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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • [pib] National Teleconsultation Centre (CoNTeC)

    The Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has launched the National Teleconsultation Centre (CoNTeC).

     About CoNTeC

    • The CoNTeC is a Telemedicine Hub established by AIIMS, New Delhi, wherein expert doctors from various clinical domains will be available 24×7 to answer the multifaceted questions from specialists from all over the country.
    • It is a multi-modal telecommunications hub through which 2 way audio-video and text communications can be undertaken from any part of the country as well as the world at large.
    • The modes of communication will include simple mobile telephony as well as two way video communications, using WhatsApp, Skype and Google Duo.
    • The CoNTeC is also fully integrated with the National Medical College Network (NMCN) to conduct a full fledged Video Conference (VC) between the 50 Medical Colleges.

    How to Contact the CoNTeC?

    • A single mobile number (+91 9115444155) can be dialled from anywhere in the coutnry/world by COVID-19 treating doctors to reach the CoNTeC which has six lines that can be used simultaneously at present.
    • This number of lines can be increased in future if needed.
    • The incoming calls will be picked up by the CoNTeC Managers, who will then handover the call to the appropriate expert doctors from the clinical domains as desired by the calling specialists managing the COVID-19 cases anywhere in the country.
    • The Managers will guide the callers in establishing a two way video call using the WhatsApp, Skype or Google Duo as preferred by the caller.
    • The callers from the NMCN network can connect anytime using the Telemedicine infrastructure at their end.

  • Ayyappa and the Court

    Context

    In the several cases with potential significance, there was no effective hearing at the interim stages which created fait accompli. And which results in the status quo cementing itself.

    The Sabarimala case and ‘balance of convenience’ principle

    • Review petition pending: Millions of disciples have protested the Court’s 2018 verdict where gender equality was held to trump the tenets of the faith and rejoiced at the November 2019 order of the Chief Justice’s bench granting their cause a fresh lease of life.
    • As things stand, their review petitions are kept pending until the questions of law are determined.
    • Please to enter the temple declined: In December 2019, fervent pleas on behalf of certain women devotees to enter the temple were declined, although the 2018 verdict continued to hold the field.
    • Why declining the plea for entry matters? This was justified by the Court on a “balance of convenience”, thereby laying down a new principle for not directing the implementation of its own judgement.

    Pendency of Article 370 challenge case hearing

    • Nine judge bench: This year it was decided to put together the nine-judge bench to hear the cases on an urgent basis.
    • Kashmir case on the backburner: But with two judges from the ongoing Kashmir/Article 370 challenges also a part of the Sabarimala case, it would mean that the Kashmir issues would be put on the back burner in the middle of its hearing.
    • This is despite the advocates representing the right of women’s entry stating that they had no objection to the Kashmir cases being heard first.
    • Then, barely a day into the hearing, a strain of swine flu reached some of the members of the Bench, leading to a postponement of hearings till the middle of March.
    • Now, with a fierce pandemic enveloping the globe, the case is adjourned indefinitely.

    Criticism of administrative functioning of the SC

    • Over the last few months, the Supreme Court has been besieged by criticism of its administrative functioning.
    • Delay in the hearing of important cases: Cases that have customarily been heard with alacrity, like those concerning personal liberty, law and order and criminal investigation, have been posted after long intervals with the Government being granted the luxury of time to respond.
    • No effective hearing in cases with immediacy: Where immediacy is pre-eminent so that fait accompli may not be created, as with the validity of the Kashmir notifications, the CAA and the electoral bonds, there have been no effective hearings at the interim stage.
    • Thus, the status quo slowly cements itself.

    Reason for problems in administrative functions of the SC

    • Dual role played by the CJI: Since the early years of the judiciary, one person has been given the onerous dual charge of heading both the administrative and judicial functions of the court.
    • As a result, apart from sitting every day, reading briefs, hearing arguments and delivering detailed judgements, the Chief Justice has to also act as the final authority for all service-related matters of the Court’s 2,500 employees, issue office orders to streamline the registry.
    • The CJI also supervise measures for security and infrastructure, chair committees, correspond with and entertain judicial delegations, attend symposia, delegate subject matters among colleagues, constitute benches of varying strengths and interview candidates for the various courts.
    • In the old days, when the burden of cases was modest, these tasks would not have been challenging.
    • But in the present time, not only are they overwhelming, but they also bring in their wake a host of attacks on the person who occupies that high office.

    Need for the Chief Executive Officer in the SC

    • Administrative functioning of the SC: In all the administrative tasks, the Chief Justice is assisted by a team of registrars, who are headed by the secretary-general.
    • As they are junior judicial officers, they neither have the training nor the complete independence to take steps towards course correction.
    • The requirement of CEO: This is why the Supreme Court sorely requires a chief executive officer – an independent professional who is equipped with the day-to-day management of the Court and is not beholden to the judges in any way.
    • How it will help? The CEO will be charged with the entire mission of running the Court so that the judges can concentrate on what they are trained and experienced to do – adjudicate.
    • Operational autonomy: The CEO will, of course, have to be given adequate operational autonomy and be answerable to a committee of the Court, comprising judges and bar representatives, thereby providing for a professional process, much like in the corporate sphere.
    • With this, the judges will at least be spared the charges that they have had to withstand over the last few years.

    Conclusion

    It is only for politicians to concern themselves with public opinion, not for judges. They are weaponised by the Constitution to serve the cause of justice, and in this, as per Article 144, all civil and judicial authorities are enjoined to cooperate. Just a few blows of the gavel to any misadventures would be sufficient to send the message loud and clear: That the Court offers no sanctuary to the executive knaves.

  • After the lockdown

    Context

    Lockdown announcement has not been matched by national strategy — on containing fallout for poor.

    Two arguments advanced against lockdown

    • India’s decision to lock down was necessary. Two arguments are being advanced against it.
    • The first argument: India is a poor economy, with millions at the margins of subsistence, who cannot bear the consequences of a lockdown. The density and living conditions in India make social distancing difficult in many cases.
    • The second argument: It is that the extent of community transmission does not justify such drastic measures.

    What are the justifications for the lockdown?

    • The only hope: Precisely because millions in India are vulnerable and will not later have the possibilities of quarantining or medical care, the only hope we have of securing their lives is to slow down the spread of the virus as much as possible.
    • And the only shot you have at it is when community transmission is possibly still at manageable levels.
    • There is, therefore, a bit of bad faith in using the poor as the basis for expressing scepticism at the need for a lockdown. That is the most insidious form of privilege.
    • The risks of any catastrophic spread will be even more incalculable for the poor.

    Underscoring the importance of federalism and decentralisation

    • States responding in innovative ways: One of the more encouraging things has been the way in which several state governments like Punjab, Odisha, Kerala, Delhi and others have come into their own, innovating under difficult circumstances.
    • Role of panchayat and local officials: The much-neglected panchayat and local officials are key nodes in keeping track of possible cases and the creation of quarantining infrastructure.
    • Role of frontline workers: It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the ways in which most of the frontline workers of the state are responding, learning and innovating in this situation.
    • Federalism and decentralisation: If anything, this crisis is bringing home the importance of both federalism and decentralisation as central to a resilient governance architecture.

    The preparation and follow-up of the lockdown

    • But the national preparation and follow-up to take full advantage of the lockdown do not inspire full confidence.
    • Lack of strategy: The announcement of the lockdown has not been matched by a commensurate national strategy.
    • This is manifest, in the early signals on the following two important aspects:
    • Containing the economic fallout for the poor.
    • Building up the health infrastructure.
    • It is, admittedly, early days; but the signs are not good.

    Economic fallout for the poor

    • Focus is not on the poor: In the entire framing of the problem, the poor have been at best an afterthought, at worst expendable damage.
    • Steps taken not adequate: Steps like health insurance cover for frontline workers, increased food rations, are welcome steps. But a crisis of this magnitude required assurance to the most vulnerable that no stops will be pulled to secure their futures.
    • Instead, what you got was incrementalism of the worst kind, masquerading as a big commitment.
    • Low cash transfer: The cash transfers, in particular, through different schemes, are shockingly low.
    • Need for the unprecedented social security support: This crisis is one of the rare instances where economists and even bankers, from across the political spectrum, have rallied around the intellectual argument for unprecedented levels of social security support.
    • So the government’s “support by stealth” strategy is even more mystifying.
    • Impact of lockdown on migrant labour: The magnitude of the crisis unleashed for migrant labour could have been avoided with a little forethought.
    • What could have been done? Early announcement of cash transfers, shelter and food availability, would have obviated the need for migration.

    Opacity on the health infrastructure side

    • Issue of testing: Opacity is often a consequence of scarcity. And nowhere is this more manifest than in our discussion of testing.
    • Underutilisation of capacity: Everyone understands that India has the scarce testing capacity, though it seems it is also under-utilising what it has.
    • No clear testing strategy: The government is procuring more testing kits. But what is worrying is that there seems to be no publicly articulated statement of what exactly our testing strategy is, given the scarce resources.
    • But there is still no sense of how we plan to put a testing strategy in place (not just numbers of tests, but where can they be optimally deployed), that will minimise the need for future lockdowns.
    • What objectives is it trying to meet? There is more than a whiff of suspicion that there is a view that more testing might spread more panic.
    • Or it might put more pressure on the health care system than it can handle.
    • India has never understood that health expenditure is not an expenditure; it is an investment.
    • Building up of health infrastructure: The success of the lockdown strategy is premised on an unprecedentedly vigorous building up of health infrastructure to fight the pandemic.
    • There is a commitment by the Centre to infuse an extra Rs 15,000 crore in this sector. Some steps are being taken in building up capabilities, including ramping up production of ventilators and masks.
    • Need for warlike mobilisation: This is an area where India needs almost a warlike mobilisation, to make sure we have enough testing, tracking, frontline workers, logistics and equipment in place to make sure that the duration of a lockdown is minimised or a repeat is not necessary.
    • The creation of this kind of infrastructure will pay huge dividends even in non-pandemic times.

    Conclusion

    The prime minister is constantly asking the citizens to mobilise, and most of them respond. But it about time the state mobilises: On an economic stimulus that is truly meaningful and health infrastructure push that inspires confidence.

  • Terrorist attack in Kabul’s Gurudwara

    Context

    Attack on gurdwara underlines that the US-Taliban deal has brought Afghanistan no respite.

    The futility of US-Taliban deal highlighted

    • The attack on a gurdwara in Kabul, in which 25 people were killed, has shown that the coronavirus may well be vanquished by science, but human beings will continue to inflict barbarity upon each other.
    • Within hours, it was claimed by the Islamic State, which later also said it had carried it out in revenge for Kashmir.
    • The deal not leading to peace: If there were still doubts left on this score, it must be clear after this attack that the US-Taliban deal was not an arrangement to return Afghanistan to peace.

    Why the attack matters for India?

    • The gurdwara attack was the first strike after the agreement claimed by the IS.
    • A provision in pact: Under the pact, the Taliban have committed themselves to eliminate the Islamic State from Afghanistan.
    • Yet to start honouring commitment: If the IS claim is true, the Taliban have yet to begin honouring that commitment.
    • India’s reaction: Appearing to hint at something more sinister, the ministry of external affairs called the attack “diabolical” and condemned the “perpetrators and their backers”, a formulation usually reserved for attacks suspected to have emanated from or to have the backing of Pakistan.
    • Connection of attack with India: The Taliban’s operational leadership is now in the hands of Sirajuddin Haqqani of the Haqqani group, which has been blamed for several attacks on Indian targets, including the 2008 Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul.
    • The Taliban have denied having anything to do with the gurdwara attack, and Pakistan has condemned it strongly.
    • The question over IS in Afghanistan: Who, really, is the IS in Afghanistan is a question that security experts have been asking for some time now.

    COVID-19 outbreak in Afghanistan

    • Appeal for ceasefire: The UN Secretary-General made an appeal for an immediate ceasefire in theatres of conflict across the world, to enable governments, health workers and humanitarian aid agencies to access those who might be most vulnerable to COVID-19.
    • The epicentre of the outbreak is Herat, where over 1,00,000 Afghans recently crossed over from Iran.
    • After the number of confirmed cases rose to 58, the province has been placed under lockdown.
    • But the government is hobbled in its efforts to contain the disease, both by a contested election result — Afghanistan has two presidents — and the burden of an agreement that has brought it no respite.

    Conclusion

    With the recently concluded US-Taliban deal delivering no peace and coronavirus spreading unabated, Afghanistan faces two contagions, new and old — COVID-19 and the relentless violence.

  • [pib] Virtual Summit of G20 Leaders

    A Virtual G20 Leaders’ Summit was recently convened yesterday to discuss the challenges posed by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and to forge a globally coordinated response.

    About G20

    • Formed in 1999, the G20 is an international forum of the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies.
    • Collectively, the G20 economies account for around 85 percent of the Gross World Product (GWP), 80 percent of world trade.
    • To tackle the problems or the address issues that plague the world, the heads of governments of the G20 nations periodically participate in summits.
    • In addition to it, the group also hosts separate meetings of the finance ministers and foreign ministers.
    • The G20 has no permanent staff of its own and its chairmanship rotates annually between nations divided into regional groupings. 

    Aims and objectives

    • The Group was formed with the aim of studying, reviewing, and promoting high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability.
    • The forum aims to pre-empt the balance of payments problems and turmoil on financial markets by improved coordination of monetary, fiscal, and financial policies.
    • It seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organisation.

    Member Countries

    The members of the G20 consist of 19 individual countries plus the European Union (EU).

    • The 19 member countries of the forum are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.
    • The European Union is represented by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank.

     Who are the G20 Sherpas?

    • A Sherpa is the personal representative of a head of state or government who prepares an international summit, particularly the annual G7 and G20 summits.
    • Between the summits, there are multiple Sherpa conferences where possible agreements are laid out.
    • This reduces the amount of time and resources required at the negotiations of the heads of state at the final summit.
    • The Sherpa is generally quite influential, although they do not have the authority to make a final decision about any given agreement.
    • The name is derived from the Sherpa people, a Nepalese ethnic group, who serve as guides and porters in the Himalayas, a reference to the fact that the Sherpa clears the way for a head of state at a major summit.

  • Home and nation

    Context

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

    An unprecedented move

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

    Challenges and consequences

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

    Measures to mitigate the impact

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

    Conclusion

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

  • What is Finance Bill?

    The Parliament has passed the Finance Bill 2020 with 40 amendments without any discussion.

    Highlights of the Bill

    • Among the important amendments included was one enabling the government to raise additional excise duty on petrol by up to Rs 18 per litre and diesel by up to Rs 12 per litre when required.
    • Amendments enabling the taxation of NRIs’ India-controlled income above Rs 15 lakh, and another extending the DDT exemption to REITs and Infrastructure Investment trusts were passed.
    • The Bill also changes the definition of ‘Resident’, as stipulated under the Income Tax Act.
    • Presently, a person is considered a resident of India, i.e. their global income is taxable in India if they are in the country for more than 182 days a year. This has now been reduced to 120 days.
    • The amendments also include provisions for levying TDS of 1 per cent on e-commerce transactions.

    What is a Finance Bill?

    • As per Article 110 of the Constitution, the Finance Bill is a Money Bill.
    • The Finance Bill is a part of the Union Budget, stipulating all the legal amendments required for the changes in taxation proposed by the Finance Minister.
    • This Bill encompasses all amendments required in various laws pertaining to tax, in accordance with the tax proposals made in the Union Budget.
    • The Finance Bill, as a Money Bill, needs to be passed by the Lok Sabha — the lower house of the Parliament. Post the Lok Sabha’s approval, the Finance Bill becomes Finance Act.

    Difference between a Money Bill and the Finance Bill

    1) Money Bill

    • A Money Bill has to be introduced in the Lok Sabha as per Section 110 of the Constitution. Then, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha for its recommendations.
    • The Rajya Sabha has to return the Bill with recommendations in 14 days.
    • However, the Lok Sabha can reject all or some of the recommendations.

    2) Finance Bill

    • In a general sense, any Bill that relates to revenue or expenditure is a Financial Bill.
    • The Finance Bill is introduced in Lok Sabha.
    • Rajya Sabha can recommend amendments in the bill. However, the bill has to be passed by the Parliament within 75 days of introduction.

    >Types of Finance Bills

    Type I

    • Financial Bill Cat-1 is a bill which contains any of the matters specified in Article 110 but does not exclusively deal with such matters.
    • For example- a bill which contains a taxation clause, but does not deal solely with taxation under Article 117 (1), has two features in common with a money bill.
    1. It cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It can only be introduced in Lok Sabha with the prior recommendation of the President.(Similarities)
    • But has one feature uncommon that is, not being a Money Bill, the Rajya Sabha has the same power to reject or amend such Financial Bill subject to limitation.

    Type II

    • It is a finance bill which merely involves expenditure and does not include any of the matters specified in Article 110.
    • It is an Ordinary Bill and may be initiated in either House and the Rajya Sabha has full power to reject or ament it.
    • It is thus apparent that all Money Bills are Financial Bills but all Financial Bills are not Money Bills.

    Who decides the Bill is a Finance Bill?

    • The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is authorised to decide whether the Bill is a Money Bill or not.
    • Also, the Speaker’s decision shall be deemed to be final.

    Why Finance Bill is needed?

    • The Union Budget proposes many tax changes for the upcoming financial year, even if not all of those proposed changes find a mention in the Finance Minister’s Budget speech.
    • These proposed changes pertain to several existing laws dealing with various taxes in the country.
    • The Finance Bill seeks to insert amendments into all those laws concerned, without having to bring out a separate amendment law for each of those Acts.
    • For instance, a Union Budget’s proposed tax changes may require amending the various sections of the Income Tax law, Stamp Act, Money Laundering law, etc.
    • The Finance Bill overrides and makes changes in the existing laws wherever required.

    What changes can be made via Finance Bill?

    • The most awaited changes in the tax proposals in the Union Budget usually pertain to personal income tax.
    • For taxpayers across the country, the most awaited moment is when the Finance Minister’s speech announces an increase in minimum income threshold, or declares any changes in income tax slabs to make it less costly, or other exemptions.
    • In addition, there might be changes in the rules, procedures, and deadlines for filing tax returns or the payment of tax itself.
    • For instance, there might be a change in the amount of penalty for missing the deadline. Those proposed changes would typically need to be brought in via amending the Income Tax Act.
    • Among other changes, the FM may propose in the Union Budget with regard to the rates or processes for payment or administration of stamp duty levied on various instruments.
    • Such a change would need to be brought in via an amendment to the Stamp Act.
    • Since the introduction of GST, there is no amendment to indirect taxes in the Union Budget, since that is under the purview of the GST Council.

     

  • Legal Provisions Used By Law Enforcement Agencies To Control The Spread Of Coronavris

    To enforce a full lockdown to contain the spread of COVID-19, law enforcement agencies have taken the help of various legal provisions in CrPC and IPC.

    • The orders issued to curb the spread of the coronavirus have been framed under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, which lays down punishment as per Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    • Similarly, Sections 269 and 270 IPC are being invoked against persons who malignantly do any act which is likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life.

      Sections 269 and 270 of the IPC

      • Sections 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) come under Chapter XIV of the IPC.
      • The chapter is named ‘Of Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals’.
      • While Section 269 provides for a jail term of six months and/or fine, Section 270 provides for a jail term of two years and/or fine.
      • In Section 270, the word ‘malignantly’ indicates a deliberate intention on the part of the accused.
      • During the coronavirus outbreak, penal provisions, such as Sections 188, 269 and 270 of the IPC, are being invoked to enforce the lockdown orders in various states.

      Earlier instances of invocation

      • Both Sections have been used for over a century to punish those disobeying orders issued for containing epidemics.
      • The Sections were similarly enforced by colonial authorities during outbreaks of diseases such as smallpox and bubonic plague.

    What is Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code?

    • Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, provides penalties for disobeying any regulation or order made under the Act.
    • These are according to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant).
    • It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm.
    • It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

    What happens if you violate the lockdown orders? 

    Under Section 188, there two offences:

    1) Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, If such disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons lawfully employed

    Punishment: Simple Imprisonment for 1 month or fine of Rs 200 or both

    2) If such disobedience causes danger to human life, health or safety, etc.

    Punishment: Simple Imprisonment for 6 months or fine of Rs 1000 or both

    According to the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, both offences are cognizable, bailable, and can be tried by any magistrate.

    Triable By: Any Magis­trate

     

  • China and WHO a new story

    Context

    The WHO leadership, especially its Director-General, has been accused of serving China’s interests rather than preparing the world against the spread of the virus.

    What is the basis of accusations?

    • The first basis for these charges is the WHO’s endorsement of the Chinese claim in mid-January that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the virus.
    • Second, consistent support for Beijing’s handling of the crisis.
    • Third, WHO’s criticism of other nations for imposing travel restrictions to and from China.
    • Critics also believe the WHO lulled the world into complacence by delaying the decision on calling it a global emergency.

    The new geopolitics of multilateralism

    • Whatever the merits of the above arguments, they point to the new geopolitics of multilateralism,
    • It also disproves the assumptions in both the West and India on China’s role in the UN.
    • It also underlines Beijing’s success in the leveraging of international organisations for its national advantage.
    • Nations working together against the trans-national threat: On the face of it, the sentiment that nations must work together against common trans-national threats is an eminently sensible one. But it does not easily translate into concrete actions.
    • Example of failure to act against a common threat: Take climate change. Attempts at developing collective solutions to the problem over the last three decades have foundered.
    • Most leaders agree on the problem and the solutions but are not willing to accept the framework — either the domestic or international — for distributing the costs associated with the solutions.
    • The US-China rivalry angle to the coronavirus outbreak: The problem of the cost-benefit distribution is compounded by great power rivalries. The coronavirus has shown up at a moment of deepening tensions between the US and China.
    • The grave collective challenge that the virus constitutes has only sharpened the conflict.
    • The blame game between the two: The US blames Beijing for letting this virus become a global monster and Beijing is doing all it can to deny that the virus came out of China.

    How the relationship between China and WHO has transformed over the years?

    • WHO’s actions in the past: Nearly two decades ago, during the SARS crisis, WHO was at the front and centre of pressing China to come clean on the unfolding pandemic.
    • In 2003, it had issued the organisation’s first travel advisory ever on travel to and from the epicentre of the pandemic in southern China.
    • As the SARS crisis escalated, Beijing’s traditional arguments about the centrality of state sovereignty yielded place to a new policy of working with the WHO and taking proactive steps to reassure neighbours in South East Asia.
    • Reasons for change in WHO’s stance: Some attribute the turnaround in the relationship between Beijing and WHO to China’s growing financial contributions.
    • China’s efforts to expand clout: Observers of the UN point to something more fundamental — a conscious and consequential Chinese effort to expand its clout in the multilateral system.
    • China, which was admitted to the UN system in the 1970s, was focused on finding its way in the 1980s, cautiously raised its profile in the 1990s, took on some political initiatives at the turn of the millennium and seized the leadership in the last few years.

    How India and the West are reacting to China’s rise?

    • Unprepared to deal with China’s rise at UN: Neither the West nor India have been prepared to deal with the impact of China’s rise on the UN system.
    • The US and its allies bet that China will be a “responsible stakeholder”. Put another way, they hoped that China will play by the rules set by the West.
    • China’s ambitions: China, of course, wants to set its own rules. Only the political innocents will be shocked by China’s natural ambition.
    • India’s past alignment with China: India, which considered US dominance over the international institutions in the 1990s as a major threat, chose to align with China in promoting a “multipolar world”.
    • Delhi convinced itself that despite differences over the boundary, Pakistan and other issues, there is huge room for cooperation with China.
    • Replacing the US as the dominant force: To their chagrin, the West and India are being compelled to respond to a very different environment at the UN. China wants to replace America as the dominant force in the UN.
    • The US is now fighting back. Last month, Washington went all out to defeat the Chinese candidate for the leadership of an obscure UN agency called the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

    Implications of China’s rise for India

    • Chinese hegemony vs. American primacy: Delhi discovered that Chinese global hegemony could be a lot more problematic than American primacy.
    • After all, it is China that complicates India’s plans for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, protects Pakistan against international pressures on cross-border terrorism, and relentlessly pushes the UN Security Council to take up the Kashmir question.
    • India now turns to the US and its allies to pursue some of its interests in the UN.
    • Multilateralism not an end in itself: Political ironies apart, if there is one lesson that India could learn from China’s experience with WHO and the UN, it is that multilateralism is not an end in itself for major powers.
    • It is an important means to secure one’s national interest and shape the international environment.
    • As a nation battered by the Cultural Revolution, China used international cooperation and global institutions to rebuild itself in the last decades of the 20th century.
    • Ready to reorder global governance: Having developed its economy and advanced its scientific and technological base, China is now ready to reorder global governance and become a rule-maker.
    • The effects are visible in the arena of global health.
    • China’s expanding global engagement with the WHO, its substantive international health assistance programmes, and an impressive domestic health technology sector are poised to boost China’s ambition to build a “Global Silk Road for Health’.

    Conclusion

    On its part, Delhi needs to intensify the recalibration of India’s multilateralism, rewrite its diplomatic lexicon at the UN, and build new political coalitions that will simultaneously contribute to India’s internal modernisation and enhance its international influence. The corona crisis is a good moment to start writing a new script for India’s own health diplomacy.

  • Not an unfettered right

    Context

    The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights filed an application seeking to intervene as amicus curiae in the pending litigation in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

    What are the implications of intervention?

    • Concern over international attention: That the case has attracted the attention of the international human rights agency is a matter of concern for the Indian government.
    • International law principles: The intervention may enable the Supreme Court to read in public international law principles in determining the constitutionality of CAA.
    • Law on concepts of sovereignty: Ultimately, this would assist in laying down the law on concepts of sovereignty in addition to determining the obligations of a nation-state to the international community at large.

    Why the intervention matters?

    • Basis of the application: The application is based on the belief that the High Commissioner’s intervention will provide the Court “with an overview of the international human rights norms and standards with respect to the state’s obligations to provide international protection to persons at risk of persecution in their countries of origin”.
    • This application stands out for a number of reasons.
    • First, this is a voluntary application rather than at the invitation of the Supreme Court.
    • Second, she accepts that India is a state party and signatory to various international conventions including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights which contain important non-discrimination clauses, including on the ground of religion.
    • India’s obligations towards migrants: India is obliged, under international law, to ensure that migrants in its territory or under its jurisdiction receive equal and non-discriminatory treatment regardless of their legal status or the documentations they possess.
    • Locus standi issue raised by India: In response, the External Affairs Ministry argued that “no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty”.
    • The High Commissioner has filed similar amicus curiae briefs on issues of pubic importance before a range of international and national judicial fora.
    • A precedent for future: This intervention, if permitted, would serve as a precedent for a number of future applications. It would also provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to lay down the law on whether such applications interfere with national sovereignty.

    Sovereignty as responsibility

    • Defining sovereignty: International Court of Justice judge James Crawford defines sovereignty as, among other things, the “capacity to exercise, to the exclusion of other states, state functions on or related to that territory, and includes the capacity to make binding commitments under international law” and states that “such sovereignty is exercisable by the governmental institutions established within the state”.
    • Sovereignty in Indian Constitution: The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the position, wherein the people of India have resolved to constitute the Indian Republic into a sovereign and not just any one authority.
    • As such, the courts (judiciary), the government (executive) and elected legislatures (legislature) are equally sovereign authorities.
    • No one can claim exclusivity over sovereignty. Furthermore, Article 51 (c) of the Constitution directs the state to “foster respect for international law”.

    Responsibility to citizens and the international community

    • Responsibility of political authority: According to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, “national political authorities are responsible to the citizens internally and to the international community through the UN”.
    • Constraints on sovereignty: Therefore, it is trite to say that an authority’s right to sovereignty is not unfettered. It is subject to constraints including the responsibility to protect its citizenry and the larger international community.
    • Extending Article 14: Furthermore, Article 14 extends the right to equality to all persons, which is wider than the definition of citizens. Even illegal immigrants shall, consequently, be treated by the government in a manner that ensures equal protection of Indian laws.

    Conclusion

    It is hoped that the Supreme Court will conclude that the intervention is necessary as the Court would benefit from the High Commissioner’s expertise in public international law principles.