December 2021
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Disinvestment in India

The NMP is hardly the panacea for growth in India

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: National Monetisation Pipeline

Mains level: Paper 3- Significance of PSUs

Context

As the government seeks to monetise core assets through National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP), it needs to investigate the key reasons and processes which led to once profit-making public sector assets becoming inefficient and sick businesses.

Background of the MNP

  • The National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP) envisages an aggregate monetisation potential of ₹6-lakh crore through the leasing of core assets of the Central government.
  • These assets are in sectors such as roads, railways, power, oil and gas pipelines, telecom, civil aviation, shipping ports and waterways, mining, food and public distribution, coal, housing and urban affairs etc. over a four-year period (FY2022 to FY2025).
  • Strategic objective of NMP: According to NITI Aayog, the strategic objective of the asset monetisation programme is to unlock the value of investments in public sector assets by tapping private sector capital and efficiencies.
  • Unlocking idle capital: The NMP policy advocates unlocking idle capital from non-strategic/underperforming government owned assets
  • Contribution of core sectors: Eight core industrial sectors that support infrastructures such as coal, crude oil, natural gas, refinery products, fertilizers, steel, cement, and electricity have a total weight of nearly 40% in the Index of Industrial Production (IIP).

Reasons for the decline of PSU and why the government should introspect the decline

  • Cost overruns, inter alia, is one of the major reasons.
  • Exceeding project completion time: In some cases, project completion time is exceeded, leading to elevated project cost so much so that either the project itself becomes unviable at the time of its launching or delays its break even point.
  • Lack of optimum input-output ratio: Optimum input-output ratio is seldom observed in a majority of government infrastructural projects leading to their overcapitalisation.
  • A reluctance to implement labour reforms, a lack of inter-ministerial/departmental coordination, poor decision-making, ineffective governance and excessive government control are other reasons for the failure of public infrastructural assets.
  • Need for introspection: It is quite likely that the nation may find itself in a vicious cycle of creating new assets and then monetising the same when they become liabilities for the Government at a later stage.

Importance of public sector enterprises

  • Going by the annual report (2020-2021) of the Department of Public Enterprises there are 256 operationally-run central public sector undertakings (CPSUs), employing about one million people.
  • They posted a net profit of ₹93,294 crore (FY 2019-20).
  • Ratna Status: Out of these, 96 have been conferred the Ratna status (72, 14, and 10 are Miniratnas, Navaratnas, and Maharatna companies, respectively).
  • As India needs to invest about $1.5 trillion on infrastructure development in order to aspire to become $5 trillion economy by the year 2024-25, according to the Economic Survey 2019-20, public enterprises should be in focus.

Steps to strengthen public sector businesses

  • Gati Shakti National Master Plan: Recently, the “Pradhan Mantri Gati Shakti National Master Plan” for multi-modal connectivity was launched.
  • It is essentially a digital platform for information sharing among different Ministries and departments at the Union and State levels.
  • Seamless planning and coordinated execution: The plan aims ‘to synchronise the operations of different departments of 16 Ministries including railways and roadways.
  •  Revamping corporate governance structure of PSUs: As enunciated in the Economic Survey 2020-21, an important step for the Government to take to strengthen public sector businesses would be to completely revamp their corporate governance structure in order to enhance operational autonomy augmented with strong governance practices including listing on stock exchange for greater transparency and accountability.
  • Initiative to boost domestic production of steel: The Economic Survey also highlights the Government’s initiatives as part of the Atmanirbhar Abhiyaan in order to boost domestic production in the steel sector.
  • Under it, four different types of steel are included for incentives under the production linked incentive (PLI) scheme; selling steel to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), affiliated to Engineering Export Promotion Council of India at export parity price under the duty drawback scheme of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT);
  • It also include measures to provide preference to domestically produced iron and steel in government procurement, where aggregate estimate of iron and steel products exceeds ₹25 crore;
  • Protection of domestic industry from unfair trade practices: Protecting industry from unfair trade through appropriate remedial measures including imposition of anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty on the products on which unfair trade practices were adopted by the other countries.

Conclusion

More such out-of-the-box policy initiatives are needed to rule out public asset monetisation schemes such as the NMP in future.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Foreign Policy Watch: India-United States

Fathoming the new world disorder

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Not much

Mains level: Paper 2- Transition from American unipolarity

Context

It may be too early to say how the American withdrawal from Afghanistan would shape regional geopolitics in Asia and the great power contest between the United States and its competitors. But it is certainly one of those developments that will have a far-reaching impact on global politics.

Two narratives about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan

  • There are two dominant narratives about the American withdrawal.
  • Realignment in foreign policy: The first narrative is that the U.S. exited the country on its own will as it is undertaking a larger realignment in its foreign policy.
  • Failure to win the war: The other one is that the U.S. failed to win the war in Afghanistan and, like in the case of Vietnam, was forced to withdraw from the country.
  • Focus on China: The reorientation that is under way in American foreign policy, focused on China, certainly played a role in the Afghan withdrawal.
  • But that does not obscure the fact that the world’s most powerful military and economic power failed to win the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban even after fighting them for 20 years.

Erosion of the US’s ability in shaping geopolitical outcomes

  •  The gradual erosion of the U.S.’s ability in shaping geopolitical outcomes in faraway regions has already shaken up the structures of American unipolarity.
  • Withdrawal from Afghanistan is not an isolated incident: The Afghan withdrawal was not an isolated incident.
  • In Iraq and Libya, it failed to establish political stability and order after invasions.
  • It could not stop Russia taking Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. In Syria, it was outmanoeuvred by Vladimir Putin.
  • Finally, the way American troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan and the return of the Taliban to power strengthened this perception of great power fatigue and emboldened America’s rivals to openly challenge the U.S.-centric “rules-based order.”

Three geopolitical challenges facing the US

  • [1]Aggressive Russia: Russia has amassed about 175,000 troops on its border with Ukraine.
  • Western intelligence agencies claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin could order an invasion of Ukraine.
  • Russian sphere of influence: From the migrant crisis in Belarus to the troop mobilisation in Ukraine, Russia is unmistakably sending a message to the West that the region stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, the eastern flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a Russian sphere of influence.
  • [2] Iran issue:  Iran, which has stepped up its nuclear programme after the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear deal, has refused to hold direct talks with the U.S. 
  • Iran insists that the U.S. should first remove the sanctions and give assurance that a future President would not violate the terms of the agreement.
  • [3] Assertive China: China is sending dozens of fighter jets into the so-called Taiwan Air Defence Identification Zone almost on a weekly basis, triggering speculation on whether Beijing was considering taking the self-ruled island by force.
  • As the U.S. is trying to shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific region to tackle China’s rise, China is becoming more and more assertive in its periphery, seeking strategic depth.

Implications

  • Limited choice: The pivot to Asia has limited America’s options elsewhere. For example, what could the U.S. do to deter Mr. Putin from making the next military move in Europe.
  • With regard to Iran, if the U.S. blinks first and lifts the sanctions, it could be read as another sign of weakness.
  • If it does not and if the Vienna talks collapse, Iran could continue to enrich uranium to a higher purity, attaining a de facto nuclear power status without a bomb (like Japan), which would be against America’s declared goals in West Asia.
  • The Afghan withdrawal and the downsizing in West Asia suggest that America’s strategic focus has shifted towards China.

Conclusion

This transition, from American unipolarity into something that is still unknown, has put America in a strategic dilemma: Should it stay focused on China, preparing itself for the next bipolar contest; or continue to act as a global policeman of the liberal order that is under attack from multiple fronts?

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Climate Change Negotiations – UNFCCC, COP, Other Conventions and Protocols

India votes against Resolution on Climate Change at UNSC

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: UNSC

Mains level: Climate change negotiations

India has voted against a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) linking climate to security.

About United Nations Security Council

  • The UNSC is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security.
  • Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action through Security Council resolutions.
  • It is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states.

Its members

  • The Security Council consists of fifteen members. Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States—serve as the body’s five permanent members (P5).
  • These permanent members can veto any substantive Security Council resolution, including those on the admission of new member states or candidates for Secretary-General.
  • The Council also has 10 non-permanent members, elected on a regional basis to serve two-year terms.
  • The body’s presidency rotates monthly among its members.

What was the recent draft about?

  • The objective of the draft was to examine how terrorism and security risks could be linked to climate change.

Reasons cited by India

  • Deviation from UNFCCC: The draft was an attempt to shift climate talks from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to the Security Council and a “step backward” for collective action on the issue.
  • Evasion of responsibility: The attempt to discuss climate action and climate justice issues at the UNSC was “motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum.”
  • Veto hegemony over Climate Action: Countries are attempting to bring climate talks to the UNSC so that decisions could be taken without consensus or the involvement of most developing countries.
  • Historic pollutants: Many of the UNSC members were the primary contributors to climate change due to historical emissions.
  • Overtly ambitious targets: Indian officials had said at the conclusion of COP26 that India alone would need a trillion dollars by 2030 to achieve its climate ambitions.

Significance of UNFCC

  • The UN already has a specialized agency, the UNFCCC, for discussing all matters related to climate change.
  • The parties to the UNFCCC — over 190 countries — meet several times every year, including at a two-week year-ending conference like the one at Glasgow, to work on a global approach to combat climate change.
  • It is this process that has given rise to the Paris Agreement, and its predecessor the Kyoto Protocol, the international instrument that is designed to respond to the climate change crisis.

Arguments in favor of UNSC in climate talks

  • Preventing conflicts: The UNSC exists primarily to prevent conflicts and maintain global peace.
  • International security: A few EU countries, led by Germany, have been pushing for a role for UNSC in climate change discussions citing international security dimensions.
  • Climate-led conflicts: Climate change-induced food or water shortage, loss of habitat or livelihood, or migration can exacerbate existing conflicts or even create new ones.
  • UN Peacekeeping: This can have implications for the UN field missions that are deployed across the world in peacekeeping efforts.

Issues with UNSC

  • Veto by Russia and China: These two permanent members have always been opposed to the move to bring climate change on the Security Council agenda.
  • Lack of expertise: The opposing countries claim that the UNSC does not have the expertise as compared to UNFCCC.
  • Lack of consensus: Unlike UNFCCC, where decisions are taken by consensus of all the 190-plus countries, the UNSC would enable climate change decision-making by a handful of developed countries.

India is in highlight again

  • This was the second time that India went against the tide to block a climate change-related proposal that it did not agree with.
  • At the Glasgow COP, India had forced a last-minute amendment in the final draft agreement to ensure that a provision calling for “phase-out” of coal was changed to “phase-down”.

 

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Health Sector – UHC, National Health Policy, Family Planning, Health Insurance, etc.

Amendment to the NDPS Act

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: NDPS Act

Mains level: Narcotics crime in India

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2021 was passed by Lok Sabha.

Must read:

[Burning Issue] Substance Abuse in India

About NDPS Act

  • The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, commonly referred to as the NDPS Act was promulgated in 1985.
  • It prohibits a person from the production/manufacturing/cultivation, possession, sale, purchasing, transport, storage, and/or consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance

What is the 2021 amendment?

  • The 2021 Bill amends the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and seeks to rectify a drafting “anomaly” created by a 2014 amendment to the parent legislation.
  • It contains a legislative declaration about what one section refers to.
  • It says Section 2 clause viii(a) corresponds to clause viii(b) in Section 27, since 2014 when the provision was first brought in.
  • Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, prescribes the punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.

Earlier amendment in 2014

  • In 2014, a substantial amendment was made to the NDPS Act to allow for better medical access to narcotic drugs.
  • It defined “essential drugs”; under Section 9 and allowed the manufacture, possession, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State, sale, purchase, consumption and use of essential narcotic drugs.
  • But before the 2014 amendment, a Section 2(viii)a already existed and contained a catalogue of offences for which the punishment is prescribed in Section 27A.

What is Section 21A?

  • Section 27A reads: Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly or harbours any person engaged in any of the aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment.
  • The term shall not be less than ten years and may extend to twenty years.
  • The accused shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

What was the drafting “anomaly”?

  • While defining “essential drugs” in 2014, the legislation re-numbered Section 2.
  • The catalogue of offences, originally listed under Section 2(viii)a, was now under Section 2(viii)b.
  • In the amendment, Section 2(viii)a defined essential narcotic drugs.
  • However, the drafters missed amending the enabling provision in Section 27A to change Section 2(viii)a to Section 2(viii)b.

What was the result of the drafting error?

  • Section 27A punished offences mentioned under Section 2(viiia) sub-clauses i-v.
  • However, Section 2 (viiia) sub-clauses i-v, which were supposed to be the catalogue of offences, does not exist after the 2014 amendment. It is now Section 2(viiib).
  • This error in the text meant since 2014, Section 27A was inoperable.

When was the error noticed?

  • In June this year, the Tripura High Court, while hearing a reference made by the district court, flagged the drafting error, urging the Centre to bring in an amendment and rectify it.
  • In 2016, an accused had sought bail before a special judge in West Tripura in Agartala, citing this omission in drafting.

Why can’t it be applied retrospectively?

  • Article 20(1) of the Constitution says that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission.
  • The person shall not be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
  • This protection means that a person cannot be prosecuted for an offence that was not a “crime” under the law when it was committed.

Does the latest amendment make it retrospective?

  • In September, the government brought in an ordinance to rectify the drafting error, which Lok Sabha. “It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of May 2014,” the Bill reads.
  • Retrospective application is permitted in clarificatory amendments.
  • This 2021 amendment is not a substantive one, that is why the retrospective is allowed.

 

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Interstate River Water Dispute

Inter-State Boundary Disputes in India

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Not much

Mains level: Interstate boundry disputes in India

The Union Home Ministry (MHA) has informed that 11 States and one Union Territory have boundary disputes between them.

Why in news?

  • There are disputes arising out of the demarcation of boundaries and claims and counterclaims over territories.
  • Occasional protests and incidents of violence are reported from some of the disputed border areas.

Major boundary disputes include:

[1] Karnataka-Maharashtra

  • The Belgaum district is arguably part of one of the biggest inter-state border disputes in India.
  • The district has a large Marathi and Kannada-speaking populations and has been at the centre of a dispute for a long time.
  • The area came under Karnataka in 1956 when states were reorganized and till then it was under the Bombay presidency.

[2] Assam-Mizoram

  • The border dispute between Assam and Mizoram is a legacy of two British-era notifications of 1875 and 1933, when Mizoram was called Lushai Hills, a district in Assam.
  • The 1875 notification differentiated Lushai Hills from the plains of Cachar and the other demarcated boundary between Lushai Hills and Manipur.
  • While Mizoram became a state only in 1987 following years of insurgency, it still insists on the boundary decided in 1875.
  • Assam, on the other hand, wants the boundary demarcated in 1986 (based on the 1933 notification).
  • In that case, entire Mizoram was part of Assam before the Independence,” Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on July 27.
  • Mizoram says the 1986 agreement is not acceptable as the Mizo civil society was not consulted at that time.

[3] Haryana-Himachal Pradesh

  • The Parwanoo region has had the spotlight over the border dispute between the two states.
  • It is next to the Panchkula district of Haryana and the state has claimed parts of the land in Himachal Pradesh as its own.

[4] Himachal Pradesh-Ladakh

  • Himachal and Ladakh lay claim to Sarchu, an area on the route between Leh and Manali.
  • It is considered a major point where travellers stop when travelling between the two cities.
  • Sarchu is in between Himachal’s Lahul and Spiti district and Leh district in Ladakh.

[5] Arunachal Pradesh-Assam

  • Arunachal’s grievance is that the re-organisation of North Eastern states unilaterally transferred several forested tracts in the plains that had traditionally belonged to hill tribal chiefs and communities to Assam.
  • After Arunachal Pradesh achieved statehood in 1987, a tripartite committee was appointed which recommended that certain territories be transferred from Assam to Arunachal.
  • Assam contested this and the matter is before the Supreme Court.

[6] Meghalaya-Assam

  • The problem between Assam and Meghalaya started when the latter challenged the Assam Reorganisation Act of 1971, which gave Blocks I and II of the Mikir Hills or present-day Karbi Anglong district to Assam.
  • Meghalaya contends that both these blocks formed part of the erstwhile United Khasi and Jaintia Hills district when it was notified in 1835.
  • Meghalaya bases its case on survey maps of 1872 and 1929 and certain notifications of 1878 and 1951, while Assam wants to go by the rejected recommendations of the Churachand Committee.

[7] Assam-Nagaland

  • The longest-running border dispute in the North East is between Assam and Nagaland, which began soon after Nagaland became a state in 1963.
  • The Nagaland State Act of 1962 had defined the state’s borders according to a 1925 notification when Naga Hills and Tuensang Area (NHTA) were integrated into a new administrative unit.
  • Nagaland, however, does not accept the boundary delineation and has demanded that the new state should also have all Naga-dominated areas in North Cachar and Nagaon districts.
  • Since Nagaland did not accept its notified borders, tensions between Assam and Nagaland flared up soon after the latter was formed, resulting in the first border clashes in 1965.
  • This was followed by major clashes between the two states along the border in 1968, 1979, 1985, 2007, 2014 and 2021.

 

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch