Whatsapp 93125-11015 For Details
Indian and Chinese soldiers suffered “minor injuries” after they were engaged in a face-off along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh on December 9.
It had reported the clash that occurred at Yangtse. Around 20 Indian soldiers and a much higher number on the Chinese side were injured, according to multiple sources.
On December 09, 2022, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops contacted the LAC in Tawang sector, which was contested by own troops in a firm and resolute manner. This face-off led to minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides.
As a follow-up of the incident, Commanders on both sides in the areas held a Flag Meeting to discuss the issue in accordance with structured mechanisms to restore peace and tranquillity, the Army stated.
It noted that in certain areas along the LAC in the Tawang sector, there are areas of differing perception, wherein both sides patrol the area up to their claim lines. This has been the trend since 2006.
This is the first incident of its kind after the June 15, 2020 incident when 20 Indian soldiers were killed and several others were injured in violent clashes with the PLA troops in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley.
Stating that the clash occurred as a large PLA patrol came across into the Indian side, one Army source said “injuries on the Chinese side were much higher than on the Indian side”. At least three different units of the Indian Army were present at the time of the face-off, it has been learnt.
According to another source, a few soldiers sustained fractured limbs during the skirmish and are said to be recuperating at a hospital in Guwahati.
Editorial
Curbing individualism in public health (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 2, Health)
A failure to examine and interpret public health problems from a population perspective is leading to ineffective and unsustainable solutions as far as complex public health problems are concerned.
This is obvious for problems such as undernutrition, for which individualist solutions such as micronutrient supplementation and food fortification have been proposed as solutions in lieu of sustainable approaches such as a strengthening of the Public Distribution System, supplementary nutrition programmes, and the health services.
Similar is the case with chronic disease control, wherein early diagnosis and treatment is the most popular solution, with little scope for solutions that can modify health behaviours (through organised community action).
There is a strong tendency in public health to prioritise individual-oriented interventions over societal oriented population-based approaches, also known as individualism in public health.
Two of the most recent public health programmes of the Government bear testimony to this: as a nationwide publicly-funded insurance scheme, the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) falls under Ayushman Bharat.
It is the largest health insurance scheme in the country covering hospitalisation expenses for a family for ₹5 lakh a year. The goal is to ensure ‘free’ curative care services for all kinds of hospitalisation services so that there is no financial burden to the beneficiary.
What is not talked about in the entire scheme is the need for hospitalisation services per year for any population. Instead, every individual is given an assurance that if there is a need for hospitalisation expenses, the scheme will cover the expenses, highlighting the risk/probability of every individual facing hospitalisation in a year.
This is an individualistic response to the problem of hospitalisation expenditure faced by populations. This becomes obvious when one examines the data on annual hospitalisation across populations.
Data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (75th round) show that on an average, only 3% of the total population in India had an episode of hospitalisation in a year (from 1% for Assam to 4% for Goa and 10% for Kerala — the need also a function of availability).
Big Tech and the need in India for ex-ante regulation (Page no. 6)
(GS Paper 2, Government Policies and Interventions)
The Indian anti-trust body, the Competition Commission of India (CCI)’s move, in October, to impose a penalty of ₹1,337.76 crore on Google for abusing its dominant position in the android mobile device ecosystem, has forced us, once again, to rethink the market power of Big Tech companies.
When India established the CCI under the Indian Competition Act 2002, it was to protect and promote competition in markets, and prevent practices that hinder competition.
However, it did not account for the network effect of Big Tech companies as a force to reckon with. As their market dominance increased rather exponentially, the European Union, the United States, and even Australia realised their market-distorting abilities and moved to transform their competition law.
The EU’s Digital Market Act and “gatekeepers” who will enforce rules and regulations ex-ante to foresee anti-competitive practices is an example.
As for India, the Competition (Amendment) Bill, and its proposed amendments, partially address these issues.
India should have used this as a chance to overhaul its competition law, especially when the Bill is due to be passed in Parliament’s winter session.
In any free economy, market dominance is natural. But things get hazy when it is abused to prevent competition.
As the CCI says, the intent of Google’s business was to make users on its platforms abide by its revenue-earning service, i.e., an online search to directly affect the sale of their online advertising services.
Thus, network effects, along with a status quo bias, created significant entry barriers for competitors to enter or operate in the markets concerned.
While the competition laws address that anomaly, they are too slow to respond in complex technical sectors. By the time an order is passed, the dominant player has gained an edge — as in the case of Google.
Thus, in this context, there is an urgent need for ex-ante legislation to prevent market failures and mitigate possible anti-competitive conduct.
Opinion
Politics of national renewal (Page no. 7)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The peaceful conduct of the recent elections reinforces Churchill’s idea of democracy as “the little man walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper...” to elect a person of one’s choice.
But the lesson of our evolving democracy is that a ballot by itself is not enough to yield a truly democratic state. A report by the Pew Research Center on social hostilities distressingly ranks India first.
On several indices, our democratic deficit impels an urgent introspection, even as we celebrate the resilience of our elective processes.
A thoughtful reflection on the quality of our democracy must contend with many troubling questions. Whether our democracy has served as a bulwark against authoritarian inclinations generated by majoratarian triumphalism remains a chastening interrogatory. Honest answers to these will attest our record as a faltering democracy.
A polity captive to the pull of sectarian mass mobilisation and an economy in which the top 10% hold 77% of the nation’s wealth do not sit well with the foundational principles of an egalitarian democracy.
That ours is a flailing democracy is evident in an abandonment of civil conversation on the core challenges that beset us as a nation.
A political discourse laced with vicious calumnies against political rivals is a grim reminder that language and thought in a dialectical relationship corrupt each other.
Clearly, a political culture which sees “villainy as virtue” and “elevates unfettered abuse, imperious ignorance, untamed egotism and reflexive bigotry” across parties as political conversation has disabled the nation from reaping the full dividends of a constitutional state.
Politics that thrives on persecution of adversaries in an abuse of the state’s coercive processes negates the essence of justice, just as the Opposition’s compulsive disdain for every action of the government regardless of its intrinsic merit has weakened its credibility as a countervailing democratic force.
Explainer
Why is there friction between the government and the judiciary? (Page no. 8)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The story so far: A major confrontation is on between the Union government and the Supreme Court over the former’s resentment towards the Collegium system of appointments and its push to have a dominant say in judicial appointments and transfers.
The government has also started airing its grievance against the invalidation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) by the court in 2015.
The current round of conflict has two triggers. One is the government’s repeated public criticism of the Collegium system on the ground that it is “opaque”.
The other concerns a ping-pong battle between the Collegium and the government over the names being recommended and reiterated for appointment in constitutional courts.
On October 17, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju shot a salvo at the Supreme Court Collegium, saying they were “preoccupied” with making judicial appointments when their primary job is delivering justice.
Mr. Rijiju’s comments came at the fag end of the 49th Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana’s tenure, which saw the Collegium recommend 363 names for High Court judgeships and 11 names for the Supreme Court.
On November 6, Mr. Rijiju complained again on the lack of accountability of the Collegium system and made references to the court striking down the NJAC law, which gave the government an equal say in appointments, in October 2015. His criticism coincided with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud taking over as top judge on November 9 for a two-year tenure.
Meanwhile, on November 17, Chief Justice Chandrachud agreed to list in due course a writ petition to reconsider the Collegium system.
The SC also began its counter-offensive with the CJI advising that the Collegium and the government should work with a sense of “constitutional statesmanship” rather than find fault with each other.
On the judicial side, a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul took cognisance of the government sitting on Collegium recommendations for years together for “undisclosed reasons”.
It later went on to link the government’s willingness to “cross some Rubicons” and take on the judiciary by delaying Collegium recommendations to the quashing of the NJAC mechanism.
Text & context
Weighing in on the efficacy of female leadership in government (Page no. 9)
(GS Paper 1, Women Empowerment)
According to government data presented in the Lok Sabha on December 9, women representation in Parliament and most States legislatures is below 15% with 19 Assemblies having less than 10% women lawmakers.
Although they are located in three different continents, the three countries seem to have managed the pandemic much better than their neighbours.
Much along the same lines, a detailed recent study by researchers in the United States reports that States which have female governors had fewer COVID-19 related deaths, perhaps partly because female governors acted more decisively by issuing earlier stay-at-home orders.
The authors of the study conclude that women leaders are more effective than their male counterparts in times of crises. There will be several critics who will question the reliability of this conclusion by pointing out deficiencies in the data — admittedly somewhat limited — or the econometric rigour of the analysis.
Many will also point out that it is dangerous to make sweeping generalisations based on one study. The point about the danger of making sweeping generalisations is valid.
Of course, studies such as these do not establish the superiority of all female leaders over their male counterparts. All female leaders are not necessarily efficient, and there are many men who have proved to be most effective and charismatic leaders.
The important takeaway from the recent experience and such studies is the necessity of getting rid of inherent biases and perceptions about female effectiveness in leadership roles.
Importantly, female leaders also bring something quite different to the table. In particular, they perform significantly better than men in implementing policies that promote the interests of women.
This was demonstrated in another study conducted by Nobel Laureate Esther Duflo and co-author Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, who used the system of mandated reservations of pradhans in gram panchayats to test the effectiveness of female leadership.
News
RS passes a‘futuristic’ Energy Conservation Bill to further regulate carbon emissions (Page no. 10)
(GS Paper 2, Government Policies and Interventions)
The Rajya Sabha passed the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill clearing the decks for “mandate use of non-fossil sources”, including green hydrogen, green ammonia, biomass and ethanol for energy and feedstock and establish Carbon Markets in the country.
Replying to a debate on the Bill, Power Minister R.K. Singh termed the Bill futuristic and said it will give an impetus to India’s efforts to go for greener sources of energy.
Mr. Singh said the Bill aims to bring large residential buildings, with a minimum connected load of 100 Kilowatt (kW) or contract demand of 120 Kilovolt Ampere (kVA), within the fold of energy conservation regime. He said the States, if they wish, can bring down the connected load and contract demand.
The Bill, according to him, will also enhance the scope of Energy Conservation Building Code, amend penalty provisions, increase members in the Governing Council of Bureau of Energy Efficiency and empower the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to make regulations for smooth discharge of its functions.
The Opposition, however, found flaws in the Bill. DMK member P. Wilson said the Bill has a lot of legal infirmities which go to the root of the matter and requires re-consideration and reintroduction. He added that the Bill is ultra vires of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001.
“While the Energy Conservation Act, 2001 deals with saving energy, the present Bill deals with saving environment and conserving climate change due to usage of fossil and non-fossil fuels while generating electricity.
The scope and objective of the principal Act does not take in the purpose and object of the present Bill. The Bill relates to monitoring and controlling of carbon emission and climate change, which is an aspect of the environmental laws,” Mr. Wilson said.
Govt. to turn 36,428 villages as ‘model tribal villages’ (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs is now working to develop 36,428 villages with at least 50% tribal population and 500 STs across the country into ‘model tribal’ villages, Minister of State for Tribal Affairs Renuka Singh told the Lok Sabha.
She added that these efforts were part of the existing Special Central Assistance to Tribal Sub-Scheme (SCA to TSS), which has now been renamed to the Pradhan Mantri Adi Adarsh Gram Yojna (PMAAGY), for implementation from 2021-22 to 2025-26.
Ms. Singh said that this project is meant to cover as many as 4.22 crore tribal people in the country, which comprises around 40% of the total ST population in India.
Of the target number of villages, during 2021-22 and 2022-23, a total of about 16,554 villages have been taken up, Ms. Singh said.
An amount of ₹1,927 crore had been released to States and the Village Development Plans for 6,264 villages had been approved so far.
Don’t delay scheme for madrasas, House panel tells Centre (Page no. 12)
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment pulled up the Union government for the delay in approving the continuation of the Scheme for Providing Education to Madrasas/Minorities (SPEMM), which provides for financial assistance to madrasas and minority institutes.
The scheme has two sub-schemes - the Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasas (SPQEM) and Infrastructure Development of Minority Institutes (IDMI) - and was transferred from the Ministry of Minority Affairs to the Ministry of Education in 2021.
The committee noted that the fate of the scheme continued to hang in the balance with the government yet to approve the draft Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) memorandum for its continuation. It noted that even the NITI Aayog had recommended that the scheme be continued beyond March 31, 2022.
Given the transfer of the scheme, the committee said it had desired the Ministry to complete the process of the EFC note on the mechanism to implement the schemes.
But it said it was “surprised” to note that despite the NITI Aayog’s recommendation to continue the scheme, the EFC memorandum was “still under finalisation”.
The committee feels that a decision for continuation of any scheme is very crucial not only for the beneficiaries but also for States/Union Territories/implementing agencies and delay on such matters adversely affects the purpose of the scheme.
The committee also feels that the effectiveness of the schemes may get impacted due to participation of limited number of States/UTs.
They desire that the Ministry should take all-out efforts for expeditious approval of the EFC memorandum and thereafter make efforts to get better response from States/UTs.