Type: IOCR

India has hit out at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), saying it was “hijacked by vested interests” over its remark on Karnataka Hijab Row.

What is OIC?

• The OIC — formerly Organisation of the Islamic Conference — is the world’s second-largest inter-governmental organization after the UN, with a membership of 57 states.
• The OIC’s stated objective is “to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world”.
• OIC has reserved membership for Muslim-majority countries. Russia, Thailand, and a couple of other small countries have Observer status.

India and OIC

• At the 45th session of the Foreign Ministers’ Summit in 2018, Bangladesh suggested that India, where more than 10% of the world’s Muslims live, should be given Observer status.
• In 1969, India was dis-invited from the Conference of Islamic Countries in Rabat, Morocco at Pakistan’s behest.
• Then Agriculture Minister Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was dis-invited upon arrival in Morocco after Pakistan President Yahya Khan lobbied against Indian participation.

Recent developments

• In 2019, India made its maiden appearance at the OIC Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Abu Dhabi, as a “guest of honor”.
• This first-time invitation was seen as a diplomatic victory for New Delhi, especially at a time of heightened tensions with Pakistan following the Pulwama attack.
• Pakistan had opposed the invitation to Swaraj and it boycotted the plenary after the UAE turned down its demand to rescind the invitation.

What is the OIC’s stand on Kashmir?

• It has been generally supportive of Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir and has issued statements criticizing India.
• Last year, after India revoked Article 370 in Kashmir, Pakistan lobbied with the OIC for their condemnation of the move.
• To Pakistan’s surprise, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — both top leaders among the Muslim countries — issued nuanced statements, and were not as harshly critical of New Delhi as Islamabad had hoped.
• Since then, Islamabad has tried to rouse sentiments among the Islamic countries, but only a handful of them — Turkey and Malaysia — publicly criticized India.

How has India been responding?

• India has consistently underlined that J&K is an integral part of India and is a matter strictly internal to India.
• The strength with which India has made this assertion has varied slightly at times, but never the core message.
• It has maintained its “consistent and well known” stand that the OIC had no locus standi.
• This time, India went a step ahead and said the grouping continues to allow itself to be used by a certain country “which has a record on religious tolerance, radicalism, and persecution of minorities”.

OIC members and India

• Individually, India has good relations with almost all member nations. Ties with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, especially, have looked up significantly in recent years.
• The OIC includes two of India’s close neighbors, Bangladesh and Maldives.
• Indian diplomats say both countries privately admit they do not want to complicate their bilateral ties with India on Kashmir but play along with OIC.

Way ahead

• India now sees the duality of the OIC as untenable, since many of these countries have good bilateral ties and convey to India to ignore OIC statements.
• But these countries sign off on the joint statements which are largely drafted by Pakistan.
• India feels it important to challenge the double-speak since Pakistan’s campaign and currency on the Kashmir issue has hardly any takers in the international community.

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

India has appealed against a ruling of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) trade dispute settlement panel on domestic sugar subsidies, stating that the panel had committed “certain errors of law” in its report.

What is the case?

• India’s Minimum Selling Price system for Sugarcane was brought to notice to the WTO by Brazil, Australia and Guatemala.

What was the complaint against India?

Australia, Brazil, and Guatemala said India’s domestic support and export subsidy measures appeared to be inconsistent with various articles against WTO’s:

1. Agreement on Agriculture
2. Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
3. Article XVI (which concerns subsidies) of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT)

• Domestic Support: All three countries complained that India provides domestic support to sugarcane producers that exceed the de minimis level of 10% of the total value of sugarcane production.
• Various subsidies: They also raised the issue of India’s alleged export subsidies, subsidies under the production assistance and buffer stock schemes, and the marketing and transportation scheme.
• Notifying support: Australia accused India of “failing” to notify its annual domestic support for sugarcane and sugar subsequent to 1995-96, and its export subsidies since 2009-10.

India’s reply to WTO panel

• India rejected the panel’s findings as “erroneous”, “unreasoned”, and “not supported by the WTO rules”.
• It argued that the requirements of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement are not yet applicable to India.
• It has a phase-out period of 8 years to eliminate export subsidies under the agreement.
• India also argued that its mandatory minimum prices are not paid by the governments but by sugar mills, and hence do not constitute market price support.

Backgrounder: Sugarcane Pricing in India

Who determines Sugarcane prices?

Sugarcane prices are determined by the Centre as well as States.

1. The Centre announces Fair and Remunerative Prices which are determined on the recommendation of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and are announced by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, which is chaired by Prime Minister.
2. The State Advised Prices (SAP) are announced by key sugarcane producing states which are generally higher than FRP.

Minimum Selling Price (MSP) for Sugar

• The price of sugar is market-driven & depends on the demand & supply of sugar.
• However, with a view to protecting the interests of farmers, the concept of MSP of sugar has been introduced since 2018.
• MSP of sugar has been fixed taking into account the components of Fair & Remunerative Price (FRP) of sugarcane and minimum conversion cost of the most efficient mills.

Basis of price determination

• With the amendment of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, the concept of Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) of sugarcane was replaced with the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP)’ of sugarcane in 2009-10.
• The cane price announced by the Central Government is decided on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
• This is done in consultation with the State Governments and after taking feedback from associations of the sugar industry.

What is FRP?

• FRP is fixed under a sugarcane control order, 1966.
• It is the minimum price that sugar mills are supposed to pay to the farmers.
• However, states determine their own State Agreed Price (SAP) which is generally higher than the FRP.

Factors considered for FRP:

• The amended provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 provides for fixation of FRP of sugarcane having regard to the following factors:

a) cost of production of sugarcane;

b) return to the growers from alternative crops and the general trend of prices of agricultural commodities;

c) availability of sugar to consumers at a fair price;

d) price at which sugar produced from sugarcane is sold by sugar producers;

e) recovery of sugar from sugarcane;

f) the realization made from the sale of by-products viz. molasses, bagasse, and press mud or their imputed value;

g) reasonable margins for the growers of sugarcane on account of risk and profits.

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