Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Calling upon Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) member states to root out terrorism collectively and fix accountability on its supporters, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh asserted that any kind of terrorist act or support to it is a major crime against humanity.
Peace and prosperity cannot coexist with this menace,” Mr. Singh added while chairing the Defence Ministers’ meeting which India is hosting for the first time since it became a full SCO member in 2017.
Separately, in a statement on bilateral talks between Chinese Defence Minister Li Shangfu and Mr. Singh on Thursday, China said that the two countries share far “more common interests than differences” and the two sides should take a “long-term view, place the border issue in an appropriate position in bilateral relations, and promote the transition of the border situation to normalized management”.
If a nation shelters terrorists, it not only poses a threat to others, but for itself too. Radicalisation of youth is a cause of concern not only from the point of view of security, but it is also a major obstacle in the path of socio-economic progress of society.
If we want to make the SCO a stronger and more credible international organisation, our topmost priority should be to effectively deal with terrorism.
India believes in maintaining peace and security based on UN Charter provisions, Mr. Singh stressed, while stating that India is committed towards defence capacity building of SCO member states for shared security interests. “A secure, stable, and prosperous region will improve the quality of life of people of each nation.”
The meet was attended in person by Defence Ministers of China, Russia, Iran, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
From Pakistan, the Special advisor to Prime Minister on Defence, Malik Ahmed Khan, joined through video conference. The Ministers discussed issues of common concern including issues of regional and international security under the charter of SCO, a Defence Ministry statement said.
It added that at the end of the deliberations, all the SCO member countries signed a protocol, expressing their “collective will to make the region secure, peaceful, and prosperous”.
State
Last unfinished work of Raja Ravi Varma to be up for public display (Page no. 4)
(GS Paper 1, Art and Culture)
Summer skies and trees heavy with fruit paint a picturesque backdrop to the red-tiled sprawling palace with brilliant white walls at Kilimanoor, about 33 km from Thiruvananthapuram.
Built in the native architectural style of Kerala, quietude envelopes the palace with wide verandahs, courtyards and long corridors.
It was in this rambling palace that eminent artist Raja Ravi Varma was born on April 29, 1848, to Ezhumavil Neelakanthan Bhattatiripad and Uma Ambabayi Thampuratti.
As a child, the little prince liked to draw and doodle on the walls with charcoal. Till he was taken to Thiruvananthapuram at the age of 14 by his uncle Raja Raja Varma, to present him before the then monarch of Travancore, Maharaja Ayilyam Thirunal, he stayed in the palace and had his education under the watchful eyes of his uncle who also taught him the basics of painting.
It is easy to imagine the palace as it was at the turn of the century. Little seems to have changed and the only outward sign of modernity is a bright yellow school bus parked on the Palace grounds.
The majestic archway entrance to the palace leads to a sunlit room with an easel in a corner, near a window with large glass panes. Overlooking the flowering garden and emerald green paddy fields, the studio commands a panoramic view of the surroundings.
It was here in this serene ambience that artist Raja Ravi Varma painted some of his masterpieces. The studio, called the Chitrashala, which he designed, was built around 1875, as an extension of the Pazhayamalika, where he used to reside.
The north-eastern corner of the studio where a dusty, aged easel stands has huge glass windows through which sunlight floods the room.
It is said that Ravi Varma used to stand here from dawn to dusk, painting in the natural light. His disciple and younger brother Raja Raja Varma used to be with him as he sketched outlines on canvas and planned a painting.
The studio used to bustle with his assistants and students who used to help him complete his works. A photograph in the studio shows the artist relaxing on a low bed, listening to recitations from the epics and other religious texts.
At present, there are only prints of some of his famous paintings, a few photographs, a majestic portrait of the artist and a marble bust of his younger sister Mangala Bayi. Paint brushes and a palette are kept near the easel.
Editorial
The women’s reservation Bill cannot wait any longer (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 1, Social Issues)
Even though women have been breaking the glass ceiling of patriarchy in every sector, politics is the arena where women find it the most challenging to find space.
India may have achieved suffrage early, but women still face significant barriers to political participation and do not have the right to govern. It is disheartening to witness that even 75 years after Independence, Parliament lacks substantial representation from half the population, with women holding just 14% of the seats.
It is time to acknowledge the systematic exclusion of women from politics and demand action to create a more equitable political landscape.
Women played a crucial role in India’s fight for independence, by organising demonstrations, leading rallies, and raising awareness.
There were numerous female representatives in the Constituent Assembly as well. Just a decade ago, three of India’s largest States, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh, were in the spotlight for being led by women Chief Ministers.
While Sushma Swaraj led the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Sonia Gandhi served as both President of the Congress Party and Chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance. Also, India had its first woman President, Pratibha Patil around the same time.
Despite the presence of influential women in Indian politics, we have regressed since the 1980s and patriarchal backlash has resulted in the status of women in India being far from ideal.
Hence it will not be wrong to infer that the issue of political representation of women is a greater case, as opposed to having token representation.
The discourse on women’s reservation in India originates from the pre-Independence era when several women’s organisations demanded political representation for women.
It can be traced back to 1955 when a government appointed committee recommended that 10% of seats in the Lok Sabha and State legislative assemblies should be reserved for women. However, it was not until the 1980s that the demand for women’s reservations gained momentum.
The National Perspective Plan for Women (1988) recommended that 30% of seats in all elected bodies should be reserved for women. This recommendation was reiterated in the National Policy for the Empowerment of Women, which was adopted in 2001.
None too soon (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, Governance)
The Supreme Court has given a timely reminder to Governors that the Constitution expects that a decision to return a Bill to the State Assembly for reconsideration should be made “as soon as possible”.
It has drawn attention to the phrase found in the first proviso to Article 200, seeking to convey a sense of immediacy in the matter of returning a Bill.
The expression ‘as soon as possible’ contains significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities,” the Court observed.
This effectively means it would be constitutionally impermissible for Governors to hold on to Bills indefinitely without communicating their decision to the House.
The Telangana Governor, Dr. Tamilisai Soundararajan, against whose apparent inaction on several Bills the State had approached the Court, communicated to the Court that no Bills were pending with her, and that she had returned two Bills for reconsideration, while seeking further information from the government on a few others.
Based on this, the Court disposed of the petition, but kept open questions that arose from the issue for consideration in an appropriate case. The Court’s observation addresses the issue of delay, but it is only one aspect of the controversy.
The issue of granting assent is seen in most parliamentary democracies as a formality, but the peculiar discretionary powers with which Governors are clothed in India have given much scope for controversy.
The Governor’s power to withhold assent or return a Bill, with a message, for reconsideration is seen as discretionary. In the Constituent Assembly, it was explicitly clarified that returning a Bill was to be done only on advice, and that it was an enabling provision for a government to recall a pending Bill in case it had second thoughts on its advisability.
There are three clear problems associated with Article 200, which deals with assent to Bills: the absence of a time limit for acting on Bills, the scope for reserving a Bill for the President’s consideration against the express advice of the Cabinet and the claim that the Governor can kill any Bill by declining assent.
The mischief lies in Article 163, which hedges the primary rule that the Governors function on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Cabinet, with a clause that prohibits any inquiry into whether a particular matter fell within their discretion or not.
These provisions give abundant scope for conflict between the government and Raj Bhavan. There is no doubt that these ought to be changed, either by amending the Constitution or through an appropriate Supreme Court verdict, so that misuse of gubernatorial discretion can be kept in check.