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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Coastal Zones Management and Regulations

    Shailesh Nayak Committee has recently relaxed norms under coastal regulation zones. It has proposed for allowing housing infrastructure and slum redevelopment activities, tourism, ports and harbor and fisheries-related activities in coastal regulation zone.

    source

    CRZs have been in news at times. Objections have been raised various times to broad the scope of activities that are permitted at these places.

    India has a long coastal line which makes these areas important for the country. Let’s understand this thing in a better way:

    • What are CRZs?
    • Classification of CRZ in India
    • What are the activities permitted and prohibited in these areas?
    • Why are CRZs important for India?
    • Objectives of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011
    • Achievements of CRZ rules, 2011
    • Drawbacks of CRZ rules, 2011
    • Shailesh Nayak committee on review of coastal regulation zone notification
    • Analysis of new recommendations

    What are CRZs?

    • Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ) are classified as the region between the outer limits of territorial waters (12 nautical miles) and a specified inward distance (inland) from the high tide line along coasts.
    • These zones are recognised as fragile ecosystems and as such are accorded protection against unregulated human activities such as construction, sand mining etc.
    • As per the notification, the coastal land up to 500m from the High Tide Line (HTL) and a stage of 100m along banks of creeks, estuaries, backwater and rivers subject to tidal fluctuations, is called the Coastal Regulation Zone(CRZ).

    Classification of CRZ in India

    For regulation of developmental activities, the coastal stretches within 500m of HTL on the landward side are classified into four categories, viz.

    • Category I (CRZ-I)
    • Category II (CRZ – II)
    • Category III (CRZ-III)
    • Category IV (CRZ-IV)

    Category I (CRZ -I):

    a) Areas that are ecologically sensitive and important, such as national parks/marine parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests, wild habitats, mangroves, corals/coral reefs, areas likely to be inundated due to rise in sea level consequent upon global warming and such areas as may be declared by the authorities.

    b) Areas between the Low Tide Line and High Tide Line

    Category II (CRZ -II):

    The area that have already been developed up to or the shoreline.

    Category III (CRZ -III):

    Areas that are relatively undisturbed and those which do not belong to either Category I or II. These include coastal zone in the areas (developed and undeveloped) and also areas within Municipal limits or in other legally designated urban areas which are not substantially built up.

    Category IV (CRZ-IV):

    Coastal stretches in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep and small islands, except those designated as CRZ I, CRZ II and CRZ III.

    What are the activities permitted and prohibited in these areas?

    CRZ I: Regulations

    No new constructions shall be permitted within 500m of the HTL.
    CRZ II: Regulations

    • Buildings shall be permitted neither on the seaward side of the existing road or on the seaward side of the existing and proposed road
    • Reconstruction of the authorized building to be permitted subject to the existing FSI/FAR norms and without change in the existing use
    • The design and construction of buildings shall be consistent with the surrounding landscape and architectural style 

    CRZ III: Regulations

    • The area up to 200m from the HTL is be earmarked as ‘No Development Zone’.
    • No construction shall be permitted in this zone except for repairs of existing authorized structures not exceeding existing FSI, existing plinth area and existing density.
    • However, the following uses may be permissible in this zone-agriculture, horticulture, gardens, pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water.

    Why are CRZs important for India?

    • India has a long coastline of 7516 km, ranging from Gujarat to West Bengal, and two island archipelagos (Andaman Island and Lakshadweep).
    • Our coastal ecosystems provide protection from natural disasters such as floods and tsunamis.
    • Coastal waters provide a source of primary livelihood to 7 million households.
    • Our marine ecosystems are a treasure trove of biodiversity, which we are only beginning to discover and catalogue.
    • Thus, our coastline is both a precious natural resource and an important economic asset, and we need a robust progressive framework to regulate our coast.

    Objectives of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011

    The main objectives of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 were:

    • To ensure livelihood security to the fishing communities and other local communities living in the coastal areas;
    • To conserve and protect coastal stretches and;
    • To promote development in a sustainable manner based on scientific principles, taking into account the dangers of natural hazards in the coastal areas and sea level rise due to global warming.

    Achievements of CRZ rules, 2011

    • It widens the definition of CRZ to include the land area from HTL to 500 m on the landward side, as well as the land area between HTL to 100 m or width of the creek, whichever is less, on the landward side along tidal influenced water bodies connected to the sea.
    • The concept of a ‘hazard line’ has been introduced.
    • Clearances for obtaining CRZ approval have been made time-bound. Further, for the first time, post-clearance monitoring of projects has been introduced
    • Introduction of the Coastal Zone Management Plans, which will regulate coastal development activity and which are to be formulated by the State Governments or the administration of Union Territories.
    • The 2011 Notification also lists out certain measures that have to be taken to prevent pollution in the coastal areas/coastal waters.

    Drawbacks of CRZ rules, 2011

    • Although the no-development zone of 200 metres from the HTL is reduced to 100 metres, the pro­vision has been made applicable to “traditional coastal communities, including fisher-folk”, thereby giving the chance for increased construction on the coast and higher pressure on coastal resources
    • Disallowing Special Economic Zone(“SEZ”) projects in the CRZ
    • There are no restrictions for expansion of housing for rural communities in CRZ III

    Shailesh Nayak committee on review of coastal regulation zone notification

    The main recommendations of this new committee are:

    • Need to demarcate precisely: There exists ambiguities in key baseline data, including the demarcation of high and low tide lines and the coastal zone boundary, which has affected the preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans.
    • Shift in Governance: Transferring control of development in the CRZ-II zone, the existing built-up area close to the shoreline, from the Environment Department to State Town Planning authorities, as proposed, would mark a radical shift in governance.
    • Construction Activities: Proposed lightly regulated tourism in “no development zones”. Construction and other activities could be taken up in CRZ-III zones just 50 m from the high tide line in densely populated rural areas under State norms (with the responsibility to rescue and rehabilitate during natural calamities left to local authorities) could be based on an over-estimation of the capacity in such bodies.
    • Pollution Control: The plan should be to identify specific areas for such activity, assess its environmental impact, demarcate the area under the State’s management plans, and fix responsibility for enforcement, particularly for pollution control.
    • Make it participatory: Involving the local communities in the betterment of these areas has yet not been achieved and incorporating a community-based approach should be made a priority.

    Analysis of new recommendations

    The recommendation by committee has tried to establish a balance between development and coastal conservation. However there are certain areas of concern-

    • The demarcation of high tide and low tide lines and coastal zone boundary affected the coastal zone management plans which are crucial for CRZ.
    • The transfer of developmental control of CRZ 2 from environmental department to town planning committee encourages local participation but it may disturb the whole system of governance.
    • Construction and other activities in CRZ 3 which is in the densely populated zone will hazards human settlement.
    • The proposed lightly tourism activity in the “No development zone” would suffocate further biodiversity conservation.

    Way ahead

    The new recommendations have tried to address issues such as time-bound clearances, enforcement measures, special provisions for specific coastal stretches etc. There is a significant change in the new notification but there is always need for further improvement.

  • Foreign Policy Watch: India-South Korea

  • Indian Ocean Power Competition

  • Nuclear Diplomacy and Disarmament

    Here’s what we are going the explain in this writeup:

    • The Backstory
    • What is the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)?
    • What does India need to do to get in?
    • Does joining the MTCR make getting missile technology easier?
    • Does the MTCR actually stop the spread of missile technology?
    • Are there any sanctions for breaking MTCR rules?
    • Does the MTCR actually stop the spread of missile technology?
    • Why does India want to be in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)?
    • Why does the US want India in the NSG?
    • Why doesn’t Pakistan want India in?
    • And what is China’s problem?
    • Why then did China go along with the NSG waiver in 2008?
    • Why does India want to join Proliferation control regimes?
    • Why is India’s Bid for NSG being criticized?

    source

    The Backstory

    • Since 2008, India has been pushing forward to become an NSG member, where decisions are consensus based and not based on majority votes
    • It has also been looking for membership of other groups such as MTCR
    • India recently became the Member of MTCR, however its bid for getting membership of NSG was not successful because of opposition from China and 12 other NSG members

    #1. All about MTCR

    What is the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)?

    Established in April 1987, it is a voluntary association of 35 countries and 4 “unilateral adherents” that follow its rules: Israel, Romania, Slovakia, Macedonia.

    The group aims to slow the spread of missiles and other unmanned delivery technology that could be used for chemical, biological and nuclear attacks.

    The regime urges members, which include most of the world’s major missile manufacturers, to restrict exports of missiles and related technologies capable of carrying a 500 kg payload at least 300 km, or delivering any type of weapon of mass destruction.

    How does one become a member of MTCR?

    • Prospective members must win consensus approval from existing members. United States policy had been that members that are not recognised nuclear-weapon states — including India — must eliminate or forgo ballistic missiles able to deliver a 500 kg payload at least 300 km
    • The US, however, made an exception in 1998 for Ukraine, permitting it to retain Scud missiles and, in October 2012, South Korea was allowed to keep ballistic missiles with an 800-km range and 500-kg payload that could target all of North Korea
    • For India, the US have waived these terms, allowing it retain its missile arsenal

    Does joining the MTCR make getting missile technology easier?

    • There are no special concessions for MTCR members. But India hopes its MTCR membership will be one more reason for the US to consider exporting Category 1 UAVs, Reaper and Global Hawk, which have been key to counter-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen
    • These drones have so far been sold to only one country, the UK, though unarmed versions have also been made available to Italy and South Korea
    • The US has been rethinking rules on exports, aware that competitors in Israel, Russia and China are working on similar products — and India wants to be at the head of the queue when the Reaper and the Global Hawk go on the market

    Are there any sanctions for breaking MTCR rules?

    • Rule breakers can’t be punished.
    • However, US law mandates sanctions for companies and governments that export MTCR-controlled items. The sanctioned entity can’t sign contracts, buy arms and receive aid for two years or more.

    Does the MTCR actually stop the spread of missile technology?

    • Yes and no. North Korea, Iran and Pakistan acquired ballistic missile technology from China. But then, China began to feel the pinch of US technology sanctions — and announced, in November 2000, that it would stop exporting ballistic missile technology.
    • Four years later, it applied for MTCR membership — but has been denied entry because of suspicion that some companies in the country are secretly supplying technology to North Korea.
    • Many others dropped missile programmes because of MTCR pressure: Argentina abandoned its Condor II ballistic missile programme (on which it was working with Egypt and Iraq) to join the regime. Brazil, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan shelved or eliminated missile or space launch vehicle programmes. Poland and the Czech Republic destroyed their ballistic missiles.

    It is possible China may now seek some kind of bargain, whereby it is given entry to the MTCR in return for letting India get into the NSG, where it wields a veto.

    What after MTCR?

    • Admission to the MTCR would open the way for India to buy high-end missile technology
    • It will also make India’s aspiration to buy state-of-the-art surveillance drones such as the U.S. Predator, made by General Atomics.

    #2. All about NSG

    Why does India want to be in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)?

    Following India’s 1974 nuclear tests, the US pushed for setting up a club of nuclear equipment and fissile material suppliers.

    The 48-nation group frames and implements agreed rules for exporting nuclear equipment, with a view to controlling the spread of nuclear weapons; members are admitted only by consensus.

    India has been trying, since 2008, to join the group, which would give it a place at the high table where the rules of nuclear commerce are decided — and, eventually, the ability to sell equipment.

    Many countries that initially opposed its entry, like Australia, have changed stance; Mexico and Switzerland are the latest to voice support. India’s effort has been to chip away at the resistance, leaving only one holdout — China. But until China accepts India’s entry, there is no hope of membership.

    Why does the US want India in the NSG?

    The answer lies in the US effort to strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, whose centrepiece is the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, or NPT.

    The NPT defines “nuclear weapons states” as those that tested devices before January 1, 1967 — which means India cannot ever be one.

    India — like Israel and Pakistan — thus refused to sign the treaty. From 2005, though, President George W Bush’s administration sought ways to deepen strategic cooperation with India.

    Nuclear energy was a key means to strengthen cooperation, but since India wasn’t a member of the NPT, technology couldn’t be shared. Then, a way forward was found — the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement.

    India agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear programmes, and put the civilian part under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

    India also changed its export laws to line up with the NSG, MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement, and Australia Group — the 4 key nuclear control regimes.

    The US agreed to shepherd India’s entry into these regimes, which meant India would for all practical purposes be treated like an NPT member, even though it wasn’t one.

    Why doesn’t Pakistan want India in?

    The Pakistani argument is that giving India easy access to fissile material and technology for its civilian nuclear programme means it would have that much more material for its military nuclear programme.

    Thus, Pakistan says, the move to give India NSG membership is fuelling a nuclear arms race.

    But this argument falls apart because Pakistan is resolutely opposed to a key international agreement called the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), which would cap the military nuclear stockpiles of all countries. The FMCT ought to put an end to Pakistan’s fears, but Islamabad has refused to sign.

    Why has China opposed India’s Bid for NSG?

    Chinese diplomats say Beijing wants NSG entry to be norm-based , in other words, whatever rules govern Indian entry should apply to others too.

    Norm-based entry would, presumably, help Pakistan gain entry, something many in the NSG are certain to resist because of the country’s record as a proliferator of nuclear-weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

    Why then did China go along with the NSG waiver in 2008?

    Geopolitics!

    The 2008 one-time waiver allowed nuclear commerce between NSG members and India — the agreement that now allows Westinghouse, and its competitors in France or South Korea, to bid to set up civilian reactors in India.

    The waiver came only after President Bush rang President Hu Jintao and called in a favour. Back then, US-China relations were riding high — on the back of surging trade, and a common vision of how the international order should be structured.

    Today, President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping are at odds over Chinese muscle-flexing in the South China Sea. The odds of a phone call changing the state of play are next to zero.

    Why does India want to join Proliferation control regimes?

    • India’s membership of the NSG and other proliferation control regimes notably the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group, and the Wassenaar Arrangement is important in order to shatter the myth of it being an “outlier” to the non-proliferation regime as also to facilitate its trade, both imports and exports, of nuclear, missile and other related sensitive technologies.
    • Membership of these regimes will enhance India’s status in this critical area from merely an adherent to a rule maker.
    • It will also enable India to ensure that these regimes perform their mandated role of promoting non-proliferation effectively and not hurt its commercial interests.

    Why India’s recent NSG bid is being criticized?

    • Many experts believe that after the clean waiver of 2008 and the 2011 amendment of the NSG rules (that non-NPT countries would not be entitled to the transfer of the reprocessing and enrichment technology), there is not much merit in seeking a membership of the NSG.
    • The worst outcome of this aggressive bidding was that at NSG forum India’s nuclear regime got hyphenated with Pakistan. It has taken a great deal of effort on the part of successive governments in India to kill the idea of that hyphenation.
    • It suits China ideally to put India in the same bracket as Pakistan. However for India it is diminishing to get itself compared with rogue state like Pakistan who have a dismal track record with respect to Nuclear Proliferation.

    References:

  • Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)

    Mega regional trade deals are in vogue in an otherwise fragile global economy. In an environment of falling aggregate demand, these trade deals are seen as a means to insulate economies from market uncertainties.

    Three important mega regional’s are currently under negotiation: the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership of Asia and the Pacific (RCEP), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    It is expected that these agreements, once concluded and implemented, will set the stage for a new generation of global trade and investment rules.

    In this article we will explain What is RCEP ,what will be its significance for India and what are the point of contention among countries in RCEP.

    • What is RCEP?
    • Key Features of RCEP
    • Comparison of RCEP with other regional Agreements
    • Significance of RCEP for India
    • Challenges in Final negotiation of RCEP
    • Challenges and concerns for India from Joining RCEP
    • Recent point of contention in RCEP negotiation

    source

    What is RCEP?

    • Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) and the six states with which include India, China, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New zealand.
    • In total, the grouping of 16 nations includes more than 3 billion people, has a combined GDP of about $17 trillion, and accounts for about 40 percent of world trade.
    • If negotiated successfully, RCEP would create the world’s largest trading bloc and have major implications for Asian countries and the world economy.

    Key features of the RCEP

    The RCEP seeks to achieve a modern and comprehensive trade agreement among members. The core of the negotiating agenda would cover trade in goods and services, investment, economic and technical cooperation and dispute settlement. The partnership would be a powerful vehicle to support the spread of global production networks and reduce the inefficiencies of multiple Asian trade agreements that exist presently.

    At the launch of negotiations in 2012, the leaders of each relevant country endorsed the “Guiding Principles and Objectives for Negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.”

    The key points of this document are as follows:

    (A) Scope of negotiations

    • RCEP will cover trade in goods, trade in services, investment, economic and technical co-operation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement and other issues.
    • As expected, ASEAN will be in the “driver’s seat” of this multilateral trade arrangement (though the idea was initially given by Japan), and has been repeatedly endorsed by India.
    • The joint statement issued at the end of the first round of negotiations also reiterated “ASEAN Centrality” in the emerging regional economic architecture.

    (B) Commitment levels

    The RCEP will have broader and deeper engagement with significant improvements over the existing ASEAN+1 FTAs, while recognizing the individual and diverse circumstances of the participating countries.

    (C) Negotiations for trade in goods

    Negotiations should aim to achieve the high level of tariff liberalization, through building upon the existing liberalization levels between participating countries.

    (D) Negotiations for trade in services

    The RCEP will be comprehensive, of high-quality and consistent with WTO rules and all service sectors will be subject to negotiations.

    (E) Negotiations for investment

    Negotiations will cover the 4 pillars of promotion, protection, facilitation and liberalization.

    (F) Participating countries

    Participants will be ASEAN members and FTA Partners. After the completion of the negotiations, countries other than the 16 states may join.

    source

    Significance of RCEP for India

    • India is not a party to two important regional economic blocs: The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. New Delhi fears the TPP, although years away from reality, could mean losing some textile and drugs exports to countries like Vietnam, which has embraced both the TPP and the RCEP.
      • TPP is set to change the landscape of global trade. For India, it is most likely to affect sectors like leather goods, plastics, chemicals, textiles and clothing.
      • The RCEP would enable India to strengthen its trade ties with Australia, China, Japan and South Korea, and should reduce the potential negative impacts of TPP and TTIP on the Indian economy.
    • The RCEP agreement would complement India’s existing free trade agreements with the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations and some of its member countries, as it would deals with Japan and South Korea.
    • It would be the world’s largest trading bloc covering a broad spectrum of issues such as trade in goods, services, investment, competition, intellectual property rights, and other areas of economic and technical cooperation.
    • From India’s point of view, the RCEP presents a decisive platform which could influence its strategic and economic status in the Asia-Pacific region and bring to fruition its act east policy.
    • RCEP will facilitate India’s integration into sophisticated “regional production networks” that make Asia the world’s factory. The RCEP is expected to harmonize trade-related rules, investment and competition regimes of India with those of other countries of the group. Through domestic policy reforms on these areas, this harmonization of rules and regulations would help Indian companies plug into regional and global value chains and would unlock the true potential of the Indian economy. There would be a boost to inward and outward foreign direct investment, particularly export-oriented FDI.
    • India enjoys a comparative advantage in areas such as information and communication technology, IT-enabled services, professional services, healthcare, and education services. In addition to facilitating foreign direct investment, the RCEP will create opportunities for Indian companies to access new markets. This is because the structure of manufacturing in many of these countries is becoming more and more sophisticated, resulting in a “servicification” of manufacturing.

    Challenges in Final negotiation of RCEP

    Finalizing the RCEP will not be a cakewalk for India and other countries involved in the negotiations as there are a range of issues that could act as spoilers.

    • Huge economic disparities among the negotiating countries are likely to pose a challenge
    • An inevitable source of trust deficit between China and the rest which has the potential to constrain regional economic cooperation is China’s aggressive postures on territorial disputes with Japan and India and with ASEAN member countries on the South China Sea disputes.This can pose as a hurdle in final negotiation of RCEP
    • The existing 5 ASEAN+1 and 23 ratified bilateral FTAs, varying greatly in their terms, pose a significant hurdle to RCEP negotiations.
    • The lack of commonality across FTAs and varying internal policies of countries would prove to be a difficult task to harmonize and consolidate under RCEP.

    Challenges and concerns for India from Joining RCEP

    For New Delhi, following challenges lie ahead.

    • First, tariff barriers, which have been a matter of discontent in bilateral FTAs, particularly in the case of the ASEAN-India FTA, will be central to the negotiations in the upcoming rounds of RCEP negotiations.
    • Non-trade issues such as environment and labor are likely to be prickly as well and need greater attention. Many Countries in RCEP want a stricter norms and standards on environment and labor issues while India’s interest lie in liberal environment and labor norms as this makes Indian industry competitive. India therefore should bat for liberal environment and labor norms while negotiating in RCEP.
    • India must take steps to strengthen its Medium, Small and Micro Enterprises (MSME) sector, equipping it not only to survive the free flow of trade, but also to become a set of more competitive players. Higher investments in R&D and achieving international standards in terms of delivery are needed.
    • An internal commerce ministry estimate that signing the 16-country Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade agreement will result in a revenue loss of as much as 1.6% of GDP
    • Finally, a major difficulty for India will be negotiating terms with China. India has to be firm and calculative in terms of taking tough policy decisions, while working tirelessly on capacity building of its domestic industries.

    Recent point of contention in RCEP negotiation

    • Recently in the 12thround of RCEP talks The members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have, in a sort of ultimatum, asked India to either to consent to eliminate tariffs on most products quickly or leave the talks on the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that is being negotiated by RCEP itself.
    • The members of RCEP are irked by what they think as India’s obstructionist, defensive and half-hearted approach” that is “delaying” the result of the talks
    • Some member countries, particularly 10- members ASEAN bloc, want India to take a long-term approach and consent to eliminate deities (except in agriculture and industrial goods) on a higher threshold within a decade to help India get the benefit of the opportunities arising out of Global Value Chain.

    References:

  • Mother and Child Health – Immunization Program, BPBB, PMJSY, PMMSY, etc.

     

    • Aim: To generate awareness and improve efficiency of delivery of welfare services meant for women
    • Launched on 22 January 2015 with an initial corpus of Rs. 100 crore
    • Joint initiative of Ministries of Women & Child Development, Health & Human Resource Development

    Districts Identified

    The three criteria for selection of districts:

    1. Districts below the national average (87 districts/23 states);
    2. Districts above national average but shown declining trend (8 districts/8 states)
    3. Districts above national average and shown increasing trend (5 districts/5 states- selected so that these CSR levels can be maintained and other districts can emulate and learn from their experiences)
    • First Phase:

    100 districts have been identified on the basis of low Child Sex Ratio as per Census 2011 covering all States/UTs as a pilot With at least one district in each state

    • Second Phase

    The scheme has further been expanded to 61 additional districts selected from 11 States/UT having CSR below 918

     

    Strategies:

    • Implement a sustained Social Mobilization and Communication Campaign to create equal value for the girl child & promote her education
    • Focus on Gender Critical Districts and Cities low on CSR for intensive & integrated action
    • Mobilize & Train Panchayati Raj Institutions/ Urban local bodies/ Grassroot workers as catalysts for social change
    • Ensure service delivery structures/ schemes & programmes are sufficiently responsive to issues Of gender and children’s rights
    • Enable Inter-sectoral and inter-institutional convergence at District/ Block/ Grassroot levels

    Implementation:

    1. Centre: A National Task Force (NTF) headed by Secretary WCD
      State: A State Task Force (STF)
    2. District: District Task Force (DTF) headed by the District Collector/ Deputy Commissioner with representation of concerned departments
    3. Block: A Block Level Committee headed by SDM/ SDO/ BDO
    4. Gram Panchayat/ Municipality: Respective Panchayat Samiti/ Ward Samiti
    5. Village: Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Committees
    Published with inputs from Swapnil

  • Foreign Policy Watch: India-Iran

  • Foreign Policy Watch: India-Afghanistan

  • Liquor Policy of States

    Kerala’s Liquor Policy: What’s wrong with it?

    Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the ‘Liquor-Free Kerala’ policy restricting the serving of liquor to five-star hotels in the State. The apex court ruled that the State governments be given a free hand to curtail or ban public consumption of alcohol to protect public health and nutrition.

    Before we go into details, let’s see the time-line of Kerala’s Excise Policy

    2007 – Kerala govt. started tightening its excise policy to make liquor less-freely available in the state, in the interest of public health. It started a policy where only those hotels that were accorded 3-star or more by Union Govt.’s Ministry of Culture will be given new bar licenses.

    2011 – It further tightened the policy by denying licenses to any hotels that were accorded less than 4-star by Union Govt.’s Ministry of Culture. However, those hotels with existing licenses were accorded amnesty, i.e. they were allowed renewal of licenses even if the hotel’s rating was less than 4-star.

    2014 – Only hotels classed as 5-star and above by Union Govt.’s Ministry of Culture, will be allowed to serve liquor.

    What is Liquor-Free Kerala policy?

    The policy seeks to prohibit the sale and service of alcohol in all public places, except bars and restaurants in five-star hotels. To be precise, only five star hotels are now allowed to serve hard liquor. <Something, which is often confused>

    • Other categories of hotels could supply only beer and wine.
    • Govt-run liquor shops are to be phased out at a rate of 10% a year over the next decade.
    • Toddy is exempt from the ban and the drink has long been part of Kerala’s culture.

    Foreign tourists could be satisfied by beer and wine, while the domestic tourism sector will be the most affected as tourists from other states prefer hard liquor.

    What is the need for bringing such a policy?

    • Kerala accounts for 14% of the country’s liquor consumption.
    • Even, the apex court said that it is well established that consumption of liquor is bad for health of humankind.
    • Alcoholism critically impact the household budgets of the poor & may lead to domestic violence.

    DPSP also requires state to endeavour for prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs, due to the well-known ill-effects on standards of living and public health.

    How this ban could impact Kerala’s economy?

    • Kerala earns about $ 3.8 billion/year from tourism, which is likely to be hit by the liquor ban. The state govt. has hiked excise duty on beer to 5% and that on liquor to 8% to offset revenue losses.
    • The job opportunities in the tourism sector will also be get affected because of this policy, as the industry provides one out of four jobs in the state.

    Why there is so much criticism against prohibition?

    • Actually, the policy of prohibition does not encourage the people to quit the habit.
    • It leads to underground trade and creates a market for spurious liquor.
    • As a policy, prohibition has met with little success anywhere in India, due to corruption within enforcement agencies.
    • Even when it has helped bring down overall consumption, prohibition has led to loss of lives in hooch tragedies.

    What is the argument for exempting five-star hotels & why is it criticized?

    • The State govt. has argued that it is in the interest of tourism.
    • However, the Supreme Court’s decision to exempt five-star hotel seems unreasonable and arbitrary.
    • The judgment strikes at the root of non-discriminatory treatment under the constitution.

    Let’s analyse the court verdict vis-a-vis fundamental rights?

    The case is known as The Kerala Bar Hotels Association vs State of Kerala.

    The bar associations have argued that the liquor policy violates Art 19(1)(g) and Art 14.

    Article 19(1)(g) – To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

    • However, the liberty to freely carry on any trade or business is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by state in the interest of general public.
    • This argument fails, since Art 47 requires state to make an endeavour towards improving public health, including to bring about prohibition of the consumption of liquor.

    Art 14 – The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

    • The new excise policy had made an unreasonable classification by separately categorizing hotel of 5-star or more and permitting these hotels to serve liquor in public.
    • Therefore, the policy violates Art 14 of constitution by treating persons on an equal standing unequally.

    What could be the better policy alternative?

    Experts argue that a better idea would be to engage non-state actors to step up the campaign for abstention.

    Suggest some better policy alternatives or share some successful case-studies to curb the consumption of liquor.

     

    Published with inputs from Pushpendra

  • Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.