Current Affairs Reverse Engineering- CARE (06-11-2024)
| News at a Glance |
| Polity and Governance: Not all private properties can be used by State for the community: Supreme Court holds in majority decision |
| Social Issues: Acute food insecurity to worsen in 22 places over next 6 months: UN report |
| Supreme Court upholds validity of Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act |
| International Relations: At WTO, India, Pak join hands on public stocking of grains |
| Science and Technology: India to Launch European Union’s Solar Observatory Satellite Proba-3 |
| Art and Culture: Bob Khathing Museum of Valour inaugurated: played role in integrating Tawang into India |
Not all private properties can be used by State for the community: Supreme Court holds in majority decision
Source: The Hindu
UPSC Syllabus Relevance: GS2 Polity and Governance:
Context: Private property and Article 39(b)
Why in News
- The Supreme Court ruled that not all privately-owned resources can be considered “material resources of the community” for state acquisition, reinforcing private property rights while balancing public welfare under Article 39(b).
Overview
- The nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on November 5, 2024, concerning the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that the state should direct its policy to ensure the distribution of material resources in a manner that serves the common good.
Background of the Case
- Context of Article 39(b): Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which guide the state in creating laws that promote social welfare and economic equality. It emphasizes the distribution of ownership and control over resources to serve the common good.
- Historical Interpretations: The interpretation of Article 39(b) has evolved over time. Justice Krishna Iyer, in his dissent in the 1977 case Ranganath Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, had introduced a broad view that suggested that any resource, including private property, could potentially be considered a “material resource of the community” to justify state acquisition for public welfare. This interpretation was influential in subsequent landmark cases, such as Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing (1982) and Mafatlal Industries (1997).
Key Points of the Supreme Court Judgment (2024)
- Majority View: The majority judgment, authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, rejected the notion that all privately-owned resources could be unilaterally treated as community resources under Article 39(b). The Chief Justice noted that such an interpretation would reflect a rigid economic dogma that promotes extensive state control over private property, which is inconsistent with India’s current economic policies.
- Economic Philosophy: The judgment acknowledged that India’s economic landscape has transitioned over the decades from a period of socialism and public-sector dominance to one that includes liberalization and market-based reforms. The ruling stated that the Constitution does not support the idea of a singular economic theory guiding state policies.
- Private Property Rights: The Chief Justice underscored the importance of private property as a fundamental right. While theoretically, certain privately-owned resources could be considered “material resources of the community,” the court cautioned against an expansive interpretation that would undermine private ownership rights without due process.
- Factors for Determination: The judgment outlined that whether a specific resource could be acquired as a material resource of the community should be assessed contextually and depend on factors such as:
- The nature and characteristics of the resource.
- Its necessity for community well-being.
- The scarcity of the resource.
- The impact of private control over such resources on the community.
- Rejection of Ideological Interpretation: The majority opinion highlighted that India’s multi-party democracy has chosen different economic and social policies over time based on evolving circumstances, indicating that the framers of the Constitution trusted the electorate’s wisdom. Imposing a single economic dogma that sees state acquisition of private property as paramount would contradict the Constitution’s vision of economic democracy.
- Chief Justice’s Remarks: Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the expansive definition proposed by the state’s legal counsel, asking whether personal properties, such as a house or car, could be categorized as material resources of the community. He emphasized the need for a balanced approach respecting private property rights.
The Role of the Dissenting and Concurring Opinions
- Partial Concurrence: Justice B.V. Nagarathna partially agreed with the majority but provided additional views on the subject.
- Dissent: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia wrote the sole dissent, supporting a broader interpretation that aligned more closely with Justice Krishna Iyer’s view. This dissent underscored an alternative perspective on the role of state intervention in economic redistribution.
Significance of the Judgment
- Clarification of Article 39(b): This ruling clarified that while the state has the authority to distribute resources for the common good, there are constitutional and procedural limitations. It set a precedent that private property cannot be acquired by the state under Article 39(b) without satisfying stringent conditions.
- Economic Implications: The decision recognized the evolution of India’s economy, which now embraces a blend of public and private investments. This ruling reassures the private sector and property owners that state acquisition must follow due process and cannot be justified solely by invoking public interest under Article 39(b).
- Legal and Constitutional Impact: The ruling reaffirmed that economic policies and state actions must respect the balance between public welfare and private rights. It emphasized that the Constitution allows room for diverse economic approaches and does not mandate an overarching state control of resources.
Historical and Future Context
- Ranganath Reddy (1977) to the Present: The interpretation offered by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1977 played a significant role in shaping how Article 39(b) was viewed in subsequent cases. However, the 2024 judgment marks a significant departure from this ideology, indicating a modern perspective on the interplay between private property rights and state control.
- Implications for Policy and Legislation: The ruling may influence future legislative and executive actions regarding land acquisition, property laws, and public resource management. The court’s emphasis on procedural safeguards and contextual assessment provides a framework for evaluating state actions concerning private property.
Petitions and Timeline
- The case arose from multiple petitions filed by various stakeholders, including the Property Owners Association (POA), challenging the state’s power to acquire private property under Articles 39(b) and 31C.
- These petitions, dating back to 1992, were referred multiple times to larger Benches before being brought before the nine-judge Constitution Bench in February 2002.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court’s decision in this case redefined the interpretation of Article 39(b), balancing the state’s duty to promote the common good with the constitutional protection of private property.
- It emphasized that while the state can regulate resources to benefit society, it must do so within a framework that respects private rights and due process, avoiding an overreliance on outdated economic models.
| CARE MCQ | UPSC PYQ |
| Q1. A recent Supreme Court judgment (2024) regarding Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution stated that:
1. All privately-owned properties can be acquired by the state to serve the common good without procedural safeguards. 2. Privately-owned resources can only be considered as material resources of the community under specific conditions and procedural safeguards. 3. The state has an unrestricted right to take over private properties for public welfare. 4. The Supreme Court upheld that private property cannot be recognized under the Constitution. Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (A) Only One (B) Only Two (c) Only Three (d) Only Four |
Q. Which part of the Constitution of India declares the ideal of Welfare State? (2020)
(a) Directive Principles of State Policy Ans: (a)
|
| Answer – 1 – A
Explanation – · Statement 1 is Incorrect: The judgment did not state that all privately-owned properties could be acquired without procedural safeguards. It emphasized that acquisitions must be justified and follow specific criteria. · Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment clarified that privately-owned resources can only be considered as material resources of the community under specific conditions and procedural safeguards. The Court ruled that while certain privately-owned resources could theoretically be acquired by the state to serve the common good, such acquisitions must be evaluated contextually and must follow due process. The ruling emphasized that not all private properties can be automatically treated as resources of the community, and any expansive view of state control over private property would contradict constitutional protections. · Statement 3 is incorrect: The state does not have an unrestricted right to take over private properties; it must adhere to constitutional limitations and procedures. · Statement 4 is incorrect: judgment reinforced that private property is recognized and protected under the Constitution, ensuring that property rights cannot be undermined without proper legal basis.
|
Acute food insecurity to worsen in 22 places over next 6 months: UN report
Source: Down To Earth
UPSC Relevance: GS1 Social Issues
Context: Acute food insecurity
Why in News
- A UN report by FAO and WFP warns that acute food insecurity is projected to worsen in 22 countries/territories from November 2024 to May 2025, driven by conflict and climate extremes.
Overview
- The Hunger Hotspots: FAO–WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity: November 2024 to May 2025 outlook report, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) on October 31, 2024, paints a dire picture of the global food security crisis.
- This report projects the worsening of acute food insecurity over the next six months, impacting 22 countries and territories.
Key Highlights of the Report
Scope and Impact:
- The report identifies 22 countries and territories facing acute food insecurity from November 2024 to May 2025.
- The most severe situations are present in countries like Sudan, Palestine (Gaza Strip), South Sudan, Haiti, and Mali, which are on the highest alert level for potential famine.
Regions of Concern:
- The 22 affected countries include Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Syrian Arab Republic, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Haiti, Somalia, Chad, Niger, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Palestine (Gaza Strip), Kenya, Mali, Lebanon, Namibia, and Lesotho.
- Newly added to the list since the previous report (May 2024) are Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia, and Niger.
- Countries that remain hotspots include Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Malawi, Somalia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Acute food insecurity
- Acute food insecurity refers to a severe level of food deprivation that poses an immediate threat to life, livelihood, or both.
- It occurs when a population or individual faces sudden disruptions to their ability to access or afford enough nutritious food, leading to hunger, malnutrition, and other health problems.
- This type of food insecurity is often triggered by crises such as conflict, economic shocks, extreme weather events, or natural disasters and is characterized by urgent humanitarian needs.
- It is different from chronic food insecurity, which is a long-term and persistent lack of access to sufficient food.
Primary Causes of Food Insecurity:
- Conflict and Armed Violence: Ongoing conflicts are the predominant cause of food insecurity, disrupting food systems, displacing populations, and hindering humanitarian aid.
- Sudan: Particularly affected with famine already occurring in the Zamzam camp in North Darfur and potential famine risks in other regions.
- Palestine (Gaza Strip): Experiencing severe threats of famine.
- Mali: Critical levels of food insecurity due to violence and restricted access in northern regions.
- Haiti: Rising violence has led to severe acute food insecurity, displacing people back into hunger.
Climate Extremes and Variability:
La Niña is expected to persist until March 2025, altering rainfall and temperature patterns. This event is predicted to have mixed impacts:
- Devastating floods in Nigeria, Malawi, Mozambique, South Sudan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
- Dry conditions expected in Ethiopia, eastern Kenya, and Somalia, exacerbating drought conditions.
- Economic Challenges: Economic turmoil, such as that seen in Myanmar, and inflation or currency devaluation, worsens food access and affordability.
Severity of the Situation
The report estimates that 169.2 million people across the 22 regions are facing acute food insecurity. Some notable statistics include:
- Nigeria: 31.8 million people affected.
- Sudan: 21.1 million people affected.
- Yemen: 19 million people affected.
- Ethiopia: 15.8 million people affected.
- Myanmar: 13.3 million people affected.
- Syrian Arab Republic: 12.9 million people affected.
- South Sudan: 7.1 million people affected.
Specific Regional Issues
- Central Sahel Region: The situation is dire, with violence by non-state armed groups and growing insecurity affecting Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad.
- Northern Nigeria is also grappling with a deteriorating security situation.
- Southern Africa: The conflict in northern Mozambique is exacerbating food insecurity.
- Latin America: Haiti is facing severe challenges with violence displacing communities and driving hunger.
Recommendations by FAO and WFP
The report emphasizes the urgent need for action to prevent the escalation of the crisis:
- Diplomatic Solutions: Global leaders are urged to address and resolve conflicts that are at the heart of food insecurity.
- Humanitarian Access: Measures should be taken to enable safe and effective humanitarian work in affected regions.
- Resource Mobilization: Mobilizing resources for emergency assistance, economic aid, and climate adaptation is crucial.
- Climate Adaptation Strategies: Implementing strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate variability, such as La Niña, is essential to protect vulnerable populations.
Conclusion
The report serves as an urgent call to action, highlighting that prompt and targeted measures are needed to avert a deepening humanitarian crisis. The focus on diplomatic efforts, humanitarian aid, economic interventions, and climate response strategies is essential to safeguard the most vulnerable and mitigate the risk of widespread famine.
| CARE MCQ | UPSC PYQ |
| Q2. According to the “Hunger Hotspots: FAO–WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity” report published in October 2024, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. The report projects that acute food insecurity will worsen in 22 countries/territories during the period from November 2024 to May 2025. 2. The main causes of food insecurity highlighted in the report include conflict, armed violence, and climate variability. 3. The report identifies Brazil and India as the highest alert regions for acute food insecurity. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (A) 1 and 2 only (B) 2 and 3 only (C) 1 and 3 only (D) 1, 2, and 3 |
Q. Which of the following is/are the indicator/indicators used by IFPRI to compute the Global Hunger Index Report? (2016)
1. Undernourishment 2. Child stunting 3. Child mortality Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1, 2 and 3 (d) 1 and 3 only Ans: (c)
|
| Answer 2– A
Explanation – · Statement 1 is correct: The “Hunger Hotspots: FAO–WFP early warnings on acute food insecurity” report, published by the FAO and WFP in October 2024, does project that acute food insecurity will worsen in 22 countries/territories during the outlook period from November 2024 to May 2025. · Statement 2 is correct: The report highlights that the main causes of worsening food insecurity include ongoing conflict, armed violence, and climate variability, such as La Niña, which can disrupt rainfall patterns and cause extreme weather conditions like floods and droughts. · Statement 3 is incorrect: The report does not identify Brazil and India as the highest alert regions for acute food insecurity. Instead, it points out countries like Sudan, Palestine (Gaza Strip), South Sudan, Haiti, and Mali as having the highest alert levels. Other affected countries include Nigeria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Myanmar, and several others. · Therefore, option A is the correct answer. |
Supreme Court upholds validity of Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act
Source: The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/does-data-justify-subdivision-of-quotas/article68810384.ece
UPSC Relevance: GS 2 –Judiciary
Context: Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act of 2004.
Why in News
- The Supreme Court’s recent ruling addressed the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act of 2004.
Context of the Law:
- The 2004 Act was enacted to regulate madrasas in Uttar Pradesh, where over 60% of the nation’s madrasas are located. It aimed to standardize the curriculum, conduct examinations, and establish minimum teaching qualifications.
- Despite its positive intent, the Allahabad High Court initially struck down the Act for violating the principles of secularism and the Right to Education under Article 21A.
- However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this view and emphasized that educational reforms in madrasas should not undermine their minority character.
Background of the Case
- The case involved a legal challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act, 2004, which regulated the education in state-recognized madrasas.
- The petitioners argued that parts of the Act violated the constitutional provisions related to education, secularism, and minority rights.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
- Partial Upheld of the Act: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 2004 Act with certain exceptions. The Act was found to be consistent with the State’s duty to ensure that students in recognized madrasas achieve a standard level of education enabling them to effectively participate in society and secure livelihoods.
- Provisions Related to Higher Education: The Supreme Court struck down provisions related to higher education levels (Fazil and Kamil, equivalent to undergraduate and postgraduate studies). These were declared unconstitutional as they conflicted with the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act), which falls under Entry 66 of the Union List, giving the Union exclusive power to legislate on higher education standards.
Key Points of the Judgment
- Legislative Competence: The court noted that while ‘education’ is included under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List (allowing both the Centre and the States to legislate on the matter), higher education standards are under Entry 66 of the Union List, thus placing it under the Centre’s jurisdiction.
- Regulation of Madrasa Education: The Supreme Court affirmed that the state could regulate madrasas to ensure that students receive education that meets societal standards. However, this regulation does not equate to interference in the day-to-day administration of these institutions.
- Article 30 Rights: The judgment acknowledged the right of religious minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution to establish and administer their educational institutions. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation to maintain educational standards.
- Upheld the Law’s Validity: The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the 2004 Act, including the regulation of madrasa education in Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized that the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring educational standards in madrasas, which must meet a minimum competency to prepare students for societal participation and employment.
- Limitations on Higher Education: The provisions of the 2004 Act that allowed madrasas to award Fazil and Kamil degrees were struck down, as these contravened Section 22 of the UGC Act. Only institutions recognized by the UGC have the authority to confer degrees. The Court concluded that the state government’s attempt to grant such powers was unconstitutional.
- Balance Between Secularism and Minority Rights: The Court clarified that while madrasas can impart religious education, they must also provide secular education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels, in accordance with the constitutional mandate of Article 21A (Right to Education). However, the state must respect the rights of minorities under Article 30, which guarantees them the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Court rejected the Allahabad High Court’s view that the law violated secularism.
- Secularism and Constitutional Principles: The Court cautioned against the blanket application of secularism principles, emphasizing that laws cannot be struck down merely for a perceived violation of secularism unless it directly contradicts explicit provisions of the Constitution. It noted that the right to religious instruction does not automatically undermine the state’s competence to regulate educational standards.
- Religious Education and Curriculum: The Court recognized that while religious education is central to madrasas, the law’s primary goal is to ensure that these institutions impart quality education. The Court stressed that students in madrasas should not be forced to participate in religious practices if they are attending these institutions with public funding or state recognition, as per Article 28(3) of the Constitution.
- NCPCR’s Concerns: The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had raised concerns about the quality of education in madrasas, calling them unsuitable for holistic child development. However, the Court focused on the law’s positive aspects, allowing madrasas to function under the broader framework of educational standards.
Article 21A and Right to Education
- The Allahabad High Court previously argued that the Act violated Article 21A, which guarantees the right to education, and the principle of secularism. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that Article 21A should be read in harmony with the rights of minorities under Article 30.
- The Court held that regulations ensuring quality secular education in minority institutions do not compromise their minority character or violate secularism.
Secularism and Legislative Competence
- Secular Character: The High Court’s ruling that the Act violated the principle of secularism was set aside. The Supreme Court explained that such a challenge must show that the law violates specific provisions of the Constitution related to secularism, not merely rely on the Basic Structure doctrine.
- Article 28(3): The Court emphasized that students in minority institutions recognized by the State or funded publicly cannot be compelled to participate in religious instruction.
State’s Role and ‘State Interest’
- The Court reasoned that the State has a legitimate interest in maintaining educational standards even in minority institutions, aligning with the Constitutional balance between educational excellence and minority rights.
Implications of the Judgment
- The judgment reinforced the State’s ability to regulate religious and secular education in recognized minority institutions.
- It highlighted the fine balance between the State’s interest in education standards and the autonomy of minority communities to manage their institutions.
- The ruling on higher education provisions being unconstitutional could impact how other state education laws interact with central legislation on higher education.
CJI’s Remarks
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stressed that regulations that include secular content do not invalidate State laws, even if religious instruction is part of the curriculum. This ensures that minority rights are protected while maintaining educational standards.
Takeaway on Basic Structure Doctrine
- The Court pointed out that while laws can be tested against constitutional provisions, challenging a statute solely on the basis of violating the Basic Structure without pointing to a specific constitutional violation is insufficient.
- The judgment reinforces the need for precise constitutional arguments when challenging legislation.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act of 2004 balanced the regulation of educational standards with the rights of minority communities.
- It confirmed that while minority institutions have the right to self-administration, the State can impose reasonable regulations to ensure educational excellence without infringing on constitutional rights.
| CARE MCQ | UPSC PYQ |
| Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004:
1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, except for provisions allowing the awarding of higher education degrees like Kamil and Fazil. 2. The Allahabad High Court declared the Act unconstitutional, citing a violation of secularism and the right to quality education under Article 21A. 3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Act did not violate the principles of secularism, as education in madrasas primarily serves an educational, not religious, purpose. 4. The Court ruled that madrasas were outside the legislative competence of the State government for granting higher education degrees. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (A) 1 and 2 only |
Q. Consider the following organizations/bodies in India: (2023)
How many of the above constitutional bodies? (a) Only one Ans: A
|
| Answer 3– D
Explanation – · Statement 1 is Correct. The Supreme Court upheld the overall validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, but struck down the provisions allowing the Board to award higher education degrees like Kamil (undergraduate) and Fazil (postgraduate). The Court ruled that granting such degrees violated the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, as it contravened the UGC Act, which regulates degree-awarding powers. · Statement 2 is Incorrect. While the Allahabad High Court initially held doubts about the constitutional validity of the Act, it did not declare the entire Act unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that the provisions of the Act violated the principles of secularism, particularly because it involved religious education, and undermined the state’s duty to provide quality education under Article 21A. However, this judgment was later overruled by the Supreme Court, which clarified that the Act did not violate secularism and that it was within the legislative competence of the state. · Statement 3 is Correct. The Supreme Court dismissed the High Court’s finding that the Act violated secularism. It emphasized that the primary purpose of education in madrasas is education, and the fact that religious instruction is part of the curriculum does not necessarily push it outside the legislative competence of the State. The Court balanced the rights of religious minorities to manage their educational institutions (Article 30) with the obligation to provide quality education (Article 21A). · Statement 4 is Correct. The Court did rule that the State government did not have the power to grant higher educational degrees like Kamil and Fazil. These degrees were deemed to fall under the jurisdiction of the UGC, which regulates degree-awarding bodies under the UGC Act, 1956. Thus, only recognized universities can award such degrees, not madrasas or other educational boards not recognized by the UGC. · Therefore, option D is the correct answer. |
At WTO, India, Pak join hands on public stocking of grains
Source: Times of India
UPSC Relevance: GS2 International Relations
Context: WTO, public stocking of grains
Why in News
- India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have come together to demand that concerns over support for public stockholding of foodgrains.
Key Findings
- India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have jointly raised concerns over the way certain agricultural trade issues are being handled within the World Trade Organization (WTO).
- The crux of the matter is their opposition to the WTO’s use of a “facilitator-driven” approach for negotiations related to agricultural issues, particularly public stockholding for food security and special safeguard measures (SSMs).
Public Stockholding of Foodgrains
- Public stockholding refers to the stockpiling of foodgrains (like rice and wheat) by governments, which is crucial for ensuring food security in many developing countries. Governments often procure food grains at minimum support prices (MSP) to protect farmers’ income and ensure adequate supply for the population, especially in times of crisis.
- India, and several other developing countries, have been pushing for permanent solutions to the issue of public stockholding at the WTO. They argue that these stocks are essential for food security and poverty alleviation in their countries.
- However, these public stockholding programs often clash with global trade rules, especially those under the WTO framework, which sets limits on government subsidies and support to agriculture to ensure a level playing field in international trade.
- The main concern for India and similar nations is that global trade rules under the WTO might restrict their ability to continue purchasing and storing foodgrains at MSP, which they argue is necessary for food security and poverty reduction.
Special Safeguard Measures (SSM)
- Special safeguard measures (SSMs) are a mechanism that allows countries to impose temporary tariffs or other trade restrictions on agricultural imports in cases where there is a surge in imports, or if prices fall below a certain level, threatening domestic production.
- This measure aims to protect farmers from sudden shocks in the global market.
- Developing countries, including India, have been advocating for stronger SSMs to shield their farmers from fluctuations in global prices and surges in cheap agricultural imports that could destabilize local agriculture and harm food security.
Facilitator-Driven Approach
- The WTO has a system of committees where member countries negotiate and discuss issues.
- These committees, including the Committee on Agriculture, are formal platforms for countries to debate and make decisions based on the consensus of all members.
- However, the WTO Secretariat has proposed a facilitator-driven approach, where an informal group of countries (called the “facilitators”) would take charge of building consensus around contentious issues, and then bring their conclusions to the larger membership.
- The concern expressed by India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka is that this facilitator-driven process undermines the official, consensus-based committee process and could sideline the interests of developing countries.
- Essentially, in this informal approach, a small group of countries or a facilitator might push a solution without the full involvement or agreement of all members, particularly those from developing countries who may not have been consulted sufficiently.
WTO Negotiations and Stalemate
- India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, along with other developing countries, have been demanding for more than a decade that the issue of public stockholding and SSMs be addressed in a manner that considers their developmental needs.
- They argue that these issues are critical for the food security of poor countries and must not be swept under the carpet in favor of a solution that primarily serves the interests of wealthier nations.
- However, countries like the United States, the European Union, Canada, and Australia have been blocking a solution, arguing that public stockholding programs and SSMs go against global trade principles.
- They believe these measures distort trade by providing unfair subsidies and protecting inefficient farming practices.
- This divide is particularly significant as it reflects the broader North-South divide in global trade negotiations, where developed countries generally advocate for free-market principles and trade liberalization, while developing countries seek more flexibility for protecting their farmers and ensuring food security.
WTO Heads of Delegations Meeting
- The communication issued by India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka also highlights that when heads of delegations from WTO member nations met recently, there was no consensus on proceeding with the facilitator-driven approach.
- In fact, there were no broad agreements reached at the trade negotiations committee meeting either.
- This lack of consensus suggests that the proposal to adopt the facilitator-driven approach is being pushed without proper agreement or support from a majority of the WTO members.
- The African Group, which has been supportive of developing countries’ stance on food security and agricultural protections, and countries like Indonesia, have not yet signed off on the proposed facilitator-driven process.
- This signals that these countries are concerned about the disempowerment of developing countries in the decision-making process.
Concerns of India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka
- India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are vocal in their opposition to the current approach because they believe it could undermine the interests of developing countries, particularly in relation to food security and agricultural protection.
- They argue that this issue should be addressed in the formal WTO Committee on Agriculture through established negotiation processes, where all members are involved, rather than through informal groups that may favor the interests of wealthier countries.
- By making this joint communication, these countries are also signaling that there is no clear consensus on the issue, and any decisions based on an assumed consensus would not reflect the collective agreement of all member countries.
- They are urging the WTO to respect the voices of developing countries and continue negotiations through proper channels to protect their agricultural interests.
Conclusion:
- The public stockholding of foodgrains and special safeguard measures (SSMs) are critical issues for developing countries like India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, which rely on these mechanisms for food security and protection from cheap agricultural imports.
- The current facilitator-driven approach proposed by the WTO Secretariat is seen as undermining these countries’ interests by potentially bypassing the consensus-based approach in formal WTO committees.
- India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are urging the WTO to prioritize formal negotiations and collective decision-making through the Committee on Agriculture, rather than adopting an informal process that might serve the interests of a few wealthier countries.
| CARE MCQ | UPSC PYQ |
| Q4. Consider the following statements regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations on agricultural issues:
1. India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have jointly demanded that the issue of public stockholding for food security and special safeguard measures (SSMs) be addressed through the formal Committee on Agriculture at the WTO. 2. The WTO Secretariat has proposed a facilitator-driven approach, where informal groups build consensus on contentious issues instead of full member participation. 3. The US, European Union, Canada, and Australia are supportive of India’s demand for greater flexibility in the public stockholding issue and SSMs. 4. The African Group, along with countries like Indonesia, has supported the facilitator-driven approach to resolve the issue of agricultural trade. Which of the above statements are correct? (A) 1 and 2 only |
Q. The terms ‘Agreement on Agriculture’, ‘Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ and ‘Peace Clause’ appear in the news frequently in the context of the affairs of the (2015)
(a) Food and Agriculture Organization (b) United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (c) World Trade Organization (d) United Nations Environment Programme Ans: (c)
|
| Answer 4- A
Explanation · Statement 1 is correct: India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have raised concerns that the issues of public stockholding and SSMs should be addressed through the formal Committee on Agriculture in the WTO, instead of the proposed facilitator-driven approach. · Statement 2 is correct: The WTO Secretariat proposed the facilitator-driven approach, where informal groups are created to build consensus on issues, rather than relying solely on formal discussions in the committee. · Statement 3 is incorrect: The US, the European Union, Canada, and Australia have actually been blocking the solution to the public stockholding and SSMs issues, and have not supported India’s stance on these issues. · Statement 4 is incorrect: The African Group and countries like Indonesia have not supported the facilitator-driven approach as of now. They are wary of its implications for developing countries’ interests in agricultural protection and food security. · Therefore, option A is the correct answer. |
India to Launch European Union’s Solar Observatory Satellite Proba-3
Source: The Hindu
UPSC Syllabus Relevance: GS3- Science and Technology
Context: Proba-3 Space Satellite
Why in News
- Union Minister announced recently that India is set to launch the European Union’s Proba-3 Space Satellite by in the first week of December.
What is Proba-3’s mission?
- Led by: the European Space Agency (ESA)
- Launch vehicle: PSLV-XL rocket
- What is it? World’s first precision formation flying mission.
- Aim: To form a 144-m long solar coronagraph, which will create an artificial eclipse, revealing new views of the Sun’s faint corona.
- Components: Proba-3 consists of two small satellites — a Coronagraph spacecraft and a solar-disc-shaped Occulter spacecraft.
- A coronagraph is an instrument that will allow scientists to study the Sun’s elusive corona with unprecedented proximity and detail.
- By flying in tight formation about 150 metres apart, the Occulter will precisely cast its shadow onto the Coronagraph’s telescope, blocking the Sun’s direct light.
- This will allow the Coronagraph to image the faint solar corona in visible, ultraviolet and polarised light for many hours at a time.
Proba-3 Space Satellite Launch:
- India is set to launch the Proba-3 satellite in early December.
- This satellite, aimed at observing the Sun, marks the third such collaboration between India and the EU, following previous missions with Proba-1 and Proba-2.
- The mission will enhance scientific understanding of solar corona dynamics and reinforces India’s role as a trusted partner in international space ventures.
Reforms in India’s Space Sector:
- The Indian space sector has undergone rapid transformation due to policy reforms that encourage private participation and international collaboration.
- This shift has facilitated the growth of over 300 space startups in India, fueling innovation and creating jobs.
- These reforms have also helped reverse the brain drain by attracting Indian talent back from international space agencies.
Technological Integration:
- The space sector is not only contributing to scientific exploration but is also playing a critical role in practical applications across various sectors in India.
- Satellites are now supporting urban planning, agriculture, and groundwater monitoring, among other sectors, making space technology integral to infrastructure development and daily life.
EU-India Space Cooperation:
- The growing space collaboration between India and the EU, with a focus on Earth observation, training, and space security.
- India’s involvement in the EU’s Copernicus Earth observation program is highlighted as an example of successful cooperation, with further expansion of partnerships expected in the coming years.
India’s Future Space Ambitions:
- India has ambitious goals for the future, including the Gaganyaan human spaceflight mission, a potential lunar landing by 2040, and the establishment of an Indian space station by 2035.
- There are also plans for space tourism by 2040, indicating India’s commitment to advancing its space capabilities and engaging with both domestic and international entities in space exploration.
Private Sector and Startups:
- The rise of space startups in India are now contributing to various space projects, which further establishes India as a growing space power.
- The rapid expansion of the startup ecosystem in space technology is seen as a sign of India’s increasing technological capability.
Conclusion
- India’s space program is rapidly evolving, with international collaborations, especially with the EU, playing a central role.
- The country is poised to become a global leader in space exploration, with significant achievements in satellite missions, a thriving space startup ecosystem, and ambitious future missions like Gaganyaan and a potential space station.
- These developments reflect India’s increasing technological prowess and its expanding influence in global space research and exploration.
| CARE MCQ | UPSC PYQ |
Q5. Consider the following statements regarding the Proba-3 mission:
Which of the above statements is/are correct? A) 1 and 2 only |
Q. India is an important member of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor’. If this experiment succeeds, what is the immediate advantage for India? 2016
a) It can use thorium in place of uranium for power generation b) It can attain a global role in satellite navigation c) It can drastically improve the efficiency of its fission reactors in power generation d) It can build fusion reactors for power generation Ans: d
|
| Answer 5-A
Explanation · Statement 1 is correct: Proba-3 is designed to observe the Sun and study solar corona dynamics, which is crucial for understanding solar activities and their impact on space weather. · Statement 2 is correct: This mission marks the third collaboration between India and the European Union in space, with earlier missions involving Proba-1 and Proba-2 satellites. · Statement 3 is incorrect: The Proba-3 mission is not focused on Earth observation alone; it is specifically aimed at solar observation, making Statement 3 incorrect. · Therefore, option A is the correct answer. |
Bob Khathing Museum of Valour inaugurated: Who was he, his role in integrating Tawang into India
Source: Indian Express
UPSC Syllabus Relevance: GS1-Art and Culture
Context: Major Ralengnao ‘Bob’ Khathing Museum of Valour
Why in news
- Defence Minister inaugurated the Major Ralengnao ‘Bob’ Khathing Museum of Valour at Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.
Overview
- Inauguration of the Museum and Statue Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the Major Ralengnao ‘Bob’ Khathing Museum of Valour at Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh on October 31, coinciding with National Unity Day.
- Singh also unveiled a statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel during the virtual event.
- The museum honors Bob Khathing’s significant contributions to India’s defense and administration, particularly his role in the Tawang expedition.
Bob Khathing’s Tawang Expedition
- The 1951 Expedition to Tawang In 1951, Bob Khathing, a member of the Indian Frontier Administrative Service, was assigned the task of occupying Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.
- At the time, there were concerns about the Chinese advancing towards Tibet, potentially altering the boundary with India.
- Khathing embarked on the expedition on January 17, 1951, from Assam’s Charduar Camp, leading Assam Rifles troops through challenging terrain and adverse weather.
- After reaching Tawang, he successfully integrated the area into India by hoisting the national flag on February 14, 1951, and establishing an administrative setup.
- Khathing also earned the trust of the local population through his interactions with the Gaon Buras (village elders).
Strategic Importance of the Expedition
- Historian Claud Arpi highlighted that Bob Khathing’s timely action to occupy Tawang prevented potential conflict as the Chinese Liberation Army reached Lhasa later that year, underlining the critical importance of his mission.
Who Was Bob Khathing?
- Early Life and Education Bob Khathing was born on February 28, 1912, in Ukhrul district, Manipur, and belonged to the Tangkhul Naga tribe.
- He received his early education in Imphal and Shillong and later became a school headmaster.
- Khathing’s contribution to education and his efforts in founding schools in Assam added to his legacy as an educator and leader.
Military Service and Recognition
- Khathing joined the Indian Army in 1939 during World War II, initially gaining recognition for his contributions in galvanizing Naga support against the Japanese in Burma and India.
- He was awarded the Member of the British Empire (MBE) and the Military Cross (MC) for his bravery and leadership during the war.
- He served with the 9/11 Hyderabad Regiment and later the Assam Regiment, contributing significantly to operations aimed at disrupting Japanese forces along the Burma-India Road.
Notable Role in World War II
- During the war, Khathing was a key advisor in the formation of SANCOL, a force tasked with countering Japanese troops in the region.
- His efforts were instrumental in the success of guerrilla operations, and he earned admiration for organizing supply chains and coordinating information from local villagers.
Post-War Career and Contributions
- Post-War Leadership After World War II, Khathing was demobilized and joined the interim government of Manipur.
- In 1949, following Manipur’s merger with India, he joined the Assam Rifles and served with distinction. Khathing’s career took a notable turn when he joined the Indian Frontier Administrative Service in 1951.
- He went on to serve in various key administrative roles, including Deputy Commissioner of Mokokchung (Nagaland), Development Commissioner in Sikkim, and Chief Secretary of Nagaland.
Diplomatic Career and Legacy
- Khathing’s diplomatic career culminated in his appointment as India’s ambassador to Burma in 1975, possibly making him the first person of tribal origin to hold such a position in independent India.
- He passed away on January 12, 1990, leaving behind a legacy of service to the nation in both military and administrative capacities.
Conclusion
- Bob Khathing’s life and work, particularly his leadership in the Tawang expedition, reflect his invaluable contribution to India’s integration, security, and development.
- The inauguration of the Bob Khathing Museum of Valour and the statue of Sardar Patel in Tawang serve as fitting tributes to his legacy, honoring his role in safeguarding the nation’s borders and promoting unity in the northeast.
| CARE MCQ | UPSC PYQ |
Q6. Consider the following statements regarding Major Ralengnao ‘Bob’ Khathing:
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? A) 1 and 2 only |
Q. The Prime Minister recently inaugurated the new Circuit House near Somnath Temple Veraval. Which of the following statements are correct regarding Somnath Temple? (2022)
Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1,2 and 3 Answer: (a)
|
| Answer 6- A
Explanation · Statement 1 is correct: Major Ralengnao ‘Bob’ Khathing led the 1951 expedition to Tawang, which was an important part of India’s efforts to integrate the region into the Indian Union. He was tasked with securing the area and formally bringing Tawang under Indian administration by hoisting the Indian flag on February 14, 1951. · Statement 2 is correct: Bob Khathing was awarded the Military Cross (MC) for his exceptional bravery and leadership during the Second World War, particularly for his role in mobilizing local support against Japanese forces in Burma and India. · Statement 3 is incorrect: While Bob Khathing did serve as India’s Ambassador to Burma in 1975, there is no official evidence to support that he was the “first tribal person” appointed as an ambassador. However, he was certainly a significant figure, especially for his tribal background and his notable contributions to the integration of northeastern regions. · Statement 4 is Incorrect: Bob Khathing was never appointed as the Governor of Assam. After his military service, he served in various administrative capacities, including as the Deputy Commissioner of Mokokchung (Nagaland), Development Commissioner in Sikkim, and Chief Secretary of Nagaland, but not as the Governor of Assam. · Therefore, option A is the correct answer. |