

    The West Bengal government will set up a Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad), as per a decision taken up at the Cabinet meeting chaired by its Chief Minister.

    What is a State Legislative Council?

    • The SLC is the upper house in those states of India that have a bicameral state legislature; the lower house being the State Legislative Assembly.
    • As of Jan 2020, 6 out of 28 states have a State Legislative Council. These are Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana, Maharashtra, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh The latest state to have a council is Telangana.

    Creation and abolition

    • According to Article 169, the Parliament can create or abolish the SLC of a state if that state’s legislature passes a resolution for that with a special majority.
    • The existence of an SLC has proven politically controversial.
    • A number of states that have had their LCs abolished have subsequently requested its re-establishment; conversely, proposals for the re-establishment of the LC for a state have also met with opposition.

    Its composition

    • The size of the SLC cannot be more than one-third of the membership of the State Legislative Assembly.
    • However, its size cannot be less than 40 members.
    • These members elect the Chairman and Deputy Chairman from the Council.

    MLCs are chosen in the following manner:

    • One third are elected by the members of local bodies such as municipalities, Gram panchayats, Panchayat samitis and district councils.
    • One third are elected by the members of Legislative Assembly of the State from among the persons who are not members of the State Legislative Assembly.
    • One sixth are nominated by the Governor from persons having knowledge or practical experience in fields such as literature, science, arts, the co-operative movement and social services.
    • One twelfth are elected by persons who are graduates of three years’ standing residing in that state.
    • One twelfth are elected by teachers who had spent at least three years in teaching in educational institutions within the state not lower than secondary schools, including colleges and universities.

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. The Legislative Council of a State in India can be larger in size than half of the Legislative Assembly of that particular State.
    2. The Governor of a State nominates the Chairman of Legislative Council of that particular State.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) Only 1

    (b) Only 2

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

    Powers and functions

    • The Constitution of India gives limited power to the State Legislative Council.
    • The State Legislative Council can neither form nor dissolve a state government.
    • The State Legislative Council also have no role in the passing of money bills.
    • But some of the powers it has is that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the State Legislative Council enjoy the same status as Cabinet Ministers in the state.

    Issues with LC

    • It was argued that a second House can help check hasty actions by the directly elected House, and also enable non-elected persons to contribute to the legislative process.
    • However, it was also felt that some of the poorer states could ill afford the extravagance of two Houses.
    • It has been pointed out that the Councils can be used to delay important legislation and to park leaders who have not been able to win an election.

  • Independent panel to appoint EC members

    A petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an independent collegium to appoint members of the Election Commission.

    Election Commission of India (ECI)

    • The ECI is a constitutional body responsible for administering elections in India according to the rules and regulations mentioned in the Constitution of India.
    • It was established on January 25, 1950.
    • The major aim of the election commission of India is to define and control the process for elections conducted at various levels, Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice President of India.
    • It can be said that the Election Commission of India ensures the smooth and successful operation of the democracy.

    Functions

    According to Article 324 of the Indian Constitution:

    • the ECI has superintendence, direction, and control of the entire process for conduct of elections to Parliament and Legislature (state legislative assembly & state legislative council) of every State and to
    • the offices of President and Vice-President of India

    Answer this PYQ in the comment box:

    Q.Consider the following statements:

    1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.
    2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
    3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (CSP 2017)

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 3 only

    Its composition

    • Initially, the commission had only a Chief Election Commissioner. Presently, it consists of a Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners.
    • For the first time, two additional Commissioners were appointed on 16th October 1989 but they had a very short term till 1st January 1990.
    • Afterwards, on 1st October 1993, two additional Election Commissioners were appointed.
    • The concept of a multi-member Commission has been in operation since then, with decision-making power by majority vote.

    Appointment & Tenure of Commissioners

    • The President has the power to select Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
    • They have a tenure of six years, or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
    • They have the same status and receive pay and perks as available to Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
    • The CEC can be removed from office only through accusation by Parliament.
    • The election commissioner or a regional commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.

    Why such demand for independent collegium?

    • The plea filed has said that the practice of government making the appointments is a violation of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and creates a dent in free and fair elections in a democracy.
    • The petition said the recommendation to have a neutral collegium to fill up vacancies in the Election Commission has been given by several expert committees, commissions from 1975.
    • The recommendation was also part of the Law Commission in its 255th report in March 2015.

    Basis for such demand

    • The EC is not only responsible for conducting free and fair elections, but it also renders a quasi-judicial function between the various political parties including the ruling government and other parties.
    • In such circumstances, the Executive cannot be the sole participant in the appointment of members of the Election Commission as it gives unfettered discretion to the ruling party.
    • Therefore it could appoint someone whose loyalty is ensured and thereby renders the selection process vulnerable to manipulation.

  • Brain drain of India’s health worker

    The article highlights the issue of shortage of healthcare workers in India even as it exports its healthcare workers to other countries.

    India as an exporter of healthcare workers

    • For several decades, India has been a major exporter of healthcare workers to developed nations particularly to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Europe and other English-speaking countries.
    • As per OECD data, around 69,000 Indian trained doctors worked in the UK, US, Canada and Australia in 2017.
    • In these four countries, 56,000 Indian-trained nurses were working in the same year.
    • There is also large-scale migration of health workers to the GCC countries but there is a lack of credible data on the stock of such workers in these nations.
    • There is no real-time data on high-skilled migration from India as in the case of low-skilled and semi-skilled migration.

    Shortage of nurses and doctors

    • The migration of healthcare workers is part of the reason for the shortage in nurses and doctors.
    • If we look at the figures for countries where we export our healthcare workers, we see just how big the difference is between the sending and the receiving countries.
    • As per government reports, India has 1.7 nurses per 1,000 population and a doctor to patient ratio of 1:1,404.
    • This is well below the WHO norm of 3 nurses per 1,000 population and a doctor to patient ratio of 1:1,100.
    • But, this does not convey the entire problem.
    • The distribution of doctors and nurses is heavily skewed against some regions.
    • Moreover, there is high concentration in some urban pockets.

    Factors driving migration

    • There are strong pull factors associated with the migration of healthcare workers, in terms of higher pay and better opportunities in the destination countries.
    • However, there are strong push factors that often drive these workers to migrate abroad.
    • The low wages in private sector outfits along with reduced opportunities in the public sector plays a big role in them seeking employment opportunities outside the country.
    • The lack of government investment in healthcare and delayed appointments to public health institutions act as a catalyst for such migration.

    Measures to check brain drain and issues with it

    • Over the years, the government has taken measures to check the brain drain of healthcare workers with little or no success.
    • In 2014, it stopped issuing No Objection to Return to India (NORI) certificates to doctors migrating to the US.
    • The NORI certificate is a US government requirement for doctors who migrate to America on a J1 visa and seek to extend their stay beyond three years.
    • The non-issuance of the NORI would ensure that the doctors will have to return to India at the end of the three-year period.
    • The government has included nurses in the Emigration Check Required (ECR) category.
    • This move was taken to bring about transparency in nursing recruitment and reduce the exploitation of nurses in the destination countries.
    • The government’s policies to check brain drain are restrictive in nature and do not give us a real long-term solution to the problem.

    Way forward

    • We require systematic changes that could range from increased investment in health infrastructure, ensuring decent pay to workers and building an overall environment to motivate them to stay in the country.
    • The government should focus on framing policies that promote circular migration and return migration — policies that incentivise healthcare workers to return home after the completion of their training or studies.
    •  It could also work towards framing bilateral agreements that could help shape a policy of “brain-share” between the sending and receiving countries.
    • The 2020 Human Development Report shows that India has five hospital beds per 10,000 people — one of the lowest in the world.
    • Increased investment in healthcare, especially in the public sector, is thus the need of the hour.
    • This would, in turn, increase employment opportunities for health workers.

    Consider the question “What are the factors driving the migration of healthcare workers from India? Suggest the measure to stem their migration.”

    Conclusion

    India needs systematic changes that could range from increased investment in health infrastructure, ensuring decent pay to health workers and building an overall environment that could prove to be beneficial for them and motivate them to stay in the country.

  • The costs of relying on China to become more apparent to India’s neighbours

    The article explains the implications of China’s assertive foreign policy for India’s neighbours.

    Chinese warning to Bangladesh

    • The Chinese ambassador to Bangladesh warned Bangladesh against joining the Quad and added that it will risk “significant damage” to its relationship with Beijing if it warms up to the Quad.
    • This came as a surprise as China was warning Bangladesh against joining a club that has no plans to invite new members, let alone Bangladesh.
    • China always used tough language when it came to issues of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
    • The aggressive style now covers a much broader range of issues.
    • Beijing is conscious that Bangladesh’s impressive economic performance in recent years as well as its location at the top of the Bay of Bengal littoral lends a new strategic salience to Bangladesh.
    • China notes India’s growing diplomatic investment in developing a strategic partnership with Bangladesh.
    • China is also not blind to the emerging interest in US and Japan to expand cooperation with Dhaka.
    • Bangladesh, which supports China’s Belt and Road Initiative, is open to similar infrastructure cooperation with the US, Japan and India.

    China’s wolf worrier diplomacy

    • The new wolf warrior diplomacy confronts head-on any criticism of China in the public sphere.
    • India has been at the receiving end of this policy for a while — especially during the recent crises of Doklam and Ladakh.
    • But India’s South Asian neighbours, all of whom enjoy good relations with China, are only now getting a taste of Beijing’s new diplomatic medicine.
    • Chinese Ambassador’s public remarks about the Quad were about telling Bangladesh to resist any Indo-Pacific temptation.
    • Pre-emption is very much part of Beijing’s strategic culture.

    What such assertive diplomacy mean for South Asia

    • Delhi has learnt after long that too much diplomatic interference in the Subcontinent has tended to undermine the pursuit of India’s regional objectives.
    • China, as the world’s newest superpower, probably bets that its substantive leverages — including economic, diplomatic, and military — will limit the costs while deterring smaller nations from crossing the markers that it lays down.
    • South Asian elites have always seethed at India meddling in their internal affairs; they have held up China’s non-interventionist policy as a welcome alternative.
    • The controversy in Bangladesh over China’s remark on joining Quad should help update their past images of Beijing
    • India is now more circumspect than before about interventions in the region.
    • It recognises that avoiding knee-jerk interventions is a sensible policy.
    • Our neighbours have always complained about India’s inefficiency in implementing economic projects and contrasted this with China’s speed and purposefulness.
    • But they are also discovering the flip side of Chinese economic efficiency — the capacity to set and implement terms of cooperation that are not always in favour of the host nation.
    • All the regimes in the region have had access to different sections of the Indian elite and some capacity to shape the discourse on neighbourhood policies.
    • They have no political recourse at all in China’s closed political system.

    Consider the question “As Beijing becomes ever more assertive in South Asia, the costs of relying on China are likely to become more apparent to South Asia’s smaller nations. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    Until now, Chinese support against India seemed free of cost. As Beijing becomes ever more assertive in South Asia, the costs of relying on China are likely to become more apparent.

  • Need for West Asia’s diplomatic resets

    The article highlights the unprecedented engagement among the countries of West Asia even among the rivals and explains its significance.

    New diplomatic engagements in West Asia

    • Recently, there have been interactions between senior Saudi and Iranian officials, the first since diplomatic ties were broken in January 2016.
    • Following the removal of the diplomatic and economic blockade on Qatar that was imposed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, Doha has made efforts to mend ties with both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in tandem with similar initiatives of its doctrinal and political ally, Turkey.
    • On May 5, Turkey and Egypt had their first diplomatic meeting in Cairo after they had broken diplomatic ties in 2013.
    • The two countries, on opposite sides on almost all regional issues, are now exploring how to address their differences.

    Driving force behind these engagements

    • The driving force behind these unprecedented engagements is the advent of the Biden administration at the helm of politics in the United States.
    • He has taken a tough line on Saudi Arabia, scrutinising its human rights record and opposition to the war in Yemen.
    • Besides concerns in West Asian capitals, the broader message is that the U.S. is now likely to be less engaged with the region’s quarrels.
    • These signals of new U.S. policies have occurred even as the novel coronavirus pandemic is devastating West Asia.
    • Finally, one major factor is the recognition that the ongoing regional conflicts, in Syria, Yemen and Libya, despite the massive death and destruction, have yielded no military outcome and now demand fresh diplomatic approaches.

    Long way to go in resolving differences

    • Egypt remains uneasy about Turkey’s ties with the Brotherhood and its regional ambitions.
    • Saudi Arabia has similar concerns about Turkey’s doctrinal affiliations and its relations with Iran.
    • There are difficulties in reshaping Saudi-Iran relations as well.
    • Iran may ease the pressure on the kingdom in Yemen and gradually yield ground in Iraq.
    • However, Syria will test their diplomatic skills as they explore how to accommodate their competing strategic interests in that devastated country.

    Historic period for West Asian diplomacy

    • This is truly a historic period for West Asian diplomacy.
    • The major states are displaying unprecedented self-confidence in pursuing initiatives without the involvement of western powers that have dominated regional affairs for at least a couple of centuries.
    • This has left a pervasive sense of insecurity across West Asia and made the countries dependent on western alliances to ensure their interests.
    • This has left a pervasive sense of insecurity across West Asia and made the countries dependent on western alliances to ensure their interests.

    Role for India

    • Given that regional contentions are inter-connected, third-party facilitators will be needed to promote mutual confidence and prepare the ground for a comprehensive regional security arrangement.
    • This will bring together regional and external states with a stake in West Asia security.
    • This arrangement will have provisions for participating states to uphold regional peace and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in energy, economic and logistical connectivity areas.
    • Given its close ties with all the regional states, India is well-placed to build an association of like-minded states — Japan, Russia, South Korea — to shape and pursue such an initiative for West Asian peace.

    Conclusion

    These new diplomatic engagements with erstwhile rivals could in time overturn existing regional alignments and possibly end ongoing conflicts.

  • ICMR drops Plasma Therapy for COVID-19

    The use of convalescent plasma has been dropped from the recommended treatment guidelines for COVID-19, according to an advisory from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

    Q.What is convalescent plasma therapy and what are the issues involved in its adoption?

    Convalescent Plasma Therapy

    • The therapy seeks to make use of the antibodies developed in the recovered patient against the coronavirus.
    • The whole blood or plasma from such people is taken, and the plasma is then injected into critically ill patients so that the antibodies are transferred and boost their fight against the virus.
    • A COVID-19 patient usually develops primary immunity against the virus in 10-14 days.
    • Therefore, if the plasma is injected at an early stage, it can possibly help fight the virus and prevent severe illness.

    How often has it been used in the past?

    • This therapy is no new wonder. It has been used several times.
    • The US used plasma of recovered patients to treat patients of Spanish flu (1918-1920).
    • In 2014, the WHO released guidelines to treat Ebola patients with convalescent whole blood and plasma.
    • In 2015, plasma was used for treating MERS patients.

    How is it done?

    • The process to infuse plasma in a patient can be completed quickly.
    • It only requires standard blood collection practices and extraction of plasma.
    • If whole blood is donated (350-450 ml), a blood fractionation process is used to separate the plasma.
    • Otherwise, a special machine called aphaeresis machine can be used to extract the plasma directly from the donor.
    • While blood is indeed extracted from the donor, the aphaeresis machine separates and extracts the plasma using a plasma kit, and the remaining blood components are returned into the donor’s body.

  • Farzad B Gas Field

    Iran gave the Farzad B gas field to a domestic gas producer in a setback move to India.

    Farzad B Gas Field

    • Farzad-B is an off-shore natural gas field 20 kilometres off Farsi Island in Iran.
    • The gas field was discovered in 2008 by a consortium of three Indian companies, led by the state-owned ONGC Videsh with a 40% stake; the other companies were Indian Oil Corporation (40%) and Oil India (20%).

    Deal soured after US sanctions

    • Negotiations between the consortium and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to develop the gas field stalled due to secondary sanctions against Iran by the US and the European Union in the early 2010s.
    • Following the lifting of sanctions after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed in July 2015 the consortium was close to an agreement to invest $US5 billion to develop the gas field.
    • After the United States withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018, and the reinstatement of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the negotiations between the consortium and NIOC broke down.

    Consider the question “Balancing the contrasts has been the basis of India’s relations with Iran. Comment.”