30 July 2019: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

A. GS1 Related

Context:

• Opposition MPs in the Lok Sabha have expressed deep reservations about the Centre’s decision to introduce the Dam Safety Bill, 2019.
• It is asserted that the legislation, which is ostensibly aimed at providing uniform safety measures across the country, would undermine the powers of State governments since water is a State subject.

Details:

• The Dam Safety Bill, aimed at developing uniform safety procedures for all dams across the country, has been introduced in the Lok Sabha for the third time.
• It was first introduced in Parliament in August 2010 and was referred to a standing committee, which submitted its report in June 2011.
• After this, attempts to pass the Bill in the 15th and 16th Lok Sabhas failed due to opposition from the States.

What does the Bill say?

• The Bill provides for surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of dams to prevent disasters, and institutional mechanisms to ensure safety.
• It is applicable to all dams across the country which are over 10 metres in height, subject to specific design and structural conditions.
• The Bill enables the setting up of a National Committee on Dam Safety (NCDS) to formulate policies and regulations regarding dam safety standards and to analyse causes of major dam failures to suggest changes in safety practices.
• To implement these policies, a National Dam Safety Authority will be set up.
• At the State level, the Bill provides for the constitution of a State Dam Safety Organisation to take care of its dams, and a State Committee on Dam Safety to review its work, among other things.

Why are the States against it?

• The Bill previously failed to be passed in Lok Sabha due to opposition from numerous States.
• Their objections to the Bill are two-fold, one of which is that since ‘water’ comes under the State list, it is an unconstitutional move aimed at taking control of their dams.
• Tamil Nadu, one of the strongest critics of the Bill through the years, opposes it because under its provisions, access and information on four of its dams, including the conflict-ridden Mullaiperiyar, would have to be shared with Kerala, where they are located.
• Many States, including Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha, have opposed the Bill because they say it encroaches upon the sovereignty of States to manage their dams, and violates the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
• They see it as an attempt by the Centre to consolidate power in the guise of safety concerns.
• Kerala MP  also pointed out a conflict of interest in the Bill — the provision to have a representative of the Central Water Commission as a member of the NCDS (a regulatory body) would mean that CWC will function as both an advisor and regulator, which is impermissible under the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.
• Tamil Nadu’s main concern stems from Section 23(1) of the Bill, according to which if the dams of one State fall under the territories of another, then the National Dam Safety Authority will perform the role of State Dam Safety Organisation, thus eliminating potential causes for inter-State conflicts.
• This clause is particularly worrisome for the State which has fours dams — the Mullaperiyar, Parambikulam, Thunakkadavu and Peruvaripallam — that are owned by it, but are situated in neighbouring Kerala.
• Currently, the rights on these dams are governed by pre-existing long-term agreements among the States.
• The provisions in the Bill implies that the dam-owning State would not have rights over the safety and maintenance of the dam located in another State.

Why is the Union government introducing the Bill now?

• There are 5,344 large dams in India, of which around 293 are more than 100 years old and 1,041 are 50 to 100 years old.
• Nearly 92% of these dams are on inter-State rivers, and accidents at many of them have spurred concerns as to the frequency and efficiency of their maintenance,  and Article 246 and 56 empowers the Centre to intervene.
  • For instance, on July 3, 2019, 23 people were feared dead after the Tiware dam in Ratnagiri in Maharashtra’s Konkan region breached.
  • Local elected representatives said that government had neglected their pleas for repair of the dam, built 14 years ago, even though they had complained that cracks had been spotted in the structure.
  • A jurisdiction issue regarding which tehsil the Tiware dam falls in led to both Chiplun and Dapoli tehsil offices ignoring the villagers’ petition.
• Issues like this have added fuel to the government’s argument for the establishment of a national authority to tackle the lack of legal and institutional safeguards in the country.

C. GS3 Related

Category: ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY

1. India has nearly 3,000 tigers, up by a third from 2014 count

Context:

The rasagola, a popular dessert of Odisha, has received the geographical indication tag from the Registrar of Geographical Indication after years of controversy around the sweet.

What was the controversy?

• Both Odisha and West Bengal have been contesting the origin of the rasagola.
• In November 2017, West Bengal was granted the GI tag for its own ‘Banglara Rasgulla’  which led people to erroneously believe that the GI Registry recognised Bengal as its place of origin, which is factually incorrect.
• Bengalis claim that the Rasgulla was invented in the 19th century by Nobin Chandra Das at his Bagbazar residence in Kolkata, while Odias believe that the tradition of Niladri Bije where Rasgulla is offered started in the 12th century.
• In 2015, the Odisha government had formed three committees to identify the origin of the Rasgulla and study its background
• Historical records submitted say the ‘Odisha Rasagola’ is associated with world famous Puri Jagannath Temple.
• The GI tag for Bengal and Odisha Rasagullas recognise two distinct versions of the sweet.

Details:

• The Odisha government had filed for geographical recognition of the ‘Odishara Rasagulla’ with the GI Registry in Chennai last year.
  • According to the application submitted to the Registrar of GI, ‘Odisha Rasagola’ is a sweet from the state of Odisha made of chhena (cottage cheese) cooked in sugar syrup, which is very soft to feel, is juicy and non- chewy in consistency and can be swallowed without teeth pressure.
  • Colour development of the ‘Odisha Rasagola’ is very specific, where without addition of external colour, various intensely-coloured rasagolas are prepared using the principle of caramelisation of sugar with specific methods of preparation, the application said.
  • The area of production of Odisha Rasagola has been shown all 30 districts.
• The sweet has been registered under GI of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 2019 as ‘Odisha Rasagola’.
• The GI number 612 has been registered in favour of the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Limited (OSIC Limited), a government of Odisha undertaking and Utkal Mistanna Byabasayee Samiti, a traders’ organisation, in the foodstuff category.
• The first Odia product to receive a GI tag was Kandhamal Haldi, a type of turmeric produced by tribal farmers in the state’s Kandhamal district.

What is Geographical Indication Tag?

• A geographical indication (GI) is symbol used on products that have a particular geographical origin and own qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin.
• In order to function as a GI, a sign must recognize an item as starting in a given place. A geographical indication right empowers those who have the right to use the sign to prohibit its use by a third party whose product does not imitate to the applicable standards.
• Geographical Indications are covered as a component of intellectual property rights (IPRs) under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
• At the International level, GI is governed by World Trade Organisation’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
• In India, Geographical Indications registration is administered by the Geographical Indications of goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 which came into force with effect from September 2003. The first product in India to be accorded with GI tag was Darjeeling tea in the year 2004-05.

Know more about Geographical Indication

Significance of Geographical Indication:

• The purpose of a geographical indication may act as admittance that the product possesses certain attributes, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain prominence due to its geographical origin.
• However, it must be noted that a protected geographical indication does not permit the holder to forbid someone from making a product using the same approaches as those set out in the standards for that indication.

Context:

The Rajya Sabha passed an amended version of the three-year-old Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Details:

• The amendments seek to end ambiguity and streamline the resolution process further.
• The Bill seeks to amend seven sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
• It also gives homebuyers the status of a creditor giving them a say in the resolution in case a housing project goes bust.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016:

• The Code provides a time-bound process for resolving insolvency in companies and among individuals.
  • Insolvency is a situation where individuals or companies are unable to repay their outstanding debt.

Read more about : Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) amendment bill, 2019:

• Resolution plan: The Code provides that the resolution plan must ensure that the operational creditors receive an amount which should not be lesser than the amount they would receive in case of liquidation.
  • The Bill amends this to provide that the amounts to be paid to the operational creditor should be the higher of: (i) amounts receivable under liquidation, and (ii) the amount receivable under a resolution plan, if such amounts were distributed under the same order of priority (as for liquidation).  For example, if the default were for Rs 2,000 crore and the resolution professional recovered Rs 1600 crore, the operational creditor must at least get an amount which they would have received if Rs 1600 crore have been obtained through liquidation proceeds.
  • Further, the Bill states that this provision would also apply to insolvency processes: (i) that have not been approved or rejected by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), (ii) that have been appealed to the National Company Appellate Tribunal or Supreme Court, and (iii) where legal proceedings have been initiated in any court against the decision of the NCLT.
• Initiation of resolution process: As per the Code, the NCLT must determine the existence of default within 14 days of receiving a resolution application.  Based on its finding, NCLT may accept or reject the application.
  • The Bill states that in case the NCLT does not find the existence of default and has not passed an order within 14 days, it must record its reasons in writing.
• Time-limit for resolution process: The Code states that the insolvency resolution process must be completed within 180 days, extendable by a period of up to 90 days.
  • The Bill adds that the resolution process must be completed within 330 days.  This includes time for any extension granted and the time taken in legal proceedings in relation to the process.
  • On the enactment of the Bill, if any case is pending for over 330 days, the Bill states it must be resolved within 90 days.
• Representative of financial creditors: The Code specifies that, in certain cases, such as when the debt is owed to a class of creditors beyond a specified number, the financial creditors will be represented on the committee of creditors by an authorised representative. These representatives will vote on behalf of the financial creditors as per instructions received from them.
  • The Bill states that such representative will vote on the basis of the decision taken by a majority of the voting share of the creditors that they represent.
• Indemnity to successful bidders under IBC: Under the code, loan defaulting companies are auctioned and the successful bidder, called resolution applicant, takes over such firms after paying an amount they had bid for.
  • As per the amendments, the government would not initiate any criminal proceedings against those who buy out a bankrupt company and no tax claim would be raised against them after implementation of a resolution plan.
  • The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2019 makes it binding on the government that it will not raise any further claim after resolution plan is approved.
  • However, criminal matters would continue to be pursued against individuals of the loan-defaulting companies.

Context:

Rajya Sabha has passed the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Bill, 2019, which seeks to put in place a mechanism by which poor depositors will get back their hard-earned money.

Details:

• The Lok Sabha had passed the bill on July 24, 2019.
• The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Bill, 2019 replaced the ordinance on the same.
• Currently, nine regulators oversee and regulate various deposit-taking schemes. These include: (i) the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), (ii) the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), (iii) the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and (iv) state and union territory governments.
  • RBI regulates deposits accepted by non-banking financial companies
  • SEBI regulates mutual funds
  • State and union territory governments regulate chit funds, among others.
  • All deposit-taking schemes are required to be registered with the relevant regulator.
• The recommendations include a new central law to tackle unregulated deposit schemes.

Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Bill, 2019:

• Unregulated deposit scheme: The Bill bans unregulated deposit schemes.  A deposit-taking scheme is defined as unregulated if it is taken for a business purpose and is not registered with the regulators listed in the Bill.
• Deposit taker: The Bill defines deposit takers as an individual, a group of individuals, or a company who asks for (solicits), or receives deposits.  Banks and entities incorporated under any other law are not included as deposit takers.
• Competent Authority: The Bill provides for the appointment of one or more government officers, not below the rank of Secretary to the state or central government, as the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority will have powers similar to those vested in a civil court.
• Designated Courts: The Bill provides for the constitution of one or more Designated Courts in specified areas.  This Court will be headed by a judge not below the rank of a district and sessions judge, or additional district and sessions judge.
• Central database: The Bill provides for the central government to designate an authority to create an online central database for information on deposit takers.  All deposit takers will be required to inform the database authority about their business.  The Competent Authority will be required to share all information on unregulated deposits with the authority.
• Offences and penalties: The Bill defines three types of offences, and penalties related to them.  These offences are: (i) running (advertising, promoting, operating or accepting money for) unregulated deposit schemes, (ii) fraudulently defaulting on regulated deposit schemes, and (iii) wrongfully inducing depositors to invest in unregulated deposit schemes by willingly falsifying facts. Further, repeated offenders under the Bill will be punishable with imprisonment between five to 10 years, along with a fine ranging from Rs 10 lakh to five crore rupees.

D. GS4 Related

E. Editorials

The editorial suggests why India and Pakistan should peacefully settle the Kashmir issue through bilateral dialogue.

Background:

• Recently, Donald Trump offered to be the “mediator” between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, claiming that PM Narendra Modi had sought his help in the matter.  Mr. Trump made the statement during Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s visit to the United States.
• However, India’s External Affairs Minister denied Trump’s claims and made it clear that no such request has been made by the Prime Minister of India. It was also added that
  • Any engagement with Pakistan would require an end to cross border terrorism.
  • The Shimla Agreement & the Lahore Declaration provide the basis to resolve all issues between India & Pakistan bilaterally.

Why is third party mediation not a good idea?

• Indian establishment’s traditional logic, third party mediation in Jammu and Kashmir might not be a useful idea simply because third parties typically come with their own agenda.
• It might do more harm than good in an age of hypernationalism and frenzied media attention on anything to do with Kashmir.
• In a context where bilateral diplomacy on Jammu and Kashmir itself comes under intense scrutiny from domestic political forces, third party mediation is almost impossible to even consider. More so, past instances of third party mediation have had mixed results.

India’s distaste for third part mediation:

• Much of the overt third party intervention in Kashmir ended with the Simla agreement of 1972 which stated, at New Delhi’s insistence, that Kashmir will be a bilateral issue thereby ending the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan’s (UNMOGIP’s) peacekeeping work in Kashmir, de facto, if not de jure.
• The current UNMOGIP involvement in Kashmir is neither encouraged nor recognised by India, something Pakistan continues to do.
• New Delhi believes that its UN experience vis-à-vis Kashmir has been an unpleasant one.
• Then there is India’s status-linked indifference to external opinion that comes with being a major economy and military power whose deep pockets and growing markets are of significance to those potentially desirous of talking about Kashmir.

Crisis management v/s Conflict Resolution:

• India has consistently, and successfully, blocked all third party mediation in Kashmir, except when it wants to let others play a role. And if anyone indeed makes a reference to Kashmir which New Delhi disagrees with, it either ignores it or strongly disapproves of it.
• That is, in practice, there has historically been a great deal of third party attention on the larger Kashmir question some of which has been encouraged by India (Only for Crisis Management i.e, mediation during an ongoing crisis and NOT conflict resolution that seeks to resolve the political or root causes of a conflict.
  • Kargil and post-Pulwama military stand-off are examples when India accepted third party mediation
  • While both these events were directly linked to Kashmir, mediation by the third party did not seek to address anything beyond the immediate diffusion of tensions.
  • Then there are other instances where third party crisis mediation took place even though they had no direct links to Kashmir such as the post-26/11 terror attacks.

Issues in seeking third party intervention for Crisis management:

• The issue in such situation is that even when the focus is on crisis management, the larger conflict, which has given rise to the crisis comes into focus and become part of the conversations between the mediator and the conflicting parties.
• It is not easy to separate the two either during a crisis or when the conflict is crisis prone. This is precisely what seems to underlie the current American interest in Kashmir.
• More so, while New Delhi’s dislike to having third party discussions on Kashmir, especially on the human rights situation, it actively seeks third party attention on terror emanating from Pakistan as well as the latter’s sponsorship of violence in the Valley.
• While this might be a desirable distinction to New Delhi’s mind, it is not easy to get a third party to focus on one part of the problem and ignore the other Delhi’s efforts at getting other countries to condemn Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir while at the same time disparaging the reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in Kashmir is a difficult balance to maintain.

Impact of regional geopolitics:

• The unfolding developments in regional geopolitics could also have implications for third party interest in Kashmir.
• The U.S.’s desire for a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan, in which Pakistan is key, is already beginning to have an impact on the frosty relationship between Washington and Islamabad.
• Besides Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, the European capitals will also eventually start courting Pakistan.
• This will invariably increase, albeit marginally, the global focus on Kashmir either at Pakistan’s insistence or because third parties might see a link between Kashmir and regional instability.
• As a matter of fact, several people have in the past made a direct link between instability in Afghanistan and the Kashmir conflict. Such voices could potentially become sharper.
• More so, if the rising concerns about the Islamic State’s influence in Kashmir turn about to be not-so-misplaced, the heat on Kashmir is only going to increase.

Need for India-Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir Issue bilaterally:

• What further ensures third party involvement in Kashmir is the lack of a conflict resolution process between India and Pakistan.
• The less the two sides talk on Kashmir, the more there is are likely to be crisis situations between them which would invariably lead to more third party involvement in the whole Kashmir’s complex situation.
• By not resolving conflicts between themselves, India and Pakistan are effectively outsourcing crisis management, and thereby conflict resolution, albeit in a limited manner, to third parties.

2. Talks and terror: on Afghan peace talks

Q1. Consider the following statements:

Q2. Which of the following are not matched correctly?

Q3. Consider the following statements:

Q4. Consider the following statements: