The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on Thursday told the Supreme Court that for Class 12, the marks will be based on unit test/mid-term/pre-board exam and 40 per cent weightage will be given.
Results are likely to be declared by July 31.
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, representing the CBSE, submitted that the marks of practical/internal assessment etc. of Class 12 will be on actual basis as uploaded by the school on the CBSE portal.
"The total marks awarded should be in consonance with the past performance of the school in Class 12 Board Examinations," said the CBSE in its response in the top court.
"The computation of theory marks for Class 12 will be based on performance in one or more Unit Test(s)/Mid-Term/Pre-Board(s) theory examination. The result committee of the school may decide weightage to be given to each exam based on the credibility and reliability of the assessment. For example, if the committee may be of the considered view that only the Pre-Board exams may be taken into consideration, then a full weightage can be given to that component. Similarly, another school Result committee may decide to give equal weightage to Pre-Board exams and Mid-Term exams," said the CBSE affidavit in the top court.
The board submitted that the performance of the students in Class 11 and Class 10 exams will also be factored in while making the assessments.
The CBSE said while 30 per cent marks will be based on Class 11 final exam, 30 per cent marks based on best-of-three Class 10 marks will also be included while making the assessment. A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar is hearing the matter.
The CBSE said a result committee under the principal of the school will be formed in each school comprising of two senior-most PGT from the same school and two PGT from neighbouring schools.
Committee has been given liberty to prepare the result by following the policy.
(Courtesy: IANS)
While the BJP, as the ruling party at the Centre, can crack the whip, the Congress, being in the Opposition, does not have that luxury
Both the Congress party and the BJP – the two main national parties- are facing internal problems in the states where they rule. The basic difference between them is the Congress is on the decline while the BJP is growing to replace Congress of the latter’s heydays.
Once proud of its exemplary discipline and organizational unity the BJP is at present facing internal feuds. It is not that other political parties have not seen their leaders working at cross purposes. But it makes news when this happens in BJP.
Why is it happening when the party is claimed to be passing through a golden period in its history? Although Narendra Modi has emerged as the strongest Prime Minister since the days of Indira Gandhi,the second wave of the Coronavirus outbreak has dented his image though he continues to be popular. The vaccine policy, bed shortage, and oxygen shortage have added to the confusion. The Modi magic has not worked in the recent Assembly elections
The first problem is that the BJP has admitted many defectors in poll-bound states. There is heartburn among BJP workers that while they have been slogging for years those who entered the party yesterday are getting the rewards. This is what has happened in UP, Karnataka, Assam and Uttarakhand.
In UP the stakes are very high. In 2017, the BJP won a massive majority. The dissidents have many issues. A.K. Sharma, a retired Gujarat cadre officer who worked in the Prime Minister’s Office has been made an MLC early this year. He is expected to be made a minister soon. The old-timers see him as a threat as he has the ears of the Prime Minister. Some dissidents are demanding a change of chief minister. There is also some strain in the relationship between Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Modi.
As for West Bengal, the defectors from the Trinamool Congress are in the process of returning to the TMC starting with the BJP’s big catch Mukul Roy. In the past, he had been a blue-eyed boy of chief minister Mamata Banerjee. There are rumblings in the local BJP unit about the poll strategy.
Governance in Karnataka is suffering due to internal feuds. Chief Minister Yediyurappa is facing indiscipline and there is a demand for his replacement.
Dissidence in Tripura has once again reared its ugly head. A few MLAs, most of the Congress turncoats have been demanding Chief Minister Biplav Kumar Deb’s ouster. In Rajasthan, former chief minister Vasundhara Raje is refusing to heed the new state leadership. All these go to show that all is not well with the BJP at the local level. However, these are not beyond control.
The Congress is at present driven with simmering discontent, mutual bickering, and intraparty disputes. When the leaders are weak, naturally, the state units are emboldened to raise their voice.
Only last August some 23 leaders including Ghulam Nabi Azad, Anand Sharma and B. S. Hooda had sent a letter to Congress president Sonia Gandhi seeking urgent reorganization of the party.
In Congress-ruled states of Punjab and Rajasthan rebels are demanding the removal of the chief ministers. Cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Sidhu has launched a scathing attack against Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarindar Singh. The high command has decided to accommodate both factions in party and government.
Rajasthan faced a rebellion last year when Sachin Pilot raised the banner of revolt against Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot but he was pacified by the high command. Pilot is accusing the central leadership of not keeping its promises.
One by one ‘Team Rahul’ is getting dismantled. Two of Rahul’s trusted lieutenants Jyotiraditya Scindia and now Jitin Prasads have joined the BJP. Sachin Pilot is debating whether to leave Congress. So is Milind Deora.
It is nobody’s case that there has never been indiscipline and factionalism in both parties. It is only a question of how soon these rebels are contained. While the BJP, as the ruling party at the centre, can crack the whip, the Congress, being in the opposition does not have that luxury. Today the Congress party’s chances of acquiring power in New Delhi in the immediate future appear bleak, and therefore different factions can make credible threats to exit the organization. How it deals with the dissidents is to be seen.
New parties are born when people get disenchanted with the existing parties. But internal problems arise because the party men feel there is no future for them in that party. It is for the party leaders to manage the emerging competition among the factions.
The author is a senior journalist. The views expressed are personal.
( Courtesy Pioneer )
With IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad slamming Twitter once again, ironically in a series of tweets, leading experts on Wednesday began a debate on whether the micro-blogging platform has actually lost its "legal shield" in the country from prosecution over posts.
There is no doubt that India needs to ensure that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 do not become a mere paper tiger and are effectively implemented.
However, can the country stipulate stringent liabilities against social media firms like Twitter for failing to comply with its directions?
By virtue of Rule 7 of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) rules 2021, the moment any intermediary including any significant social media intermediary does not comply with the IT rules, they automatically lose their statutory exemption from legal liability.
"Further, they become liable for being punished for various offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this case, Twitter by not complying with the IT rules 2021 has lost its statutory immunity after the expiry of 90 days from February 25," leading cyberlaw expert Pavan Duggal told IANS.
According to him, Twitter no longer has the "suraksha kavach" or statutory exemption from legal liability.
"This effectively means that they are liable to be sued in civil and criminal actions across the country and they are liable to defend each one of them for third party data or information made available by them," Duggal added.
However, according to non-profit Internet Freedom Foundation, the "intermediary status" is not a registration that is granted by the government.
"The present concerns arise from Rule 7 of the IT Rules, but Rule 7 only says that the provisions of Section 79 of the IT Act won't apply to intermediaries that fail to observe the IT Rules," the foundation said in a series of tweets.
"The new IT Rules, as per several digital rights organisations, are unconstitutional. In fact, they have been challenged in several state High Courts (like by TM Krishna, a prominent Carnatic music vocalist and cultural critic in Madras HC)," the foundation added.
According to Virag Gupta, the lawyer of former RSS ideologue K.N. Govindacharya, who is arguing the social media Designated Officers' matter before the Delhi High Court, there are three aspects of new IT Rules.
"However, there is debate only on one aspect of Grievance Officer. Facebook, Google, WhatsApp and other tech giants including Twitter have yet not fully complied with rules related to Nodal Officer and Compliance Officer," Gupta told IANS.
Article 14 of the Constitution mandates equality, but the government is "singling out Twitter and not taking action against other social media companies which are not compliant with the law", Gupta argued.
According to Minister Prasad, Twitter was given multiple opportunities to comply with the same, but has "deliberately chosen" the path of non-compliance.
"In certain scenarios, with the amplification of social media, even a small spark can cause a fire, especially with the menace of fake news. This was one of the objectives of bringing the Intermediary Guidelines," he said in a series of tweets.
"Further, what is perplexing is that Twitter fails to address the grievances of users by refusing to set up process as mandated by the law of the land. Additionally, it chooses a policy of flagging manipulated media, only when it suits, its likes and dislikes," the IT Minister added.
Twitter was yet to react to the latest tweets by IT Minister.
Experts argued that India needs to come up with effective legal provisions stipulating the consequences to be faced by social media companies in case they do not take effective steps to fight the menace of fake news/misinformation on their platforms.
The options for the government are now to start legal proceedings against Twitter for third-party data and information.
"Further, all affected persons who have been affected by the inactions of the service provider, can sue the service provider, both for legal action and also for criminal liability," said Duggal.
Since Twitter, as a service provider, has not complied with the new IT rules, the government can also start initiating action to prevent them from offering their service in "a seamless manner in the Indian context", the experts noted.
( Courtesy IANS )
Considering decades of bonhomie, Nepal would do well to embrace India and shun Chinese lies
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal had one very strong element — mutual respect for the sovereignty and integrity of each other. With 70 years gone, the treaty has proved to be a milestone in bringing India and Nepal closer. However, the same treaty has time and again got the two neighbours face to face on certain issues. Does this make the bilateral relations strained? Probably not. It is because the present nature of India-Nepal relations is merely seen through the lens of politics. Understandably, Nepal stands very critical to geostrategic rivalry and competition between India and China, and often its location surpasses all other considerations. Yet, people-to-people ties between India and Nepal have stood firm. Further, the political instability in Nepal requires a people-centric approach. While the borders across South Asia are contested, such as India-Pakistan and India-China, India shares an open border with Nepal. Despite the large scale of risks involved, India has supported the idea that it is a gateway to people, culture and civilisation. By bringing these factors into account, the heated moments in India-Nepal relations may see an immediate resolution.
Meanwhile, there is another narrowed aspect of seeing the India-Nepal relations through the prism of social media. The hashtags #GoBackIndia #BackOffIndia during the 2015 earthquake and border disputes in the last two years were seen as defining moments that weaken the bond. However, if social media were to result in India-Nepal relations, China would be the only player in Nepal considering alleged paid pro-China social media campaigns. To date, Nepal has a vast digital divide. While affording high-speed internet is still a challenge, access to smart phones in southern Nepal (Madhesh) is yet to meet national parity. Therefore, India’s longstanding people-to-people ties, especially those between India’s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and Nepal’s Madhesh region, are a testimony to the brighter side. On the other hand, the looming hype of the rising status of China in Nepal has its proven short-term validity. Chinese interests in Nepal are primarily focused on handling pro-Tibet voices, encroaching Nepalese territory for an extended strategic depth and leasing out critical areas of interests within Nepal. To achieve these, China has one tool: fabricated facts, lies and social media manoeuvring.
(Courtesy: IANS)
The bloodless coup against Chirag is not unique but such internal strife demeans politics itself
When a father gives to his son, both laugh; when a son gives to his father, both cry, said William Shakespeare. Ram Vilas Paswan, eternal Dalit leader and pater familias of the Paswan family, would have had no qualms agreeing with the English bard. A father and son ganged up against the son of another father. The father and father are both brothers, their brood, first cousins. That in short is the bloodless coup that happened in that Bihar political family the other day, stripping Chirag Paswan of his position and power in his own party, the Lok Janshakti Party. Five of the party’s MPs have formed a separate group led by Chirag’s uncle and supported by his nephew. Chirag remains the lone MP, a victim of dynastic arrogance or political naivete. The how and why of what happened is of academic interest when the moot point is how family feuds and dynastic intrigues have straddled Indian politics from times immemorial. They were understandable in times of monarchies, but in democratic India? The Nehru-Gandhi family has had the dubious distinction — unless circumstances went against them — of having kept leaders unrelated by blood from the apex position — the party president. There is hardly any political party in hardly any State today that is not headed by a family. The tradition is derisively called dynasty politics. What is problematic of such arrangements is that the party, its politics and relationship with people and power is determined by the internal strife within the family. That demeans politics itself.
The schisms and the backstabbings, strangely but consistently, are timed to happen before major political happenings, like an election, a leadership change or a Cabinet reshuffle in a State or at the Centre. It is said the Paswan saga was brewing for some time — the young man apparently oblivious to all of it — coming to a fruition just as rumours of a reshuffle in Delhi picked up. Not dissimilarly, other family feuds are changing tack, more for the better than worse unlike the Paswan affair, in Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Mulayam Singh Yadav family is closing ranks, the patriarch trying to patch up differences between his brother Shivpal Yadav and son Akhilesh Yadav which spoiled Samajwadi Party’s image in the State. The family of undivided Andhra Congress leader YS Rajasekhara Reddy is trying to expand its influence into Telangana as well. While YSR’s son Jagan Mohan Reddy “rules” Andhra Pradesh, his daughter Sharmila Reddy will form a party of her own in Telangana. The “overlord” of Telangana, K Chandrasekhara Rao, is already trying to keep peace between son and political heir KT Rama Rao and nephew and organisational wizard T Harish Rao. These family pots can overflow anytime even as Karunanidhis of Tamil Nadu, Pawars of Maharashtra, Bangarappas and Deve Gowdas of Karnataka await the next chapter in their family sagas.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
State administration has shut down due to rail, health, bank and civil servants being AWOL and the country’s economy has collapsed
Military coups, if successful, have instant rewards. Failure produces retribution of the worst kind. In stable democracies, the military is seen to be under civilian control and acting as per the Constitution. In totalitarian States like China, the military acts under the political guidance of the Chinese Communist Party — power flowing out of the barrel of the gun. Finding the right civilian-military balance is not easy in developing countries. The most recent power friction was in Mali, the Colonel’s coup, enacted twice in six months, by the same Colonel. One of the Sudan coups was triggered by civil society. Coups were rampant in South America, then Africa and south-east Asia. Pakistan is a rare balance of military- civil authority where military has always (except a brief period after 1991) called the shots. In Turkey, the Ataturk design has been overturned and military put in its place, its constitutional rights abrogated. South Korea and Indonesia make interesting case studies in transfer of power to civilian authorities. There is no template for a coup, only an SOP. Countries under the Commonwealth have fared better in fixing the right civil-military equilibrium.
Myanmar is a unique case of military-guided democracy where the third coup has just crossed 135 days and follows a 2008 military-drafted Constitution designed to produce a “disciplined democracy” via the military-supported Union Solidarity Development Party. According to the UN Human Rights office, 873 civilians have been killed and approximately 5,000 protestors detained and Myanmar has gone from being a fragile democracy to “human rights catastrophe”. Popular resistance to the coup has resulted in closure of State administration due to rail, health, bank and civil servants being AWOL and collapse of economy with criminal networks taking over underground markets. The junta claims law and order is under control, fewer protests and killings and military returning to employing non-lethal pacification methods. Dissent is less visible on the streets and in military’s estimate, resistance has peaked though it will not acknowledge this publicly.
The resistance, comprising a shadow National Unity Government, Civil Disobedience Movement and a People’s Defence Force supported by at least four ethnic armed organisations, has not lost steam even after four months. Attacks on military and police posts in the border States of Shan, Chin and Karen have attracted brutal reprisals. Unless the junta is reined in, Myanmarese fear an implosion (civil war) or/and explosion that would produce hundreds upon thousands more refugees fleeing to Thailand, India and China. Sanctions by the international fora — instruments to regulate the behaviour of the military — have not worked. A regional process of conflict termination and dispute resolution has made no headway even in selecting the Asean envoy eight weeks after it held a meeting in Jakarta on April 24, which produced a wobbly five-point consensus — locating an exit strategy for the military based on constructive dialogue, release of all prisoners, ceasefire and restoration of normality. The UN, G7 and India, among others, have supported the Asean peace initiative.
China has signalled its willingness to help if and when the regional process fails. Suspicion about Chinese hand in the coup is rampant in the country as Beijing’s stakes are very high. Most of the arson is of Chinese assets which two months ago was estimated at $37mn. Over the years, a love-hate relationship has developed between China and the military. But, more recently, China had established very productive relations with the NLD leadership. It is clear the junta will not allow the Chinese to meddle in its internal affairs, especially when anti-China sentiment is high and rising. This is a Godsend for military supremo Gen Min Aung Hlaing who has removed the retirement age of 65 for him to serve indefinitely beyond July.
The kangaroo court set up by him to try NLD leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi, met for the first time on May 24 and again on Monday. Her lawyer Khin Maung Zaw said that she’s being charged with “sedition and corruption to keep her out of the scene and smear her prestige” — euphemistically banning Suu Kyi and her party from politics and despatching her into oblivion is the junta’s exit strategy for her. The UN rights office has called the charges absurd and bogus. In its latest report, the Asian Network For Free Elections monitoring group has said that the results of the 2020 general elections were by and large representative of the will of the people.
Gen Hlaing pines for the Thai model and is an ardent admirer of Thai Generals. He has an excellent backchannel with former General and now Prime Minister, PM Prayuth Chan-o-cha. Gen Hlaing has said elections will be held when the situation will permit.
At play are two exit strategies with different endgames. The regional process or Asean initiative seeks to restore the hybrid power-sharing model through a negotiated solution as exit for the military. The General’s endgame is to debar NLD and retire Suu Kyi to ensure a USDP electoral victory. In the Burma coup, it is advantage Gen Hlaing.
(The writer, a retired Major General, was Commander, IPKF South, Sri Lanka, and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the Integrated Defence Staff. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The closure of the marines’ case sets a bad precedence for trying future crimes by foreigners on Indian soil in the Indian courts
Yesterday, June 15, the Supreme Court of India quashed the proceedings in the long-drawn Italian marines case has (delete has)—has agreed with the Government of India for closure of the controversial Italian Marines case wherein which two fishermen were shot down by two Italian soldiers from a foreign ship off the Kerala coast in 2012.
The Narendra Modi government agreed to the for Rs 10 crore compensation,— better termed as blood money in some quarters,— offered by the Italian shipping company at an the International Arbitration tribunal. —sentence is not complete. This is not as simple and not a question of Rs 10 cr. It has bilateral relationship issues involved.
Ironically, Irony is it was Narendra Modi who till May, 2014 kept raising the marines case, spoke on this case, accusing charging the then Congress government of allowing the marines to leave India and asking Congress President Sonia Gandhi ( accusing of what)if that amounted to “defending the country’s interest”. He and promised to bring the two killer —two Italian marines before the India’s courts criminal law. Why this abject surrender to Italian Government’s pressure?
While it appears so, it is far from either capitulation by India or the country happily agreeing to monetary compensation. The robust bilateral ties between India and Italy nearly became undone because of the tensions the case caused in Delhi and Rome. The Italian foreign minister had to resign after the marines were initially sent back to India while Italian envoy in Delhi was barred from leaving India after the marines refused to return following a furlough. The case came up when India needed Italy’s help in probing the corruption charges in the AgustaWestland case and assistance in finalizing the EU investment agreement.
As someone covering a Home Ministry beat covering journalist for the past 11 years, I knew this case very well. and I am going to disclose the origin of this case. On February 15, 2012 around 5 pm, we journalists were in Union Home Secretary RK Singh’s room at North Block. The same RK Singh who is now the Union Power Minister. It was a regular debriefing and while we were in a freewheeling chat, we journalists noticed a news break flashing in TV about the killing of two fishermen from a foreign ship off the Kerala coast. We alerted RK Singh and he just picked the phone and connected to P. Prabhakaran, then Director-General of Coast Guard.
Singh ordered the head of Coast Guard to seize the foreign ship and hand it over to Kerala Police. As a journalist, I along with my colleagues were as witnessing one of the rarest speedy actions of the Manmohan Singh regime. In no time, the Italian ship, Enrica Lexie, was seized by the Coast Guard and two Italian Marines were arrested by Kerala Police. They were Italian Navy soldiers - Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone- hired by the ship for security from sea pirates. The Italian soldiers were charge-sheeted for murder by the Kerala Police, and they landed in the trial court in Kollam district of Kerala in their uniform.
According to my information, the tussle between the ship and the boat, named Saint Antony, from Kerala started on the price of the fish. Normally Ships usually buy purchase sea food and groceries from local fish from the boats to stock groceries and meat. The fishermen in the boat and the sailors in the Italian ship argued, engaged in an argument leading to firing from the marines. All kind of Much lobbying took place was going to settle this case, while the two accused killer marines were languisheding in Kerala’s local jail.
First, the Italian Embassy operated through the local Church. The two victims fishermen– Ajeesh Pink and Valentine Jelastine– were also Christians. Within two months their families of the two fishermen accepted Rs 1 crore each and wrote to the police and court that they have pardoned the two Italian marines. The Italian Embassy, while providing legal help to the accused, also produced a letter from the families that “in the name of Jesus” they have pardoned the accused.
The Kerala Police objected saying that in criminal law, families have no role and their pardon cannot matter before laws of India. The Kerala High Court reminded that blood money system and obtaining pardon from the victims’ families will never be entertained. Then lobbying started in Delhi and claims started floating that the incident happened in international waters and not in territorial waters. The Italians approached the Supreme Court, and Harish Salve was the lawyer complaining about the highhandedness of Kerala’s prosecutors. At in the end of 2012, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Altamas Kabir ordered the shifting of the case from Kerala and allowed the Italian marines to kept in Delhi’s Embassy. Soon CJI Kabir allowed them parole to visit Italy for Christmas celebrations. Shockingly, before the next hearing on April, 2013, the Embassy filed an affidavit that the two accused were are not coming back to India. Then Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy intervened in the case seeking contempt of court proceedings against Italian Ambassador and there was a heated argument between CJI and Swamy. Sensing danger, Italy returned the marines and kept them in their Delhi Embassy. Meanwhile, Harish Salve relinquished the case and his friend Mukul Rohatgi took up the case of Italian Embassy.
This time country was a facing Lok Sabha election heat and BJP and its Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi were accusing Congress and its President Sonia Gandhi for of reportedly surrendering India’s interests before Italy. Modi was roaring in his speeches asking Sonia Gandhi all kinds of questions on this matter. Modi even Tweeted on March 31, 2014: “Italian marines mercilessly killed our fishermen. If Madam is so ‘patriotic’ can she tell in which jail the marines are lodged in?”Modi was outraged that expressing anger over putting the killer marines were lodged in Embassy guest house in Delhi instead of jail.
Modi became Prime Minister in May, 2014. As time passed, the advocates of the Italian marines’ advocate Mukul Mukul Rohatgi became India’s Attorney General and the marines’ first advocate Harish Salve got Padma Bhushan a year later in 2015. The anger was gradually fizzling out and the marines were allowed to go back to Italy and in 2016, India agreed to contest the Italian petition at the ad-hoc tribunal constituted to settle disputes related to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (which petition?) at the UN Tribunal on international shipping matters even as the Supreme Court was handling the criminal case. Why did India agree for the international tribunal’s and arbitrations when a criminal case was pending in Indian courts? The same thing happened in Vodafone and Cairn tax evasion issues when cases were going on in Indian courts. And in international tribunals, India lost the case ultimately after spending huge legal expenses running over millions of dollars.
In July 2020, as expected, the international tribunal ordered that India can only contest for compensation and criminal cases will be tried only in Italy. The Union government informed the Supreme Court that it had accepted the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration that the marines cannot be tried in India as they enjoyed immunity because they were exercising official duties when the incident occurred. The PCA said India was entitled to compensation for the loss of life of the fishermen and the marines’ violation of the right of navigation.
And the Indian Government agreed to this curious order of the tribunal and now tells the Supreme Court to close all criminal cases as the “nation” has agreed to the International Tribunal proposal. Italy paid compensation of Rs 4 crore each to two fishermen’s families and Rs 2 crore to the boat owner. Why did the Government of India agree to accept Rs 10 crore and avoid criminal cases in India, akin to the blood money system? In India trial courts have to pass judgment including conviction of the accused and pass orders for compensation to victims. Accepting Blood Money and obtaining pardon for the accused from victim’s family is valid in Arabic jurisprudence.
The Kerala High Court was right on the conduct of the trial but was over-ruled by the Supreme Court. The then Opposition party, BJP, did a u-turn after coming to power. A bad precedence has been set for the trial of any misdemeanor or crime committed by foreigners on Indian territory. How can we justify a foreigner killing an Indian in Indian terrain and allow his criminal trial to be conducted on foreign soil?
The author is a Special Correspondent of ‘The Pioneer’. The views expressed are personal.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
How equipped is the grouping to tackle the changing world realities and the new challenges?
The three-day parleys at the G7 Summit in Carbis Bay ended at a positive note even as the world grapples with the Corona pandemic which has far-reaching economic consequences. COVID-19 indeed figured prominently at the G7 meet but the fervour was perhaps missing. The G7 looked desperate to show how united they were. The G7 is an informal grouping of strong economic powers. It unveiled the US-led plans to counter China in infrastructure funding for poorer nations. It also came up with an accord to prevent future pandemics. The G7 leaders said they would offer a “values-driven, high-standard and transparent” partnership. Their “Build Back Better World” (B3W) project is aimed to counter China’s trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative. The world realities are changing fast and throwing up new challenges to this elite club which is mostly European and American grouping, after the departure of Russia. The membership of Russia was suspended in 2014 after it annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region. Due to internal divisions, the relevance of G7 is under the scanner.
Moreover, the share of the G7 nations’ GDP is constantly falling. The aggregate GDP of the G7 members has slid to 45 per cent of the global economy from nearly 70 per cent three decades ago. This naturally reduces its hold on the world economy as well as politics. Besides, China has emerged as a big challenger, if not a threat, to the supremacy of the G7. G20 is more potent than the G7 today. For its shrinking clout, the G7 is itself to blame. G7 meets annually to discuss issues of global economic governance, international security and energy policy. Its follow-up on its declarations has been rather lacklustre. Its membership often completely ignores the emerging trends. For instance, it did not take China’s emerging power into consideration and is oblivious to India. It has deep-rooted differences over trade and climate policies. President Joe Biden has pledged to restore the US’ historical commitment to multilateralism. But G7 did not show unity or firmness in Russia’s role in Syria, and Russian interference in the US and European elections. In 2017, divisions emerged within the G7 over a proposal to impose fresh sanctions on Russia. If G7 is to survive as a dominant force, it will have to renew its commitment to democracy and building a world order based on equitable and just world order.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Considering the third wave, would it be more prudent to slow down the lockdown lifting process?
India is opening up gradually. The States have set their schedules and pace for lifting the lockdown. There is a general sigh of relief that the second wave of COVID-19 has nearly abated. Most States are bound to lift the lockdown completely by the third week of June. Call it a coincidence, but that is around the same time the UK Government originally proposed to remove all legal limits of social contact. However, it has since decided to delay the process by a few weeks in view of infections from the Delta variant of Coronavirus, the B1.617.2 Variant of Concern (VoC) first identified in India, again rising in the country. The VoC designation — assigned by the WHO — means the variant may be more transmissible or cause severe disease, not succumb to medical treatment or evade immune response. The British Health Secretary has said that over 90 per cent of the new cases comprise this variant which is 40 per cent more transmissible. The United States says Delta has a “wild type” transmission and is beginning to get worried about its presence in the country. The Delta variant is also the one that kick-started the second wave in India, which was at its worst in April and May when life became an agony for millions of infected people. India entered May reporting nearly 400,000 cases, coupled with scarcity of medicine, oxygen and beds and even spaces in crematoria.
However, now that the wave has nearly dissipated, India is beginning to open up. Is it the right decision to have a goal of eventually lifting all restrictions when faced with four questionable situations? One is the re-think within the UK Government itself on lifting the lockdown because of the same Delta variant. Two, everybody in India, including scientists and doctors, have predicted a third wave three or four months from now. Three, the Delta variant the UK and US talk about originated in India and there is no evidence that it has died out. In fact, reports from the UK suggest that it has mutated into a more virulent version called AY.1 or Delta+. Four, while India followed the UK when it came to increasing the gap between vaccine jabs to three months, it is deciding not to when it comes to moving towards lifting the lockdown. Considering India’s terrible experience with the second wave, would it not be prudent to slow down the lockdown lifting process? The States have the option of reducing the pace of opening up to ensure in the meantime that the vaccination process finally gets streamlined, that vaccine unavailability and hesitancy both stand resolved and that virologists and the National Task Force obtain proof that the vaccines are effective in reducing hospitalisation and deaths. Importantly, it needs to be ascertained that the current rate of infection does not suffer a spike after the easing of restrictions because of sudden, inevitable laxity in following COVID-19 protocols in public places.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Though he is likened to a ‘Prime Minister of no substance’, Oli is trying every trick in the book to remain in the saddle
A desperate Prime Minister KP Oli is leaving no stone unturned in consolidating his position. In doing so, he is making compromises that were once the exact opposite of his ultra-nationalistic outlook. After failing the confidence vote in Parliament on May 10, 2021, due to withdrawal of support by archrival Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’-led Maoist party, Oli had to resign. However, benefitting from the nexus with President Bidya Devi Bhandari, Oli was once again appointed as the Prime Minister considering his Communist Party of Nepal (UML) was still the largest party in Parliament. While the Opposition had requested the President to allow them to form the Government, Bhandari was in a hurry to appoint Oli.
Oli, on the other hand, appointed senior leader Rajendra Mahto as the Deputy Prime Minister, who is leading a faction of JSP and extended support to Oli. Mahto’s appointment comes as a surprise as he had opposed Oli’s anti-Madhesh ideology and criticised him for stopping the first amendment of the Citizenship Act. As a proud Khas-Arya (high caste hill people), Oli had vehemently opposed any amendment to the Citizenship laws which prevented Nepali citizenship to the children of a Nepali mother married to a foreigner. After Mahto supported the Government, Oli had recommended Citizenship Ordinance on May 23, which was promulgated within minutes. The ordinance will allow the issuance of citizenship by descent to all those children born to Nepali mothers whose fathers’ whereabouts are unknown before September 20, 2015.
The ordinance is seen as part of the horse-trading pact between Oli and Rajendra Mahto to appease the Madhesis. Oli’s long-term critic CK Lal claims that accommodating Mahto must not have been easy for a “populist demagogue to ignore xenophobia, swallow his jingoistic pride and accept Rajendra Mahto as the Deputy Prime Minister”. Meanwhile, the legality of the ordinance remains in question as it requires approval by Parliament within 60 days. Since Parliament has been dissolved on May 21, the apex court has stayed its implementation as it could lead to long-term implications. A five-member Constitutional Bench has also issued show-cause notices to the offices of the PM and President to clarify on House dissolution on May 21 and shuffling of the Cabinet.
Feuds Within: To suppress the rising opposition within the UML, Oli has appointed party leader Raghubir Mahaseth as the Deputy Prime Minister. Mahaseth is also appointed as the Minister of Foreign Affairs despite having no experience in the field. Another UML heavyweight, Bishnu Poudel, has been appointed Deputy Prime Minister and continues as the Minister of Finance. At the same time, Oli has removed Deputy Prime Minister Ishwar Pokhrel and a total of 13 Ministers, including Health Minister Hridayesh Tripathi and Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali, who carried out ill-intended foreign policy decisions towards New Delhi during the border row. In the past, Oli had suspended party leaders for speaking against him. However, in the present circumstances, more suspensions may lead to a credible opposition to Oli within the UML.
Misunderstanding resolved: Within a year of issuing a controversial map of Nepal showing India’s territory as its own in the Kalapani region, accusing India for COVID-19 spread in Nepal, claiming that lord Ram was born in Nepal’s Birgunj. In an interview to the BBC, Oli said: “Yes, there were misunderstandings at one time, but now those misunderstandings are gone. We should not be stuck in past misunderstandings but move forward looking at the future.” He also requested India to supply COVID-19 vaccines as a good neighbour. Although Oli did not clarify on what he meant by “misunderstanding”. With such remarks, Oli is again trying to reach out to New Delhi with his Madhesh card.
At present, almost 50 per cent of the Oli Cabinet consists of Madhesi leaders, which is a complete U-turn from his longstanding prejudice against the idea of Madhesh and Madhesi people. Knowing that the Khas-Arya may come after Oli for compromising with the Madhesis, Oli has no alternative to keep the premiership safe until new elections in November.
While Oli’s rapprochement towards India is short-term and politically motivated, in the hindsight it showcases the strong cultural and people-to-people links between Nepal and India. It is also a strong answer to China’s deep-pocket diplomacy in Nepal. For decades, China has been trying to create artificial people-to-people ties with Nepal. However, Beijing often forgets that it was Tibet with whom Nepal had cultural ties and Tibet’s forced annexation in 1950 did not transfer cultural claims to China. Therefore, Beijing needs to learn that political relations with Nepal are a result of a short-term compromise in Kathmandu. India has always supported the democratic aspirations of the people of Nepal and stands alone as the top development partner. China’s expansionist outlook will sustain neither in Nepal nor in South Asia. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for India to fully trust Oli.
(The author is an ICSSR Doctoral Fellow at the JNU and Visiting Fellow at the Asian Institute of Diplomacy and International Affairs, Kathmandu. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
New Delhi, June 14 (IANS) Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday told the United Nations that in the last 10 years, around 3 million hectares of forest cover has been added in India.
In his keynote virtual address on 'High-Level Dialogue on Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought' at the UN, the Prime Minister said the total combined forest cover of India has been raised to almost one-fourth of the country's total area.
Modi spoke at the opening segment in his capacity as the President of the 14th Session of the Conference of Parties of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
Terming land as the fundamental building block for supporting all lives and livelihoods, Modi called for reduction of the tremendous pressure on land and its resources.
"Clearly, a lot of work lies ahead of us. But we can do it. We can do it together," he said.
The Prime Minister also listed the steps taken by India to deal with the land degradation issue. He said that India has taken the lead to highlight land degradation issues at international fora.
The Delhi Declaration of 2019 called for better access and stewardship over land, and emphasised gender-sensitive transformative projects.
In India, over the last 10 years, around 3 million hectares of forest cover has been added. This has enhanced the combined forest cover to almost one-fourth of the country's total area, the Prime Minister informed.
Modi conveyed to the UN that India is on track to achieve its national commitment of land degradation neutrality.
"We are also working towards restoring 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. This would contribute to India's commitment to achieve an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent," he said.
The Prime Minister gave the example of the Banni region in Rann of Kutch in Gujarat to illustrate how restoration of land can start a virtuous cycle of good soil health, increased land productivity, food security and improved livelihoods.
In the Banni region, land restoration was done by developing grasslands, which helped in achieving land degradation neutrality. It also supports pastoral activities and livelihood by promoting animal husbandry.
"In the same spirit, we need to devise effective strategies for land restoration while promoting indigenous techniques," the Prime Minister stressed.
In the spirit of South-South cooperation, India is assisting fellow developing countries to develop land restoration strategies.
A Centre of Excellence is being set up in India to promote a scientific approach towards land degradation issues, informed the Prime Minister.
"It is mankind's collective responsibility to reverse the damage to land caused by human activities. It is our sacred duty to leave a healthy planet for our future generations," the Prime Minister concluded.
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month