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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Why South China Sea matters to India

    What happens in the South China Sea has bearing on India. So far, the U.S. played a major role in the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific, but after the Covid, it may be forced to reconsider its stand over the region. So, what is at stake for India? And what are the options available with ASEAN countries and Indian in such a situation? Read to know…

    Dilemma the Indo-Pacific countries faces

    •  As the two most consequential powers of the world, the United States and China which are engaged in a fundamental transformation of their relationship rest of the countries in the region face a dilemma.
    • Almost nobody any longer thinks that China will conform to the US worldview, or that China’s rise from hereon will be unchallenged.
    • The Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs cogently spells out this dilemma.

    How the U.S. contributed to the region’s prosperity

    • The Indo-Pacific has prospered under American hegemony for the previous 40 years not just because of their huge investments.
    • U.S. invested $328.8 billion in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) alone and a further $107 billion in China.
    • However, it’s not the investment but also because of the security blanket that it provides.
    • China might have replaced the US as the primary engine of growth in the last decade, but it has come with a cost — the assertion of Chinese power.
    • The benign American military presence has afforded countries the opportunity to pursue economic prosperity without substantial increases in their own defence expenditures or having to look over their shoulders.
    • No group of nations has benefitted more from the presence of the US than the ASEAN.

    How Chinese military posture is different from the U.S.

    • Chinese military postures, on the other hand, give cause for concern ever since they unilaterally put forward the Nine-Dash Line in 2009 to declare the South China Sea as territorial waters.
    • Their territorial claim itself is tenuous, neither treaty-based nor legally sound.
    • They act in ways that are neither benign nor helpful for long-term peace and stability.
    • In the first half of 2020 alone, Chinese naval or militia forces have rammed a Vietnamese fishing boat, “buzzed” a Philippines naval vessel and harassed a Malaysian oil drilling operation, all within their respective EEZs.
    • Since 2015, they have built a runway and underground storage facilities on the Subi Reef and Thitu Island as well as radar sites and missile shelters on Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef.
    • They conducted ballistic missile tests in the South China Sea in June 2019 and continue to enhance naval patrols to enforce area denial for others.

    Fundamental choices the region faces

    • Going forward, the US and China face fundamental choices.
    • But then, so do the rest of us living in the Indo-Pacific.
    • America’s role in the preservation of the region’s peace and security should not be taken for granted.
    • As COVID imposes crushing costs on all economies, the US may also be weighing its options.
    • Finding justification for Chinese actions in the South China Sea, even as countries in the region help themselves to Chinese economic opportunities while sheltering under the US security blanket, is also fraught with risk.
    • Accommodation may have worked thus far but regional prosperity has come at a mounting cost in geo-strategic terms.
    • The South China Sea is effectively militarised. In the post-COVID age, enjoying the best of both worlds may no longer be an option.

    But, ASEAN won’t change the course suddenly

    • Nobody should expect that ASEAN will suddenly reverse course when faced with possibly heightened Sino-US competition.
    • China is a major power that will continue to receive the respect of ASEAN and, for that matter, many others in the Indo-Pacific, especially in a post-COVID world where they are struggling to revive their economies.
    • ASEAN overtook the European Union to become China’s largest trading partner in the first quarter of 2020, and China is the third-largest investor ($150 billion) in ASEAN.
    • The South East Asians are skilled at finding the wiggle room to accommodate competing hegemons while advancing their interests.
    • This does not, however, mean that they are not concerned over Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea.
    • They need others to help them in managing the situation.

    Validation of the US military presence and collective efforts of stakeholders

    • A robust US military presence is one guarantee.
    • A stronger validation by the littoral states of the South China Sea helps the US Administration in justifying their presence to the American tax-payer.
    • Others who have stakes in the region also need to collectively encourage an increasingly powerful China to pursue strategic interests in a legitimate way, and on the basis of respect for international law, in the South China Sea.
    • The real choice is not between China and America — it is between keeping the global commons open for all or surrendering the right to choose one’s partners for the foreseeable future.

    What is at stake for India?

    • How the South China Sea situation plays out will be critical for our security and well-being.
    • India must consider the following factors while calibrating its approach.
    • 1) The South China Sea is not China’s sea but a global common.
    • 2) It has been an important sea-lane of communication since the very beginning, and passage has been unimpeded over the centuries.
    • 3) Indians have sailed these waters for well over 1,500 years — there is ample historical and archaeological proof of a continuous Indian trading presence from Kedah in Malaysia to Quanzhou in China.
    • 4) Nearly $200 billion of our trade passes through the South China Sea and thousands of our citizens study, work and invest in ASEAN, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
    • 5)  We have stakes in the peace and security of this region in common with others who reside there, and freedom of navigation, as well as other normal activities with friendly countries, are essential for our economic well-being. In short, the South China Sea is our business.
    • We have historical rights established by practice and tradition to traverse the South China Sea without impediment.
    • We have mutually contributed to each other’s prosperity for two thousand years.
    • We continue to do so.
    • The proposition that nations that have plied these waters in the centuries past for trade and other peaceful purposes are somehow outsiders who should not be permitted to engage in legitimate activity in the South China Sea, or have a voice without China’s say, should be firmly resisted.

    India needs to be responsive to ASEAN

    • India needs to be responsive to ASEAN’s expectations.
    • While strategic partnerships and high-level engagements are important, ASEAN expects longer-lasting buy-ins by India in their future.
    • They have taken the initiative time and again to involve India in Indo-Pacific affairs.
    • It is not as if our current level of trade or investment with ASEAN makes a compelling argument for them to automatically involve us.
    • They have deliberately taken a longer-term view.
    • A restructuring of global trade is unlikely to happen any time soon in the post-COVID context.
    • Regional arrangements will become even more important for our economic recovery and rejuvenation.
    • If we intend to heed the clarion call of “Think Global Act Local”, India has to be part of the global supply chains in the world’s leading growth region for the next half-century.
    • It is worth paying heed to the words from Singapore’s prime minister, who writes that something significant is lost in an RCEP without India.
    • And urges us to recognise that the value of such agreements goes beyond the economic gains they generate.
    • Singapore is playing the long game. Are we willing to do so, even if it imposes some costs in the short-term?

    Consider the question “The South China Sea has been witnessing growing militarisation day by day. And how the South China Sea situation plays out will be critical for our security and well-being. In light of this, examine the basis on which India should contest China’s unilateral claims in the area and scope of engagement with the ASEAN countries in this regard.”

    Conclusion

    Indian is a stakeholder in the South China Sea. What happens there have implications for us. In such a scenario, India must form a partnership with other players in the region and should attempt to make China follow international laws and global order.

  • SIPRI Report on Nuclear Stockpiles

    All nations that have nuclear weapons continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals, while India and China increased their nuclear warheads in the last one year, according to a latest report by Swedish think tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

    About SIPRI

    • Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an international institute based in Sweden, dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament.
    • Established in 1966, the Stockholm based SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public.

    Practice question for Mains:

    Q.“Nuclear disarmament of the world seems a distant dream”. Comment.

    Nuclear arsenals are on rise in ‘thy neighbourhood’

    • China is in the middle of a significant modernization of its nuclear arsenal.
    • It is developing a so-called nuclear triad for the first time, made up of new land and sea-based missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft.
    • China’s nuclear arsenal had gone up from 290 warheads in 2019 to 320 in 2020, while India’s went up from 130-140 in 2019 to 150 in 2020.
    • Pakistan’s arsenal was estimated to be between 150-160 in 2019 and has reached 160 in 2020.
    • Both China and Pakistan continue to have larger nuclear arsenals than India.

    A general decline across the globe

    • Together with the nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possessed an estimated 13,400 nuclear weapons at the start of 2020.
    • This marked a decrease from an estimated 13,865 nuclear weapons at the beginning of 2019.
    • The decrease in the overall numbers was largely due to the dismantlement of old nuclear weapons by Russia and the U.S., which together possess over 90% of the global nuclear weapons.

    Major issue in reporting: Low levels of disclosure

    • The availability of reliable information on the status of the nuclear arsenals and capabilities of the nuclear-armed states varied considerably, the report noted.
    • The U.S. had disclosed important information about its stockpile and nuclear capabilities, but in 2019, the administration ended the practice of publicly disclosing the size of its stockpile.
    • The governments of India and Pakistan make statements about some of their missile tests but provide little information about the status or size of their arsenals, the report said.

    New START seems to ‘STOP’ very soon

    • The U.S. and Russia have reduced their nuclear arsenals under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) but it will lapse in February 2021 unless both parties agree to prolong it.
    • However, discussions to extend the New START or negotiate a new treaty made no progress with the U.S.’s insistence that China must join any future nuclear arms reduction talks, which China has categorically ruled out.
    • The deadlock over the New START and the collapse of the 1987 Soviet–U.S. Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) in 2019 suggest that the era of bilateral nuclear arms control agreements between Russia and the U.S. might be coming to an end.
    • Russia and the U.S. have already announced extensive plans to replace and modernize their nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
    • Both countries have also given new or expanded roles to nuclear weapons in their military plans and doctrines, which marks a significant reversal of the post-Cold War trend towards the gradual marginalisation of nuclear weapons.

    Back2Basics: INF Treaty

    • Under the INF treaty, the US and Soviet Union agreed not to develop, produce, possess or deploy any ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles that have a range between 500 and 5,500 km.
    • It exempted the air-launched and sea-based missile systems in the same range.
    • The INF treaty helped address the fears of an imminent nuclear war in Europe.
    • It also built some trust between Washington and Moscow and contributed to the end of the Cold War.

    New START Policy

    • The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) pact limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers and is due to expire in 2021 unless renewed.
    • The treaty limits the US and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers, well below Cold War caps.
    • It was signed in 2010 by former US President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
    • It is one of the key controls on superpower deployment of nuclear weapons.
    • If it falls, it will be the second nuclear weapons treaty to collapse under the leadership of US President Donald Trump.

  • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

    The UN nuclear watchdog IAEA’s governing body began meeting as a row brews over Iran’s refusal to allow access to two sites where nuclear activity may have occurred in the past.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. Discuss the role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in enhancing nuclear accountability of the world.

    Concerns over Iran

    • The latest row over access comes as a landmark deal between Iran and world powers in 2015 continues to unravel.
    • If IAEA passes a resolution critical of Iran, it would be the first of its kind since 2012.
    • Even though the two sites are not thought to be key to Iran’s current activities, the agency says it needs to know if past activities going back almost two decades have been properly declared and all materials accounted for.

    About IAEA

    • The IAEA is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons.
    • The IAEA has its headquarters in Vienna, Austria. It was established as an autonomous organisation on 29 July 1957.
    • Though established independently of the UN through its own international treaty, the IAEA reports to both the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council.

    Functions of IAEA

    • The IAEA serves as an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology and nuclear power worldwide.
    • The programs of the IAEA encourage the development of the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, science and technology, provide international safeguards against misuse of nuclear technology and nuclear materials, and promote nuclear safety (including radiation protection) and nuclear security standards and their implementation.

  • The need for an anti-discrimination law

    India has a unique distinction of being a democracy without comprehensive legislation to back the constitutional right of equality. This lack of legislation gives rise to certain issues. Every time the case of discrimination is brought the discriminating party claims that he is at liberty to do so. Not only this, in a certain case, the Supreme Court also endorsed such restrictive interpretation. All this points to the need for the comprehensive legislation.

    Indirect and unintended discrimination

    • More than 70 years after Independence, our society remains rife with structural discrimination.
    • These prejudices, which pervade every aspect of life, from access to basic goods, to education and employment, are sometimes manifest.
    • But, on other occasions, the discrimination is indirect and even unintended. 
    • The forms that it takes were perhaps best explained by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. (1971).
    • There, the court held that an energy company had fallen foul of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which made racial discrimination in private workplaces illegal.
    • The company had insisted on a superfluous written test by applicants for its better entry-level jobs.
    • Although, on the face of it, this requirement was race-neutral, in practice it allowed the company to victimise African-Americans.
    • In a memorable judgment, invoking an Aesop fable, Chief Justice Burger wrote that “tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox.”
    • On the contrary, the law, he said, resorting again to the fable, “provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use.”
    • That is, that it wasn’t merely “overt discrimination” that was illegal but also “practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation”.

    Let’s look into 2 cases in India

    1. Madhu vs. Northern Railway

    • The verdict in Griggs was notably applied in the Delhi High Court’s 2018 judgment in Madhu vs. Northern Railway.
    • There, the Railways had denied free medical treatment to the wife and daughter of an employee which they would otherwise have been entitled to under the rules.
    • The Railways contended that the employee had “disowned” his family and had had their names struck off his medical card.
    • The court held that to make essential benefits such as medical services subject to a declaration by an employee might be “facially neutral”, but it produced a disparate impact, particularly on women and children.
    • But while this case concerned discrimination by the state, entry barriers to goods such as housing, schools and employment tend to function in the realm of private contracts.

    Is Article 15 applicable in private contracts?

    •  The Constitution is markedly vocal on this too.
    • Article 15(2) stipulates that citizens shall not on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment.
    • Yet, on occasion, this right, which applies horizontally, inter se individuals, comes into conflict with the rights of persons to associate with others, often to the exclusion of certain groups.

    2. Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society vs District Registrar Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Others

    • This is why every time a case of discrimination is brought, the party that discriminates claims that he possesses a liberty to do so, that he must be free to act according to his own sense of conscience.
    • The Supreme Court in 2005 endorsed one such restrictive bond, when it ruled in favour of a bye-law of a Parsi housing society that prohibited the sale of the property to non-Parsis.
    • This right to forbid such a sale, the Court ruled, was intrinsic in the Parsis’ fundamental right to associate with each other.
    • But in holding thus, the judgment, as Gautam Bhatia points out in his book, The Transformative Constitution, not only conflated the freedom to contract with the constitutional freedom to associate but also overlooked altogether Article 15(2).

    Let’s look into the scope of Article 15(2)

    • At first blush, Article 15(2) might appear to be somewhat limited in scope.
    • But the word “shops” used in it is meant to be read widely.
    • A study of the Constituent Assembly’s debates on the clause’s framing shows us that the founders explicitly intended to place restrictions on any economic activity that sought to exclude specific groups.
    • For example, when a person refuses to lease her property to another based on the customer’s faith, such a refusal would run directly counter to the guarantee of equality.

    India: A country with no legislative backing to the fundamental right to equality

    • India is unique among democracies in that a constitutional right to equality is not supported by comprehensive legislation.
    • In South Africa, for example, a constitutional guarantee is augmented by an all-encompassing law which prohibits unfair discrimination not only by the government but also by private organisations and individuals.

    Consider the question “Discrimination partakes different forms. And due to lack of any legislation backing the Right to Equality, this right is just as capable of being threatened by acts of private individuals as they are by the state.” In light of this, discuss the need for an act backing the Right to Equality and right against discrimination.”

    Conclusion

    Any reasonable conception of justice would demand that we look beyond the intentions of our actions, and at the engrained structures of society.  To that end, the idea of enacting a law that will help ameliorate our ways of life, that will help reverse our deep-rooted culture of discrimination, is worth thinking about.

  • Need for fiscal decentralisation

    Covid pandemic has turned the fiscal health of states from bad to worse. This article highlights the role of the Finance Commission as a neutral arbiter in the Centre-state relation in achieving the delicate balance. It has highlighted certain issues that the commission has to consider when it submits its report. So, what are those issues? Read to know…

    Disruption in fiscal consolidation and impact on Centre-state relations

    • Due to COVID, there is a  collapse in general government revenues and the consequent rise in the deficit levels.
    • It has disrupted the glide path of fiscal consolidation.
    • But it has also deepened the faultlines in Centre-state fiscal relations. 
    • The Centre is trying to claw back the fiscal space ceded to the states and assert its dominance over the country’s fiscal architecture.
    • This coupled with the fiscal constraints exposed by the pandemic have made it harder to maintain the delicate balance needed to manage the contesting claims of the Centre and the states

    Why the 15th Finance Commission report is critical for decentralisation

    • It will be ironic if the ongoing health crisis that has ended up exposing the limitations of a centralised approach, ends up reversing the trend towards fiscal decentralisation.
    • The Commission’s report will be critical on two counts:
    • First, it will determine how India’s fiscal architecture is reshaped.
    • Second, how Centre-state relations are reset as the country attempts to recover from the COVID-19 shock.

    1. Will the burden of reducing debt/gdp  fall equally on Centre and state?

    • The glide path of fiscal consolidation laid out by the FRBM review committee had envisaged bringing down general government debt to 60 per cent of GDP by 2022.
    • This is unlikely to materialise now.
    • Factoring in the additional borrowings, the debt-to-GDP ratio may well be over 80 per cent this year.
    • Thus the fiscal consolidation roadmap will have to be reworked.
    •  As per its terms of reference, the Finance Commission will lay out the new path to be followed by both Centre and states.
    • But the question is: Will the burden of debt reduction fall equally upon the Centre and states?
    • Or will the Commission allow the Centre to have greater leeway when it comes to fiscal consolidation?

    2. Will the conditional extension of borrowing limit be formalised?

    •  Recently, the Centre eased the states’ budget constraint, allowing them to borrow more this year.
    • But this extra borrowing was conditional upon states implementing reforms in line with the Centre’s priorities.
    • Despite protests, most states are likely to comply with the conditions, to varying degrees.
    • But the issue is: As the hit from the ongoing crisis spreads over multiple years, state governments may want to maintain their expansionary fiscal stance next year as well.
    • Then, will the Finance Commission, in line with its terms of reference, go along with the Centre’s stance and recommend imposing conditions on additional borrowing and formalise this arrangement?
    • It is difficult to see such an arrangement being rolled back once formalised.

    3. GST compensation cess

    • The GST council, in which the Centre effectively has a veto, is yet to clearly spell out its views on the extension of the compensation cess to offset states losses beyond the five-year period.
    • The Commission will have to weigh in on this too.
    • At this time the Centre is struggling to fulfil its promise of assuring states their GST revenues.
    • In such situation, will the Commission argue in favour of extending the compensation period, as states desire, but, perhaps, lowering the assured 14 per cent growth in compensation and linking it to nominal GDP growth?
    • As GST revenue accounts for a significant share of states’ income, how this plays out will also have a bearing on their ability to bring down their debt levels.

    4. Issue of tax devolution

    • In some sense, accepting the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission was a fait accompli.
    • The terms of reference of the 15th Finance Commission points to the present government’s desire to claw back the fiscal space offered to the states.
    • But is clawing back fiscal space now a prudent approach?
    • A cash-strapped Centre will surely welcome greater say over the diminished resources.
    • And there a strong argument for the Centre to have far greater fiscal space than it currently enjoys.
    • This is partly because the fiscal multiplier of central government capital spending is greater than that by the states.
    • But also the nature of politics may well push in that direction.
    • Centralisation of political power may well lead to demands for centralisation of resources.
    • However, surely fiscal space can be created by a review of the Centre’s own spending programme.

    Need to relook at the Centre’s expenditure priorities

    • Over the past decades, there has been a substantial increase in the Centre’s spending on items on the state and concurrent list.
    •  This shift has occurred even as grants by the Centre to states exceed the former’s revenue deficit.
    • This, as some have pointed out, effectively means that the Centre is borrowing to transfer to states.
    • Surely, a relook at the Centre’s expenditure priorities would create greater fiscal space for it.

    What the Finance Commission can do?

    • Any attempt to shift the uneasy balance in favour of the Centre will strengthen the argument that this government’s talk of cooperative federalism serves as a useful mask to hide its centralising tendencies.
    • As a neutral arbiter of Centre-state relations, the Finance Commission should seek to maintain the delicate balance in deciding on contesting claims.
    • This may well require giveaways especially if states are to be incentivised to push through legislation on items on the state and concurrent list.
    • The fiscal stress at various levels of the government necessitates a realistic assessment of the country’s macro-economic situation, the preparation of a medium-term roadmap, as well as careful calibration of the framework that governs Centre-state relations.
    • At this critical juncture, the Finance Commission should present the broad contours of the roadmap.
    • Though it could request for another year’s extension to present its full five-year report citing the prevailing uncertainty.

    Consider the question “COVID pandemic has put the States in the dire fiscal position. What we need is more of the fiscal decentralisation now.” In light of this, along with other factors, elaborate on the role 15th Finance Commission could play in this regard.

    Conclusion

    Finance Commission has to play an important role in achieving the delicate balance in the conflicting domain of finance by addressing the concerns of both the players.

  • “COVID pandemic has put the States in the dire fiscal position. What we need is more of the fiscal decentralisation now.” In light of this, along with other factors, elaborate on the role 15th Finance Commission could play in this regard.10 marks

    Mentor’s comment-
    • https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/coronavirus-finance-commission-india-fiscal-deficit-economic-package-covid-19-relief-measures-6458967/
    • In the intro, you can briefly state what do you mean by fiscal decentralisation.
    • In the body, focus on the factors like  FRBM limits on state, reducing the debt/GDP ratio, conditions on the state by the central government while increasing the borrowing limits, issue of GST   and compensation for revenue loss, and the issue of tax devolution to the states and role Finance Commission could play by emphasising on such issues in its report.
    • Conclude by stressing the need for addressing the issue faced by the states and how the Finance Commission could suggest the measures in its report to address such issues.

  • Ninth Schedule of Indian Constitution

     

    read:

    [Burning Issue] SC judgement on Reservation not being a Fundamental Right

  • Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

    India is looking to post Navy Liaison Officers at the Regional Maritime Information Fusion Centre (RMIFC) of IOC in Madagascar and also at the European maritime surveillance initiative in the Strait of Hormuz.

    Note the members of the IOC form map. One may get confused considering India as a permanent member.

    About Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

    • The IOC is an intergovernmental organization that was created in 1982 at Port Louis, Mauritius and institutionalized in 1984 by the Victoria Agreement in Seychelles.
    • The IOC is composed of five African Indian Ocean nations: Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion (an overseas region of France), and Seychelles.
    • These five islands share geographic proximity, historical and demographic relationships, natural resources and common development issues.

    Aims and Objectives of IOC

    • IOC’s principal mission is to strengthen the ties of friendship between the countries and to be a platform of solidarity for the entire population of the African Indian Ocean region.
    • IOC’s mission also includes development, through projects related to sustainability for the region, aimed at protecting the region, improving the living conditions of the populations and preserving the various natural resources that the countries depend on.
    • Being an organisation regrouping only island states, the IOC has usually championed the cause of small island states in regional and international fora.

    India and IOC

    • India was accepted as an observer getting a seat at the table of the organization that handles maritime governance in the western Indian Ocean.
    • India’s entry is a consequence of its deepening strategic partnership with France as well as its expanding ties with the Vanilla Islands.
    • The IOC has four observers — China, EU, Malta and International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF).

    Significance of IOC

    • For India, the importance of joining this organization lies in several things.
    • First, India will get an official foothold in a premier regional institution in the western Indian Ocean, boosting engagement with islands in this part of the Indian Ocean.
    • These island nations are increasingly important for India’s strategic outreach as part of its Indo-Pacific policy.
    • This move would enhance ties with France which is the strong global power in the western Indian Ocean.
    • It lends depth to India’s SAGAR (security and growth for all in the region) policy unveiled by PM Modi in 2015.
    • The move, India hopes, would lead to greater security cooperation with countries in East Africa.

  • AarogyaPath Platform for the Healthcare Supply Chain

    AarogyaPath Platform has been recently launched to provide real-time availability of critical healthcare supplies.

    Possible prelims question:

    Q. The AarogyaPath platform recently seen in news is related to:

    Options:  a) Tracking of COVID patients/ b) Emergency ambulances service/c)  Supply-chain solutions of healthcare facilities/ d)E-com portal for generic medicines …

    Aarogyapath platform

    • The information platform named AarogyaPath with a vision of providing a path which leads one on a journey towards Aarogya (healthy life) has been developed by the CSIR.
    • During the present national health emergency arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, wherein there is a severe disruption in the supply chain, the ability to produce and deliver the critical items may be compromised due to a variety of reasons.
    • The platform would serve manufacturers, suppliers and customers.
    • CSIR expects AarogyaPath to become the national healthcare information platform of choice in the years to come.
    • It would fill a critical gap in last-mile delivery of patient care within India through improved availability and affordability of healthcare supplies.

    Its significance

    • This platform provides single-point availability of key healthcare goods that can be helpful to customers in tackling a number of routinely experienced issues.
    • These issues include dependence on limited suppliers, time-consuming processes to identify good quality products, limited access to suppliers who can supply standardized products at reasonable prices within desired timelines, lack of awareness about the latest product launches, etc.
    • It also helps manufacturers and suppliers to reach a wide network of customers efficiently, overcoming gaps in connectivity between them and potential demand centres like nearby pathological laboratories, medical stores, hospitals, etc.
    • It will also create opportunities for business expansion due to an expanded slate of buyers and visibility of new requirements for products.
    • Over time, analytics from this platform is expected to generate early signals to manufacturers on overcapacity as well as on looming shortages.

  • Digital surveillance for Covid could do more harm than good

    Two issues are examined in detail in this article. The first is about the lack of legal framework in India. And the second which is related to the first is the deployment of technology and its benefit and issues it raises. The nature of private-friendly technology to track the disease is also elaborated.

    Disease surveillance and individual rights

    • Concerns about the impact of disease surveillance on individual rights—including privacy—are not new.
    • Globally, previous epidemics have led to an increasing acceptance that public health initiatives must also respect freedom and privacy to the greatest extent possible.
    • Lessons from history and other jurisdictions show that a rights-friendly response to the pandemic is possible and must be strived for.
    • Canada amended its Quarantine Act in 2005 to give legislative powers to powers state may exercise and also placed some limits on these powers.
    • Similarly, in 2015, South Korea also amended the Infectious Diseases Control and Prevention Act, 2009, giving power to state as well as an individual.
    • In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its guidelines on “Ethical Issues in Public Health Surveillance” (WHO 2017).
    • These guidelines require states to ensure that there is no unauthorised access or disclosure of information collected.
    • It also requires states to take stock of how much data is rightfully required by various agencies of the government before access is granted.
    •  However, India does not appear to have factored this into its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Rather, what we are witnessing is a push to develop and adopt ad hoc technology-based solutions without a clear understanding of their limitations and harms.

    How the absence of legal framework could be problematic?

    •  During an epidemic (or a pandemic), state agencies may act in a way that significantly impacts people’s fundamental rights to liberty, free movement, and privacy.
    • Authorities may have to compel individuals to undergo testing, mandatory isolation and/or enforce quarantine measures, and trace all of their interactions in case they test positive for the infection.
    • With such grave implications for civil liberties, a legal framework is essential to bring certainty and accountability to government functioning.
    • It will have checks and balances in place and will state the rights and remedies of those affected by the wrongful exercise of powers.
    • A 2015 report by WHO’s International Health Regulations has highlighted this fact.
    • International Health Regulations are currently the only global regulations on public health, which are binding on India.

    Let’s look into this WHO’s report

    •  WHO’s International Health Regulations-2015 observed the absence of appropriate legislation that would enable the Indian government to mobilise its different wings in the case of an imminent outbreak (WHO 2015).
    • The report noted that this legal gap is exacerbated when coordination is required with states.
    • This is presumably because health is a domain over which states have exclusive powers.
    • The report also noted that India lacks a standard operating procedure (SOP) to clarify when existing legislative provisions could be invoked, and who could be directed to respond to the outbreak.
    • However, in nearly five years since this report was published, there is still no sign of a legal regime to describe the powers of the state and its functions during such times.

    Acts used in India to control pandemic and issues with them

    • In the absence of such an SOP, states in India have resorted to invoking the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
    • This act is pre-independence legislation that confers extremely wide powers on states without any procedural safeguards.
    • In order to exercise powers under this statute, most states have framed regulations under it, conferring upon themselves the power to impose and enforce quarantine and to collect vast amounts of personal information.
    • These regulations are vaguely worded and contain no limitations or safeguards.
    • Similarly, on 24 March 2020, the central government invoked the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which allowed it to issue binding guidelines to states.
    • [The central government’s entire response to COVID-19 has been through these guidelines, including its imposition of a strict nationwide lockdown for over two months.
    • The result has been the issuance of top-down orders,  even though much of the economic and infrastructural burden has fallen directly on state governments.

    Adoption of technology and issues with it

    • There has been the alarming increase in the adoption of digital technology, with the supposed objective of overcoming existing infrastructural gaps.
    • India spends approximately 1.28% of its GDP on health.
    • Such technologies are often rolled out with neither understanding their limitations, nor properly examining their potential to harm.
    • More worryingly, an over-reliance on technology also makes the state complacent.
    • Technological interventions tend to become the default, replacing efforts to understand and address the underlying causes of the problem.

    Arogya Setu and other digital interventions in India

    • Arogya Setu is a contact-tracing application.
    • States have also taken to widespread deployment of drones in several cities to enforce quarantine measures as well as the lockdown itself.
    • More recently, BECIL, a public sector undertaking, issued expressions of interest to invite bids for a “personnel tracking GPS solution” as well as a “COVID-19 patient tracking tool”
    • The first envisages a wearable device to track health workers’ location and to store the data on a  centralised government server.
    • The second proposes the collation of information from government databases and from telecom and internet data to identify “locations, associations and behaviour” of patients/persons suspected of being infected.
    • However, evidence suggests that these interventions may only end up ramping up surveillance without achieving any of their stated objectives.

    Limitations of digital surveillance and possible harm

    • Such apps are inherently limited:
    • 1) Their success depends on self-reporting by confirmed infectious persons, which in turn depends on large-scale testing.
    • Given India’s abysmally low testing rate, self-reporting too will predictably below.
    • 2)In view of India’s low smartphone penetration, it is likely that the app will be ineffective for a large part of the population.
    • 3)Such apps assess risk based on Bluetooth signals, which may result in false positives as the signals are capable of transmitting across walls or ceilings,  therefore alerting people in adjoining houses or cars, even in the absence of physical contact.
    • In addition to these limitations, such technological tools also vastly expand the government’s surveillance architecture.

    Issues with Aarogya Setu and use of Drones

    • Aarogya Setu collects a large amount of personal information from users when they sign up, and constantly builds on this by collecting location and Bluetooth data in real-time.
    • This allows the app to create a social graph of a person’s interactions.
    • Neither the app nor the Data Access and Knowledge Sharing Protocol—which was subsequently issued—provide for a fixed period of time after which the collected data will be destroyed.
    • The protocol also reveals that the app’s functionality is not limited to contact tracing, but that the data gathered through it will be used to inform government decision making on almost all aspects related to COVID-19.
    • The government recently relied on the data generated by the app to identify new hotspots.
    • But the inherent limitations of the app referred to above make these decisions highly suspect.
    • This is in addition to some states in India promoting their own applications for contact tracing and geofencing, which raise similar concerns.
    • The use of hired drones by the police for surveillance also raises several concerns.
    • These drones are being deployed without any legal basis or transparency on how the recorded footage will be used or retained.
    • A number of troubling scenarios are possible—the data may be used to surveil and target specific locations or communities that are already subjected to discrimination and harassment.
    • It may also be retained and used later for purposes unrelated to disease surveillance.
    • Reports suggest that this data is already being shared freely amongst various entities of the government without people’s knowledge or consent.

    Way forward

    • No doubt, public health interests may require some restrictions to the right to privacy—as was expressly recognised by the court itself.
    • However, any restriction must necessarily pursue a legitimate aim, be based in law, and be a necessary and proportionate means to achieve said aim.
    • This means that the state must first identify the goals it seeks to achieve rather than first creating surveillance mechanisms and then continuously shifting the goalposts.
    • If multiple ways exist to achieve an objective, the state is obliged to adopt the least restrictive one.
    • The legal regime for public health, such as in Canada and South Korea, is therefore essential to ensure that public safety is not used as an excuse to unnecessarily restrict constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
    • The state needs to be transparent about the digital tools it adopts, which would only go towards increasing public trust and ensure better adoption of the technology.
    • Individuals should be informed if their information has been collected and used by the government for surveillance or research purposes, giving them an opportunity to challenge the government’s acts if they feel such powers are wrongly exercised.
    • If surveillance is legitimately warranted to deal with a public health emergency, then it must be subject to a sunset clause.
    • Data that is no longer required must be deleted.
    • And clear protocols need to be created to determine who can access the data in case it has to be retained for research or medical purposes.

    Consider the question “A pandemic admittedly requires the extensive gathering of data and surveillance to understand disease trends, infrastructural constraints, and to frame prevention and mitigation strategies. Howerver, the technology adopted to achieve this aim must be privacy-friendly. Comment.

    Conclusion

    Our past experiences can and should inform our decision on the similar deployment of surveillance technology for public health. Such technology must not be excessively invasive and should always have the legal framework which could help the citizens challenge its applications in a given situation.