LOVE JIHAD

Introduction

Love Jihad, also called Romeo Jihad, is defined as an activity

under which young Muslim boys and men are said to reportedly
target young girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for
conversion to Islam by feigning love.

The concept first rose to national attention in India in 2009, with

claims of widespread conversions in Kerala and Mangalore, but
claims have subsequently spread throughout India and beyond,
into Pakistan and the United Kingdom.

In September 2009, posters appeared in Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala under the name of right-wing group Shri Ram Sena
warning against "Love Jihad" and announced that in December,
the group would launch a nationwide "Save our daughters,
save India" campaign to combat "Love Jihad."

In October 2009, the Karnataka government announced its

intentions to counter "Love Jihad", which "appeared to be a
serious issue" and ordered a probe into the situation by the CID
to determine if an organised effort existed to convert these girls.

In November 2009, DGP of Kerala, Jacob Punnoose stated

there was no organisation whose members lured girls by
feigning love with the intention of converting.

With waves of publicity in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2014, the

allegations of Love Jihad in India have raised concerns in
various Hindu, Sikh and Christian organizations, while Muslim
organisations have denied the allegations.

The concept has remained a source of political contention and

social concern and is widely regarded as a conspiracy theory
by the Indian mainstream.
However, the Muslim organizations in Kerala called it a
malicious misinformation campaign and responded by claiming
that Hindus and Christians have fabricated these claims to
undermine the Muslim faith and community.

The controversial subject once again came into limelight when,

the Supreme Court on 16 August 2017 ordered a National
Investigation Agency (NIA) led probe into a case in which the
marriage of a Hindu woman to a Muslim man was annulled by
the Kerala High Court.

Details of the Case

This story is about a 24 year old Hindu girl called Hadiya, a

resident of Kottayam, Kerala, who was a student of BHMS in
Tamil Nadu. She had some difference of opinion with her
parents and decided not to return back to his native place.

Her father, Ashokan KM had filed a habeas corpus in Kerala

High Court after she left his house, as he felt that his daughter
was being brainwashed through a "well-oiled systematic
mechanism" for conversion and Islamic radicalisation.

Akhila alias Hadiya in her statement to the court said that she
got attracted to Islam after observing her roommates and
wanted to learn more about Islam. She further told the Court
that, she was well within her rights to choose a religion of her
choice.

She told the court again that she had taken up Islam on her
own free will and she wanted to continue to reside with
Sainaba, a social worker and did not want to go with her
parents.
In January 2016, on the habeas corpus, the court found that
she was not under any illegal confinement and allowed her to
reside at the place of her own choice.

Ashokan told the court that she had been influenced and
persuaded to convert to Islam. He held her friend and the
friend's father responsible for his daughter’s conversion to
Islam and he filed a writ petition in August 2016 stating that
there was a move to take his daughter out of the country.

All this was happening at the backdrop of 21 Kerala youth

missing and suspected to have joined ISIS. The court moved
her to a private hostel and told the police to ensure that she
didn't travel out of the country.

Akhila alias Hadiya was supposed to appear before the court

on 21 December 2016, when she informed that she had got
married to a Muslim, by the name of Shafin Jahan. It was
alleged that the woman was recruited by Islamic State's
mission in Syria and Jahan was only a stooge.

The Kerala High Court on 24 May 2017, while declaring the

marriage as "null and void", had described the case as an
instance of 'Love Jihad' and ordered the state police to conduct
probe into such cases. The court had observed that a woman
cannot be married off without the involvement of her parents.

Consequently, Ashokan, the father of Akhila (Hadiya), was

granted the custody of his daughter.

Meanwhile, Shafin Jahan moved the Supreme Court of India to

take back the custody of his legally wedded wife after the
Kerala High Court had annulled his marriage.

The Supreme Court on 16 August 2017 directed an NIA probe

under the supervision of a retired apex court judge, RV
Raveendran, into issues raised by Shafin Jahan whose
marriage had been annulled by the Kerala High Court that
described the case as an instance of 'Love Jihad'.

The court order came after the NIA, through additional solicitor
general Maninder Singh, claimed that preliminary findings
arrived at on the basis of Kerala police investigations, depicted
that some extremist outfits were converting Hindu girls to use
them later as recruits into organisations such as IS.

The counsel of Shafin Jahan vehemently opposed the NIA's

plea to peruse the investigation record of the case. A bench
comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud took serious note of this objectionand said that it
gathered the impression that "the petitioner (Jahan) does not
desire the correct and independent view of the controversy" be
brought before the court.

Further, the bench allowed Jahan to respond to the plea of the

National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking court's direction for
Kerala Police to allow it to have access to the investigation
records of the case.

The top court had said that it was entrusting the task to the
National Investigation Agency (NIA) as a neutral agency to get
a "whole picture" and ascertain whether the particular instance
was limited to a "small pocket" or was there "something wider"
to the issue.

Love Jihad – Truth or Hype

The rhetoric of ‘Love Jihad’ as a flourishing concept has been

in the news for nearly a decade now, but there have been no
reported incidents of forceful conversions.
Inter-religion conversions have been in vogue since time
immemorial. In the recent times such conversions have
happened more out of genuine attraction for the values of that
particular religion.

An unconfirmed intelligence report submitted to the Kerala

police chief last year revealed that at least two 'recognised'
religious conversion centres in Tharbiyathul Islam Sabha,
Kozhikode and Monunsthil Islam Sabha, Malappuram
converted as many as 5,793 people to Islam between 2011 and
2015. Conversions happening in other unrecognised centres in
the state could be much higher.

The report stated that almost half of those who converted to

Islam are women, and that the majority of these women (76%)
are below 35 years. Of those converted, 4,719 were Hindus
and the remaining 1,074 mostly Christian.

Identifying the Catalyst for Conversions

About a fifth of India's 1.27 billion people identify themselves as

belonging to faiths other than Hinduism.

The annals of history hold testimony to the fact that the

religious conversions were either done by the strong of the
subjugated or the oppressed volunteered to convert and join
the benevolent.

In a civilised society, it may be unthinkable to convert someone

by force and hence, the only means to attract someone from
another religion is by demonstrating the virtues of that religion.

The religion of a man who has gone without food for days is;
“Do Roti”.......the religion of a man who is homeless and is
shivering in the cold; is the warmth of a shelter......most
importantly, the religion of a man who has been denied dignity
and pride; is providing self-respect and acceptance.
Hence, the most plausible reason for someone to convert to
another religion is that he/ she is inspired by the values of that
religion which makes that person feel more secure.

However, in the recent times the polarised environment through

the length and breadth of the country is serving as a potent
catalyst for greater communal divide leading up to religious
conversions.

Remember, the Muzzafarpur riots were triggered by a reported

harassment of a Jatt Hindu girl by a Muslim boy. Ever since,
there have been numerous instances of hate crimes in different
parts of India.

The ‘Gau Rakshaks’, the goons of right wing organisations of

both religions backed by popularity hungry politicians, using the
indiscretion of our directionless youth as cannon fodder are
leaving no stone unturned to reduce this nation to a bleak
quagmire of hatred.

Though, no cases of forced conversion have come to light, the

rhetoric of ‘Love Jihad’ is just another means to stuff hatred into
the conscience and impressionable minds of the youth.

Conclusion

To my mind, rather than feeling insecure about it, it should

stroke the self-esteem of the guardian of that religion to
introspect and weed out the improprieties and make their
religion more acceptable and attractive.

Also, most of the incidents of inter-religion marriages occur due

to a ‘fatal’ attraction between the couple and it is given the
name of ‘Love Jihad’ to cover up helplessness of the parents.
I feel that in a diverse, multi-cultural society it should be an
accepted norm, if two like-minded people can become life
partners and are able to live happily ever after. I would say that
it is perhaps a good way to unite and bring about harmony in
our country.

Lastly, some food for thought, let’s assume for a moment that
‘Love Jihad’ was for real, can we hold the Muslims responsible
for it or the fragile faith of our daughters because of our inapt
upbringing behind their decision to convert.
 MALEGAON BLAST CASE
Introduction
Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit was finally granted bail by
Supreme Court on 21 August 2017, after being held in custody
for nearly 09 years, in the 2008 Malegaon blast case.

He was represented in the court by senior lawyer Harish Salve,

who argued that Col Purohit had been caught in a “political
crossfire” and had been languishing in jail for nine years without
even charges being framed against him. His case was also
being very vociferously represented by social activists like Col
RSN Singh to bring out the facts in the public domain.

The Honourable Supreme Court granted him bail, setting aside

the Bombay High Court order, which had earlier rejected his
bail plea on the recommendation of the National Investigation
Agency (NIA).

However, the NIA continues to maintain that there was enough

evidence of Purohit’s role in the blast in which seven people
were killed.

Lt Col Purohit has stated that he was carrying out legitimate

duty of collecting actionable data as part of the Intelligence
Corps by infiltrating into various terror organisations and that,
his superiors were constantly in the loop about his actions and
associations with Abhinav Bharat.

Chronology of the Malegaon Blasts Case

The Malegaon bombing case took place on 29 September

2008, when a series of blasts rocked the town of Malegaon in
Nasik district of Maharashtra.
Seven people were killed and more than hundred injured when
two bombs planted on a motorcycle exploded.

Initially, the Islamic radical group, Students Islamic Movement

of India (SIMI) was blamed for the blasts and nine arrests were
made of the alleged operatives of this banned organisation.

The case was initially investigated by Joint Commissioner of

Mumbai Anti Terror Squad (ATS) Hemant Karkare, who
became a martyr during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

The story took a turn around when the ATS filed a charge sheet
against 14 individuals (two more were declared absconders)
belonging to the Hindu right wing organisation Abhinav Bharat
on 20 January 2009.

Amongst those who were arrested under the Maharashtra

Control of Organised Crime (MCOCA) Act included, Lt Col
Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Pragya Singh Thakur, Shivnarayan
Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu, Ramesh Upadhya, Sameer Kulkarni,
Ajay, Rakesh Dhawade, Jagdish Mhatre, Sudhakar Dwivedi,
Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Pravin Takalki.

Investigations by National Investigation Agency (NIA)

The case was later handed over by the ATS to the National
Investigation Agency (NIA) on 13 April 2011.

The NIA, after due investigation submitted its charge sheet on

13 May 2016.

At the conclusion of its investigations, the NIA did not find

sufficient evidence against Sadhvi Pragya and five others and
stated that “the prosecution against them is not maintainable.”
Further, in its charge sheet, the NIA highlighted that the
Maharashtra ATS used torture to extract confessional
statements from some accused.

NIA dropped all charges against all the above said six
individuals and also gave up the charges under the stringent
MCOCA law against the remaining 10 accused, including Lt Col
Prasad Shrikant Purohit.

The NIA recommended that Lt Col Purohit and others be

charged for conspiracy under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA) or UAPA rather than under the
MCOCA.

Ramchandra Kalsangre and Sandeep Dange, the absconding

accused in the Malegaon 2008 blast case, were described in
the investigation report by the NIA as members of banned
terror group Babbar Khalsa International.

On 25 April 2016 Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act

court found that the ATS had falsely implicated the nine
Muslim, said to be SIMI members, who had been arrested by
the ATS immediately after the blast. All the nine were ordered
to be discharged from custody forthwith.

Role of Lt Col Srikant Purohit in the Conspiracy

The NIA investigation has revealed that Lt Col Purohit, in spite

of being a serving officer of the Indian Armed Forces and
against the service rules, floated an organisation called
Abhinav Bharat in 2006.

He organised several meetings with the other accused and had

collected money for procuring weapons and explosives for their
unlawful activities.
The NIA alleged that on January 25-26 that year "in a secret
meeting held at Faridabad, Col Purohit proposed for a separate
Constitution for Hindu Rashtra with separate saffron flag."

Further, as per the NIA investigations, he read over the

Constitution of Abhinav Bharat which he had prepared,
discussed about the formation of central Hindu government
(Aryawrat) against the Indian government and put forth the idea
of forming this government in exile in Israel and Thailand."

As investigated by the ATS, the explosive (RDX) that was

recovered from the house of co-accused, Sudhakar Chaturvedi
was said to have been procured by Purohit from J&K, and was
accounted for by him by showing its controlled destruction on
records.

It was Aseemanand's confession which had revealed the hand

of Hindutva extremists behind not just the Samjhauta bombing,
but also the blasts in Malegaon, Ajmer, and at Hyderabad's
Mecca Masjid. And it was Aseemanand who had revealed that
Purohit was involved in these terrorist acts.

Hence, Purohit was also an accused in the ATS charge sheet

for the Samjhauta blast case in which 68 people died in 2007.
However, he was given a clean chit by the NIA in April 2016 as
no evidence could be found linking him to the train blast.

Was Lt Col Purohit Actually Involved?

Lt Col Purohit was commissioned into the 15 Maratha Light

Infantry Battalion in 1994.

He actively engaged in counter-terrorism operations, while on

deputation with Rashtriya Rifles in the Uri sector of Jammu and
Kashmir from 2002 to 2005. There, he suffered a serious knee
injury and his knee had to be reconstructed, rendering him unfit
for service in field formations.
Consequently, he was shifted to the Intelligence Corps and
assigned the duty of an Intelligence Officer at Devlali in Nashik
district as part of the Southern Command Liaison Unit, Pune.

Purohit, being a very proactive and diligent officer had worked

hard to develop an effective intelligence network and was
successful in putting together useful information about the
infamous terror group, SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of
India) and its links with Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI
(Inter Services Intelligence).

His service record shows that he had received several

commendation certificates for good performance and
Confidential Reports (CR’s) by his seniors were also
consistently positive.

Lt Col Purohit’s Account of the Case: “At the time when

Malegaon bomb blast case investigation was in progress, he
was undergoing a course in Arabic language in the AEC (Army
Education Corps) Training College and Centre at Panchmarhi
in Madhya Pradesh.

On 24 October 2008, he was called in the middle of the night

th

by a certain Colonel Rajiv K. Shrivastav, who claimed to have

been directed by the Army Headquarters to question him about
Malegaon blasts. Colonel Shrivastav, deceitfully whisked
Purohit away to Mumbai without even giving him an opportunity
to inform his family.

At Mumbai, he was jointly interrogated and physically tortured

by a team comprised of Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) of
Maharashtra Police, Intelligence Bureau officials and Colonel
Shrivastav (Director Military Intelligence - 9) and remained in
the illegal custody of ATS from 29 October to 04 November
2008.
He was officially declared as Accused No. 9 by the ATS and
was shown to be officially arrested on 05 November 2008”.

The Truth about the Story

Lt Col Purohit, has accepted before the court that he had

attended meetings of Abhinav Bharat, a right-wing organisation
whose members were accused of conspiring in the Malegaon
blast, but he had acted as an army officer and passed on the
information to his senior officers about the group’s activities.

The army’s Court of Inquiry held to look into Purohit’s activities

has many details which not only validate this claim that he
always kept his seniors in the loop but also raises questions on
the conduct of army personnel who handed him over to ATS.

It is mentioned that Col Shrivastav didn’t have any authority to

interrogate or torture Purohit. He was officially missing in army
records from 29 October to 04 November.

The Court of Inquiry report also mentions that Purohit had sent
a handwritten letter to Major Bhagirath Deyan, intelligence
officer of central command liaison unit, Jabalpur to keep a vigil
on the activities of Indresh Kumar, Pragya Thakur and P Joshi
(Sunil Joshi an accused in Samjhauta blast case who was killed
in 2007) in his area of responsibility. The same was
acknowledged by Major Devan.

Col Purohit states that he was shown as arrested on 05

November 2008 after ATS planted RDX inside the house of
Sudhakar Chaturvedi on 03 November 2008 in Deolali.

One Major Khanzode and Subedar KK Pawar state in the Court

of Inquiry that they saw assistant Police Inspector Shekhar
Bagde of ATS engaged in suspicious activity inside
Chaturvedi’s house. When caught by Pawar, he got nervous
and pleaded with him not to inform anybody of this incident as
his life and job could be endangered.

Lastly, Yashpal Bhadana, the main witness who had earlier

testified that Lt Col Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya had met Swami
Aseemanand to plot the Malegaon blasts backtracked and
denied attending a meeting where a terror conspiracy was
scripted.

He told the court that he was threatened by the ATS that he

would be implicated in the case if he did not testify against Lt
Col Purohit and the others.

Conclusion

In my view the whole issue came into prominence during the

UPA regime, as a means to rein-in the saffron brigade and
bottle up the bigwigs of the right-wing outfits that were being
patronised by the RSS and the BJP and had begun to offer a
threat to Congress.

Unfortunately, Lt Col Purohit came into the crossfire of this

political skirmish. His voice was suppressed till BJP came into
power and slowly all those accused from the so-called Hindu
terror related incidents are found being reassured.

Notwithstanding politics, it is cardinal that in such cases

concerning national security, the investigating agencies are
given a free hand and allowed to investigate without any
political duress so that under no circumstances security of the
nation is jeopardised.

Imagine the trauma that the innocents like Col Purohit (when
found not guilty) and for that matter, even those 09 accused,
said to be SIMI members released from custody last year after
08 years in prison had to suffer at the hands of politically
controlled investigative agencies, tardy judiciary and an
egocentric political system.
 TRIPLE TALAQ JUDGEMENT DAY
Introduction
 
 
      The burning debate on the validity and legality of "Triple Talaq"
among Muslims in India has been brought to a conclusion by the
highest Court of Justice. The Supreme Court today ( 22 Aug 2017)
banned the controversial Islamic practice that allows men to leave
their wives immediately by stating "Talaq" (divorce) three times,
calling the practice "unconstitutional". The verdict vindicates the
stand of the government, which had said 'Triple Talaq' violates
fundamental rights of women. Several Muslim women who have been
divorced because of "Triple Talaq", at times through online social
media networks like 'Skype and WhatsApp', had appealed to the top
court to end the practice.
 
Salient features Of The landmark Judgment
 
   Three of the five judges hearing the case said it is unconstitutional;
the other two wanted it banned for six months, till the government
introduces a new legislation. The majority opinion held that
triple talaq" is not integral to religious practice and violates
constitutional morality".

  The judges in favour of a new law wanted the government to take

into account the concerns of some Muslim organisations who are
critical of any attempts to meddle with religious laws, arguing it
curtails their constitutional right to govern their own social affairs.

    The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a non-

governmental body which oversees the application of Muslim
Personal Law, opposes any ban on triple talaq and argues this is a
religious matter and not in the ambit of the courts. Many Muslim
clergies feel that any interference of the Court in the matter is a
violation of their fundamental right- "Freedom of Religion"
enshrined in our Constitution. 

   The Supreme Court Bench referred to the fact that several Islamic
countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc., do not allow triple talaq;
hence questionable why it should not be abolished in India.

  The Supreme Court has for the first time reviewed whether
triple talaq is fundamental to Islam and therefore legally binding.
Three of the five judges held that triple talaq violates the tenets of
the Quran. Critics say it leaves women destitute and robs them of
basic rights. "We told the court that the practice has no basis in the
law or in the Quran," said Balaji Srinivasan, a lawyer for Shayara
Bano whose husband divorced her by writing "talaq" three times on a
piece of paper and handing it over to her. 

   The verdict was delivered by a panel of five judges from all major
faiths to have a balanced judgment; Hinduism, Christianity, Islam,
Sikhism and Zoroastrianism. Arguments concluded in May 2017,
pending further legal proceedings.

   India allows religious institutions to govern matters of  'Personal

Law'- marriage, divorce and property inheritance - through civil
codes; till date, triple talaq has been considered a legal avenue for
the country's nearly 180 million Muslims to end their marriages.

  But Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has backed the

women petitioners in this landmark  case, declaring Triple Talaq
unconstitutional,  derogatory and discriminatory for women.
"Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Triple Talaq is historic.
It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for
women empowerment," PM Modi tweeted today.

   The BJP has long pushed for a 'Uniform Civil Code' to be enforced
which would end the reach of different religious laws in civil issues,
sanctioned originally to protect the independence of different faiths
and to have a law of the land equal for all citizens of India.The verdict
pronounced today,will have far-fetching repercussions in the
national consciousness and it may bring the constitution one step
closer to 'Uniform Civil Code'.
 
Conclusion

   The religiously sensational 'Triple Talaq' issue had been hanging

fire for an year. The practice had been condemned as barbaric and
unjustified by a section of the Islam world, especially organisations
formed for the rights of Muslim women.
 RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Introduction
 
  Do Indians have a fundamental right to privacy?
 
  The debate was snow-balling in the corridors of power and justice in
the last few months. The right to privacy question was referred to a
nine- judge Bench of Supreme Court after a clutch of petitions
challenging the Aadhaar Act came up in the highest judiciary of the
nation.

    In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today ( 24 August 2017)

proclaimed that "privacy is a constitutional right." Nine judges were
unanimous in their finding, though they cited different reasons for
their conclusion. The verdict on the right to privacy today is a major
setback for the government, which had argued that the constitution
does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental
right. The judges concluded today- "The right to privacy is protected
as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21, and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution". 
 
Salient Features Of The 'Right To Privacy' Verdict
 
    The right to privacy "is protected as an intrinsic part of Article 21
that protects life and liberty," the Supreme Court ruled. However
the  government insisted it had not lost its case. Law Minister Ravi
Shankar Prasad claimed that judges have agreed that "privacy as a
fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions." Today's
verdict comprised of six different judgments, though they all
concurred on privacy as an intrinsic right.

    The Supreme Court order is based on an array of petitions that

have challenged the mandatory use of Aadhaar cards which assign a
unique 12-digit ID to every citizen. The Aadhaar database links iris
scans and fingerprints to more than a billion people. 
  It's interesting to note that Today's verdict does not comment on
whether the government's demand for Aadhaar to be linked to all
financial transactions amounts to an infringement of privacy. The
opposition led by the Congress said that the government's intent of
"suppression through surveillance" has been defeated by the
Supreme Court.

Whether Aadhaar can be made mandatory as the government insists

for all financial transactions and for benefits of welfare schemes will
be decided by a separate and smaller bench of the Supreme Court.
But experts said that today's ruling could prompt the government to
tweak its arguments in that case. The Supreme Court dismantled key
claims made by the government, stating, "The refrain that the poor
need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with
economic well-being has been utilised through history to wreak the
most egregious violations of human rights". It added, "The poor (as
portrayed by the Attorney General) talks about today have cell
phones, and would come forward to press the fundamental right of
privacy."

  All fundamental rights come with reasonable restrictions, said

noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan. Whether Aadhaar can be seen as a
reasonable restriction has yet to be decided, he cautioned.

   In May, then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi rejected suggestions

that Indians could refuse to provide their iris scans or fingerprints to
the government, telling a court "the concept of absolute right over
one's body was a myth".

  The petitioners in today's case had stressed that the Aadhaar

database was originally presented as a purely voluntary programme
that offered to provide every Indian with an identity card.

  The government says Aadhaar is essential for all services including

tax returns, opening bank accounts and securing loans, pensions and
cash transfers for those entitled to welfare schemes. It has rejected
suggestions that the Aadhaar programme, set up in 2009 by the
previous Congress-led government, poses a threat to civil liberties.

   Critics say the Aadhaar identity card links enough data to allow
profiling because it creates a comprehensive profile of a person's
spending habits, their friends and acquaintances, the property they
own, and a trove of other information.
   There are fears the data could be misused by a government that
argues Indians have no right to privacy. There have been recurring
reports of Aadhaar details being accidentally released, including on
government websites. UIDAI, the agency that governs Aadhaar, has
repeatedly said that its data is secure. The verdict today has asked
the government to ensure a "robust regime for data protection" that
would deliver "a careful and sensitive balance between individual
interests and legitimate concerns of the state." 
 

  Conclusion
 
   In a press conference later, Law Minister emphasised that the
Government was committed to adhere with all the points enshrined
in its verdict. He reiterates that the Aadhaar card is not actually
encroaching into the privacy of an individual since it contains only the
name, gender ,address and biometric identity of the holder. He
further reminded that the poor people are fully benefited by the
Aadhaar card, enabling the government to remit their grants directly
to their bank accounts thereby eliminating corruption and
exploitation by the system.

    As per the Law Minister, an expert committee nominated by the

government will plug all loopholes in the implementation of all rules
as per the Aadhar Act.
  I believe, the SC ruling can be termed as a cornerstone judgment
which will regulate and protect the privacy of the common man in
India.
 Shekatkar Committee Recommendations

Introduction
The Ministry of Defence had constituted a ‘Committee of
Experts’ under the Chairmanship of Lt Gen (Retd) (Dr) DB
Shekatkar to recommend measures to enhance combat
capability of the armed forces.

The ‘Committee of Experts’ submitted its final report with 188

recommendations to the then Defence Minister, Manohar
Parrikar on 21 December 2016.

The Defence Ministry scrutinised the recommendations and

selected 99 of these recommendations dealing directly with
Army, Air Force and Navy for implementation.

Finally, 65 out of 99 recommendations of the Shekatkar

Committee were accepted by the government, when the Union
Cabinet met in New Delhi on 30 August 2017.

Defence Minister Arun Jaitley informed that a reform process in

the Indian Armed Forces has been approved and will be
implemented in a phased manner by 31 December 2019.
Mandate of Shekatkar Committee

The mandate assigned to the ‘Committee of Experts’ by the

MoD was to recommend measures to enhance the combat
capabilities of the Indian Armed Forces and rebalance the
defence expenditure by way of restructuring the forces to meet
the objective of an agile, but effective military that can stand up
to any kind of future threats that India may face.

Objectives of Restructuring the Forces

Increase "Teeth to Tail Ratio"

The rationalisation of manpower held with organisations with

non-combat roles vis-s-vis combat roles is recommended to be
carried out.

The Committee pointed out that substantial savings can be

achieved by downsizing or rationalising the manpower in
organisations like the Defence Estates, Defence Accounts,
Directorate of Quality Assurance, Ordnance Factory Board,
Directorate of Research and Development, National Cadet
Corps (NCC), etc.

The first phase of the reforms also entails redeployment and

restructuring of approximately 57,000 posts of
officers/JCOs/ORs and civilians.

The Committee recommends that the combatants be better

utilised for improving the operational preparedness and civilians
to be redeployed in different wings of the Armed Forces for
improving its efficiency.
The implementation of the reform process has already begun
with the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Security to close
39 Military Farms in a time bound manner.

Reduce Defence Expenditure

The Shekatkar Committee Report points out that if majority of

its recommendations are implemented; the government can
save up to Rs 25,000 crore from its current expenditure.
However, considering the internal and external security threat
spectrum, the Committee has recommended that the defence
budget should be in the range of 2.5 and three per cent of the
GDP as against the present trend of previous five years, where
the Defence Budget has been below two percent of the GDP.

Streamline Defence Procurement Systems

The panel has highlighted in its recommendations that the

Defence Finance Wing of the MoD is seen to be more of an
impediment in clearing projects proposed by the forces for
execution. In order to quicken the pace of acquisitions of war-
like stores and equipment, the financial powers of all the three
service chiefs and vice chiefs should be further enhanced.
Also, the Committee has recommended that a ‘roll on’ plan for
fresh acquisitions be introduced so as to overcome the practice
of ‘surrendering’ funds at the end of every financial year.

Enhance Tri-Service Integration

The Shekatkar Committee has proposed a speedy creation of a

permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, i.e. a
four-star general to head the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) for
seamless integration between the three services during combat
and to also act as a ‘chief coordinator’ between the military and
the Ministry of Defence.

Furthermore, the committee has also suggested the

establishment of a Joint Services War College for collective
training of middle level officers of Army, Air Force and Navy, so
as to better understand the inter-service nuances and promote
operational cohesion.

Similarly it has recommended that the Military Intelligence

School at Pune be converted to a tri-service Intelligence
training establishment.

Utilisation of Technology for Training

The Committee has recommended that wherever possible

technology must be utilised to enhance combat readiness and
cut down on defence spendings, e.g. new recruits can do about
60 per cent of their firing training on simulators, resulting in
substantial savings to the tune of Rs 20-25 crore per annum in
expenditure of training ammunition.

Miscellaneous Recommendations

 Optimising the Corps of Signals by downsizing and merging

manpower of units with similar operational role.

 Improving efficacy of repair and recovery echelons in the

Army by restructuring Base Workshops, Advance Base
Workshops and Static/Station Workshops in the field Army.

 Streamlining inventory control mechanisms and

redeployment of Ordnance echelons to include Vehicle
Depots, Ordnance Depots and Central Ordnance Depots.

 Optimum utilization of Supply and Transport echelons and

Animal Transport units.
 Closure of Military Farms and Army Postal units in peace
locations.

 The Committee has also suggested that the standards for

recruitment of clerical staff and drivers in the Army be
enhanced.

 The investment in the National Cadet Corps requires a

review and the Committee has recommended that its
efficiency be improved.

Relevant Aspects Missed by the Shekatkar Committee

Defence Procurement Procedure: This aspect is required to

be streamlined in greater detail on priority; however, it was only
partially reviewed by the Shekatkar Committee.

The Committee failed to highlight a cardinal point pertaining to

the composition of the Defence Procurement Board which the
armed forces have been trying to project before the
government for some time now.

The Defence Procurement Board, which is an executive body

responsible for defence procurements, is headed by the
Defence Secretary and not by the respective Service Chiefs,
which results in undue delay due to bureaucratic red-tapism.

Shortfall in Ammunition: It is now common knowledge that

there is an acute shortage in our War Wastage Reserves
(WWRs) of ammunition. However, the Committee did not
suggest any emergency measures that may be set into motion
to bridge the gap on priority.
Improving Research and Development (R&D): The report is
completely silent about the actual need of the hour, i.e. to
create a vibrant “R&D” establishment so that we are able to
manufacture state of art equipment and weaponry.
In the present day scenario of hi-tech warfare, the only way to
enhance the combat capability of the forces is to equip it with
hi-end, state-of-art weapon platforms.

Welfare Measures: The Report does not make any mention of

various welfare measures that the armed forces has been
asking for, e.g. housing, children education and rationalization
of grant of Military Service Pay to soldiers, etc.

Conclusion

I would like to say that the implementation of the

recommendations of the Shekatkar Committee may not be able
to fully meet the mandate that it set out for.

Restructuring a few operational logistic elements and shutting

down postal units and 39 military farms will accrue some
financial gains, but may not qualitatively improve the
operational readiness of our forces.

In order to improve the combat capabilities of our military, we

need to recruit the right talent, train realistically, provide modern
state of art equipment and weapons and above all be able to
maintain a very high standard of morale of the men behind the
machines.

The bottom line is that in order to achieve the above, we should

be prepared to spend nothing less than 3% of our GDP to be
able to maintain the robust armed forces that we envisage.
 NORTH KOREA - POTENTIAL SOUCE OF HELL
FIRE

Introduction
 
For all the wrong reasons North Korea manages to remain in the head lines of
international media for a long time. The head on collision between US President
Donald Trump and North Korea Premier Kim Jong Un seems eminent in the
fast developing political scenario. North Korea on 5 September 2017, warned
America that the nation is ready to send "more gift packets" to the United States
as world powers struggled for a response to Pyongyang's latest nuclear weapons
test. The tension between US and North Korea escalated, as Han Tae Song, their
Ambassador to UN confirmed that North Korea had successfully test fired its
sixth and largest nuclear bomb on 03 September 2017.He announced-" The US
will receive more gift packages from my country as long as it relies on reckless
provocations and futile attempts to put pressure on the DPRK. US Ambassador
to the UN Nikki Haley retaliated with a statement that -Kim Jong Un is "
begging for a war" with a series of nuclear bomb and missile tests. She urged
the 15-member Security Council to impose to impose the "strongest possible "
sanctions to deter him and shut down his trading partners. However the Russian
Ambassador to UN Vassily Nebenzia said that a US bid to introduce new
sanctions on DPRK is "a little premature ".Earlier Russian President Vladimir
Putin described more sanctions on North Korea as a "road to nowhere". If we
examine the history of North Korea we will realise that sanctions had little
impact on the nuclear ambitions of the rogue nation. Now a face -off between
United States and North Korea is looming in the world horizon, as Donald
Trump vowed to stop Pyongyang from targeting the mainland United States
with a nuclear weapon. Ambassador Haley hoped that further sanction could
cut-off revenue to North Korea that allows them to build ballistic missiles,
which can be used as a delivery system to their devastating nuclear weapons to
reach US mainland.

How North Korea had come to this impasse?

 
To revisit the Cold War era, during the Korean War period, in the spring of
1953, the US National Security Council toyed with the idea of ending the war
with the use of a nuclear bomb. But fearing reprisal from USSR in the same
coin, being a communist ally to Korea, good sense prevailed. For the first time
in history, both sides had nuclear weapons and 'deterrence doctrine' had worked.
Korea was partitioned and the war ended.

The war-torn North Korea set about trying to acquire nuclear weapons in 1991
as its super power patron, Soviet Union, collapsed - depriving the regime its
survival guarantee. The plans for its weapons are well known to have been
supplied by Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in a clandestine cash
and missile - design deal.

Efforts to bribe the North Korean regime out of its nuclear programme started
in 1998, when South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung initiated the
reconciliation process that came to be known as " Sun Shine Policy ", injecting
billions of dollars into the re- construction of North Korean economy. The effort
doomed when the funds disappeared to vested personal accounts of the regime.
However Kim Dae- Jung got a Nobel Prize nomination for Peace. Within a
year, both North and South Korean troops clashed.

In the wake of 9/11 the US declared North Korea part of the "axis of
evil".North Korea responded by calling-off all talks - and four years later, tested
the first of its nuclear weapons.

From the point of view of North Korean ruling elite, making a nuclear bomb
to terrorise the world isn't madness, but "life Insurance". Kim Jong -Un fears an
East Germany-style regime collapse, with his citizens choosing to merge with
the richer and modern South Korea.The Dictator also worries about a possible
political coup to topple him, engineered by South Korea with the support of US.
Or even America may choose to attack.
 United States considered this option many times but shelved the attack plan to
avoid possible destruction of South Korea, especially 'Seoul', home to 50
million people.

Now situation has become too risky and critical- any plan to militarily
eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities has to contend with the fact
that it has the demonstrated capability to deliver a fission bomb with a yield of
50- 100 megatons, to US or Australia.

Conclusion
 
To conclude, North Korea thus, can use its nuclear weapons when the country
choose to embark upon a suicidal mode, with a guarantee of total annihilation.
That, itself ,is a life insurance too for survival. Pragmatic approach towards this
"dare devil" dictator would be to appease him with economic incentives and
diplomatic recognition in return for capping its deadly arsenal. It's a night mare
started by the great United States in the world, by nuking Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Now we all have to sleep with it - get used to living in this dangerous
world. Perhaps the mutual fear of total annihilation may induce the world
countries to survive in harmony. The funny meaning of MAD is clearer on the
wall-"MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION"
Stumbling blocks that Afflict Indian Growth
Story

Introduction

Indian economy received a major boost due to falling global oil

prices, good monsoons, policy to curtail gold imports, Chinese
market losing its sheen, coupled with global hob-knobbing by
our PM to sell “Make in India.”

In spite of fairly positive fundamentals, like foreign reserves at

an all-time high, record low inflation, trade deficit narrowed and
the taxation reforms ushered in, the Annual Report put out by
the RBI in August 2017 shows a slowdown in the Indian growth.

A globally renowned Management Consulting Firm AT Kearney

and its Global Policy Council had published a Report regarding
Foreign Direct Investment confidence in India.
The findings compiled by the agency, took into consideration
the investor sentiments of executives of 1000 global
companies. Though they found India as a popular destination
for opportunities for investment, but cited systemic roadblocks
created by the government-bureaucracy, as the major deterrent
to invest in India.

There is no denying that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has left

no stone unturned to woo foreign investors by having marathon
meetings with investors in India and the four scores and more
countries that he has visited since he assumed office.

However, the investments have not started pouring in as was

anticipated and it is beginning to dull some of the sheen and
enthusiasm echoed in the Prime Minister’s ‘ache din’ rhetoric,
both in India and oversees.

Stumbling blocks that Afflict Indian Growth Story

Lack of Clear Direction for Implementation of Big Bang

Reforms/ Plans

The BJP government, even as it deafeningly envisioned a

boost to infrastructure spending, an improved business
environment and a wider social security net, right from its first
full-year budget, visible changes/ improvements on the ground
are yet to be seen in that proportion.

Given the parliamentary gridlock, the prospect of

implementation of tough reforms in letter and spirit, such as
land acquisition, food security, bankruptcy code, etc appears
bleak.

Consequently, the central government has preferred to simply

delegate the task to the state governments, which has resulted
in a dilution of the central government’s ambition at the state
level.
Non-Performing Assets (NPA)

In a report published by the RBI, Indian banks are holding in

access of $105 billion in gross nonperforming loans. The issue
received global recognition, with the much publicised news of
$1.3 billion in unpaid loans owed to banks by the beer-and-
airline titan Vijay Mallya.

The new bankruptcy law that was enacted in 2016 is aimed at

cleaning up the nation’s mountain of debt, making it easier to
dissolve a company and recover money.

In India, where parties can drag out bankruptcies for years, the
law has an important feature requiring a bankruptcy to be
completed within 180 days in the event of default.
However, the new legislation is facing some teething problems
due to our creakingly slow legal system and a tortuously
obscure bureaucracy.

Ambiguity in GST System

Investment in Indian market was subjected to regulatory and

bureaucratic tangles, especially those related to the multi-
layered tax regime. The same was a major deterrent for
domestic as well as foreign investors.

A successful implementation of GST is likely to reverse this,

and attract new investments especially from global value chains
which often aggregate inputs from different constituencies.

However, ambiguous rules under the new, multi-rate sales tax

that went into effect on July 01 have left firms confused on how
to price their products. The tax’s complex structure with four
main rates ranging from 5% to 28% has hurt sales and risks
denting economic growth and government revenues in the
months ahead.
To quote an example, under the GST, desktops and laptops
are taxed at 18%, while multi-function printers and monitors
attract a 28% tax. Monitors, CPUs and other parts of a
computer are imported as a single unit, so at what rate should
the GST be charged?

Hence, the GSTin its current form fails to harmonise tax rates
across products or enhance ease of doing business
significantly.

A survey by tax software provider Tally Solutions has revealed

that more than 40% of small businessesare still not up to speed
on how the GSTworks and two-thirds are yet to install
compliance software.
The GST was originally expected to boost India’s economic
growth by as much as 2 percentage points. But a convoluted
structure has made many economists mark down their
expectations.

Turbulent Social Environment

The foreign media highlights the prevailing polarised

environment in India, with poor safety and security norms and
their governments’ often issues advisories of caution to those
visiting India.

Incidents pertaining to deplorable crimes against women, Gau-

rakshaks and other miscreants going on a rampage, moral
pollicising, killing of media personnel for having an opinion,
restricting freedom of speech, targeting minorities, and
propagation of “Love Jihad”, “Ghar Wapisi” and such like non-
secular movements depicts India as a regressive society.

The above said trend becomes significantly disturbing, when

the political rulers and their affiliates feign ignorance and do not
take a clear stand on these issues.
Moreover, other internal security problems faced by India like
terrorism, naxalism, volatile inter-state and centre-state rifts
over sharing of resources and mafiaism that blatantly defies law
enforcement agencies, projects India as the land of the lawless.

Hence, the foreign investors are apprehensive to invest in such

an uncertain and turbulent environment.

Loss of Government Credibility

There is a huge gap between the projection of government

plans and delivery of the same on ground due to extraneous
factors like opposition from political parties/ social activists,
innate red tapism of the system, lack of explicit mode & method
of deliverance, etc is making the investors and the general
public impatient.

The mammoth proposals and plans are so dramatically

projected in the media that the expectation levels have risen so
phenomenally, that people fail to acknowledge whatever small,
but, positive changes are happening around them.

Lack of Key Ingredients to Kick Start “Make in India”

The three pillars of “Make in India”

are: Infrastructure (highways, rail links, ports, warehouses,
cold chains, etc), Energy to fuel the manufacturing of products
and a pool of Skilled Workforce.

Unless these three ingredients are first available, ease of doing

business, creating the right investment climate, etc will all come
later.

Competition with China is a Big Hurdle for India

China is an already established manufacturing hub. It procures
raw material from India and exports finished products to India
and the rest of the world. The same is one of the major reasons
for the skewed trade deficit in China’s favour. Besides, it has
developed the requisite technology through deliberate R&D
over the years and has skilled its workforce appropriately.
In order to prevent India, being its main competitor, from
developing its manufacturing sector, China indulges in dumping
cheaper Chinese products into India and run a parallel black
market of its products in India.

While the economic and systemic reforms promised by the

Indian government are still facing roadblock due to lack of
clarity and petty politics, China has already taken measures to
attract investors by devaluing its currency. The same will have
a sharp adverse effect on our growth story as the investors will
once again start drifting towards China.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it emerges that the following are the non-
negotiable essentials to attract investments and propel growth
in India:

 Bring about systemic reforms in governance.

 Cut down on bureaucratic red tapism, arrest

corruption, bring about greater transparency and
accountability in all public dealings and create a
framework for a versatile judicial system.

 Invest in world class infrastructure, which is a

pre-requisite to attract manufacturing processes.

 Government of the day must display its clear

intent to come down heavily on all form of
communal radicalisation and divisive forces
operating in the country.
 Simplify and reduce ambiguity in the new
taxation policy to improve investor confidence.

 Create a system to harness the youth power, by

conducting authentic skill development based on
aptitude.

 Lastly, ensure security, safety and dignity of

human life.

ROHINGYA CRISIS - A BLOT ON HUMANITY

Introduction
 
The Rohingya are a minority living in Myanmar, formerly known as
Burma, where they are not recognized by the government as an official group
and are denied citizenship. An estimated 1 million Rohingya are stateless
Muslims in an overwhelmingly Buddhist country that has long been hostile to
their presence. Under Myanmar's discriminatory 1982 Citizenship Law, only
those who trace their residence in the country to before 1823, or those belonging
to the majority Burman, or Kachin, Kayah, Karen, Chin, Mon, Rakhine, and
Shan ethnic groups qualify for full citizenship. A list of another 135 ethnic
groups drawn up in 1982 and made public in 1990, did not include the
Rohingya. The Rohingya trace their origin in Rakhine to the 15th Century or
earlier.

But the official name for them now is " Bengali". The Burmese Government
interpret that they came to Rakhine as part of the British East India Company's
expansion into Burma after it defeated the Burmese king in 1826.Hence 1823 is
the cut- off for both the 1948 and 1982 Citizenship Acts.

Why Did The Rohingya Exodus From Myanmar Begin?

 
 The Rohingya problem is an old one that goes back to 1940s,when they
sided with the British against the Japanese, who had the support of the majority
Burmese Buddhist population. Indeed ,immediately after independence, the
Rohingya Muslims tried to form a breakaway muslim nation. Therefore the
bitterness between the Rohingya and the rest of Myanmar was waiting to
explode.

A major effort to wipe out the Rohingya ethnic Muslims from Myanmar
started in 2012. Rohingya had major violent clashes with Buddhists triggered by
the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman. 'Human Rights Watch' released
satellite pictures of entire Rohingya villages burning. Thousands fled to
Bangladesh and to camps set up under UN supervision in Rakhine. Some
1,40,000 homeless people still live in the camps. On 09 October, 2016 nine
policemen were killed in armed attack on border posts in the Rakhine province
which were carried out by ARSA, then known as Harraka al Yakin/ Aqa Mul
Mujahideen. Over the past year there have been allegations of grave human
rights violations by the Myanmar Army against Rohingya.
The mass evacuation from Myanmar’s northern Rakhine state began on
25 August,2017 after a group of Rohingya militants ( ARSA) attacked police
outposts and a military base, killing a dozen officers and men. The military
responded with what it deemed “clearance operations” to root out fighters it said
might be hiding in villages. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya
have escaped the military crackdown and vigilante attacks that have burned
villages and killed hundreds. As of today UN estimates proclaim an exodus of
nearly 3,00,000 Rohingya Muslims to Bangladesh. The ARSA attack was ill-
timed since the Kofi- Annan led Advisory commission on Rakhine State
submitted its report favouring the inclusion of Rohingya Muslims as Burmese
citizens one day prior to the attack, to the de facto Foreign Minister Aung San
Suu Kyi. The commission strongly recommended a review of the 1982
Citizenship Act.

In view of the massive massacre and exodus of these poor people, Suu Kyi
has been criticised internationally for her negative attitude towards the
Rohingya and there have been calls for withdrawing the Nobel Prize ( for
peace) awarded for her fight to restore democracy in Myanmar. But it was also
at Suu Kyi's orders that the Annan Commission was appointed and the report
was appreciated by her and she hoped that the implementation of the report
would have a positive impact on the process of reconciliation and development.

However the powerful Military lobby more or less rejected the report.
Criticising Army could endanger the limited power Suu Kyi exercises in the
governance of the nation. Hence it seems that she is compromising with her
principles to survive in Myanmar politics and in power. Today, if she speaks,
it's about Rohigya terrorism and the killing of security personnel. She has
nothing to say about the thousands of innocent men, women and children who
have been killed and rendered homeless.

Conclusion
 
Though India has been concerned at the events in Myanmar since 2012,New
Delhi believes in " quiet diplomacy", but apprehensive about our involvement in
the ethnic issue. Pushed by Bangladesh, India has asked Myanmar for restraint
in its military operations against the Rohingya in the Rakhine state. India ,
however, is concerned about the intelligence reports that ARSA and its front
militant outfit 'Rohingya Solidarity Organisation' are allegedly close to Hafiz
Saeed and the Jamaat- ud - Dawa front- Falah-e-Insaniyat,which had an active
presence in Rohingya Refugee Camps in 2012.

No one believes the crisis will be resolved soon and Myanmar is in no mood
to accept Rohingya Muslims as their citizens. Which is why the Home
Ministry's plan to "deport" the 40,000 Rohingya in India may be premature.
There is nowhere yet to deport them. They belong to no country, and no country
wants them.
 INDIA & JAPAN - BOSOM BUDDIES OF ASIA

Introduction 
 
  As of now Japan, is the best friend of India. To prove it, Japan was
the only nation to extend public support to India during the Doklam
confrontation with China. It speaks of the extraordinary
transformation of relations between two Asian giants over the last
few years. If we recall, two decades ago, in the aftermath of India's
nuclear tests, Tokyo was at the forefront of the international
condemnation and imposition of collective economic measures
against New Delhi. Today the wheel of time has turned a full circle,
and Japan is the natural Buddy and ally of India in Asia.
  
 Two factors are threatening to unravel the post world War order in
Asia. One is the rapid rise of China and the other is the growing
uncertainty over America's future role in Asia. Purposeful military
modernisation and accelerated economic growth have given China,
enough muscle to contest the US dominance over Asia. Rising China
has dethroned Japan as the number one economic power in Asia.
China's GDP is now five times larger than that of India. Beijing
outspends Delhi and Tokyo on defense by more than four times.
Hence it's natural for India and Japan to join hands to checkmate
China's brutal strength through a regional balance of power ratio.
Luckily for India, Shinzo Abe, the PM of Japan had a rare second
tenure at the helm of affairs. During his brief first tenure as PM in
2006-07 Abe had outlined the broad framework for a strong strategic
partnership with India. Abe who was in Ahmadabad, in the last week
for the annual summit with our PM Narendra Modi, inaugurated
several strategic partnership mega projects to cement the diplomatic
relationship of both nations.

  Strategic partnership in Infrastructural Development.

   The biggest turn-around of Japanese policy was the civil nuclear

cooperation agreement with India and the political and bureaucratic
lobbies of Japan ,approving it. The conventional wisdom until now
was that - Japan's "nuclear allergy" will never allow Tokyo cooperate
with India on atomic energy, being the worst victims of a nuclear
holocaust.

   Under Abe and Modi, both nations have expanded their maritime
security cooperation, agreed to work together in promoting
connectivity and infrastructure in third world countries in India's
neighbourhood- pooling resources collectively to develop the 'Asia-
Africa Growth Corridor.'
    Negotiations on India's purchase of Japanese state- of- the- art
amphibious aircraft US-2i are in the final stages of conclusion, though
there are certain stumbling blocks which are expected to be removed
soon. More defense oriented projects are in the pipeline.
Surveillance and unmanned system technology projects are being
partnered by both nations in the near future.

  Bullet Train: The most exciting " flagship Project" is Bullet Train,

connecting Ahmadabad  and Mumbai( 508 Km).The project was being
made possible by a loan from Japan of Rs 88,000 crore at a 0.1%
interest, to be repaid over 50 years. Japan is financing 81% of this
mega project ( 1.8 lakh crore), to be completed in 2022-23, to
coincide with our 75 years of independence.

   The Bullet Train will take 2.07 hours to cover the distance at a
maximum speed of 350 km per hour with four halts. PM Modi
emphasised that the train fares would be common man -friendly and
would bring a revolution in the overall economical development of
the region. Abe announced that Kawasaki Heavy Industries and
India's BHEL will together manufacture rolling stock for the bullet
train project.
Conclusion

  It's heartening to see that both Asian powers are teaming up to

stand against the Red Dragon, voicing similar concern about current
issues like North Korea's nuclear programme, Pakistan based terror
groups and China's "One Belt One Road" mega project.

   However, few economists of India are of a different view - Is it

worthwhile to pump in about one lakh crore into a 500 km track to
increase the mobility between two cities, which are already
connected amply well by regular flights with a time span of one hour?

   It is common knowledge that India still is a developing country with

yawning problems of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. The issue
invites a debate whether "Bullet Train Project" merits such priority in
an emerging India, when our  present Indian railways are in an
obsolete state, and needs immediate revamping and modernisation
keeping passenger's safety in mind.

However the supporters of the government initiative put forth the

following  counter arguments.

- The bullet train will ultimately serve 12 stations en-route, having

high speed connectivity, hence the entire stretch will develop as an
economic corridor.

Once the HST is functional, economic zones will come up all along the
high speed network. This will create millions of jobs in next 15-20
years.

- The soft loan is given by Japan only for promoting its

own Shinkansen Technology of Bullet trains and not for any other
socially oriented developmental schemes. Hence this loan
advancement can't be diverted for any other purposes.

- Since there is a technology transfer along with this deal, India will
be self-reliant to manufacture and run bullet trains across the length
and breadth of the country, 15-20 years down the lane.

- In 1970s, when the country was actually poor, the government took
initiative to bring 'Maruti Suzuki automobile technology' from Japan,
amidst lot of criticism, but proved to usher an automobile revolution
in the country. Similar would be the case of Bullet train.

It's an interesting debate. Let us wait and watch- how the bullet train
project is going to benefit the futuristic India.

INDIA- BREAK THROUGH IN DEFENCE

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Introduction
 
  " Make in India" Initiative launched by our Prime  Minister Narendra
Modi has got a shot in the arm by the proposals given by Lockheed,
the leading  Aero Space US Company, offering  to shift its 'F-16'
production line to India from Texas. However , the US defence firm
offering to set up production lines in India to win deals worth billions
of dollars want stronger assurances that, they won't have to part
with proprietary technology The offer was conveyed by a powerful
US business lobby group to India's Defence Minister. Lockheed
Martin and Boeing are both bidding to supply combat jets to India's
military, which is running short of hundreds of aircrafts, as it retires
Soviet- era MIG planes, and its own three-decade long effort to
produce a domestic jet is hobbled by delays. The proposal heralds a
major positive shift in the policies of United States towards India.The
Aero Space giant- Boeings, also has chipped in with its separate
defence manufacturing proposal.
 
Proposals in a crux
 
  These major Aero Space companies have, however, put forth few
conditions to our Ministry of Defence :-

1.They shouldn't be held liable for defects in products manufactured

in collaboration with local partners under Prime Minister Narendra
Modi's 'Make-in-India's drive' to build a military industrial base.

2. Lockheed has offered to shift its entire F-16 production line

platform to India from Fort Worth, Texas, and make it the sole
factory worldwide if India orders at least 100 single-engine F-16
fighters.

3.Proposals to sell F-18 and F-16 fighter jets have been put forward
by Boeing and Lockheed Martin respectively.

   The US firm Lockheed has picked Tata Advanced Systems as its local
partner under the defence ministry's new Strategic Partnership
model under which foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
can hold up to a 49 percent stake in a joint venture with an Indian
private firm which will hold the majority of shares.

The US-India Business Council (USIBC) wrote to India's Defence

Minister last month seeking a guarantee that US firms would retain
control over sensitive technology - even as joint venture junior
partners."Control of proprietary technologies is a major
consideration for all companies exploring public and private defence
partnerships," the business lobby, which represents 400 firms, said in
the August 3 letter written by them.

   "To allow foreign OEMs to provide the most advanced

technologies, the partnership arrangement between an Indian owned
'strategic partner' company and a foreign OEM needs to provide an
opportunity for the foreign OEM to retain control over its
proprietary technology," it said, noting this wasn't explicit in the
policy document.
 
Technology Transfer
 
   Technology transfer is at the heart of PM Modi's drive to build a
domestic industrial base and cut a reliance on imports that has made
India the world's biggest arms importer in recent years. With full
technology transfer in previous arms deals, India's mainly state-run
defence factories have largely been left to assemble knock-down kits
even for tanks and aircraft produced under license from the foreign
maker.  PM Modi's advisers have vowed to change that, insisting on
transfer of technology so that critical military equipment are
designed and manufactured in India. 

     Benjamin Schwartz, USIBC's director for defense and aerospace,

said the new Indian policy offered a roadmap for establishing
partnerships between US and Indian companies, but it raised some
questions for the firms.He said he was not in a position to name
those companies concerned by the Indian policy, but there was a
"general desire to see increased clarity" on several aspects, including
the control of proprietary technologies.

Quality Issues
 
     The USIBC also opposed a clause in the new rules that held foreign
firms jointly responsible for the quality of the platforms provided to
the military, saying legal liability is a significant factor in business
decisions. "We recommend the MoD (Ministry of Defence) affirm that
foreign OEMs will not be liable for defects outside their company's
control," the USIBC said. 

     Lockheed did not respond to a request for comment by the Indian
media. Boeing, which is bidding for a separate contract to sell its F/A-
18 Super Hornets for India's aircraft carrier fleet, declined to
comment on the USIBC letter, but the company's India president,
Pratyush Kumar, said there were concerns about Indian private firms'
lack of experience in the aerospace sector.
Only state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd had made planes under
license, while some private players were starting from scratch,
having never built even an aircraft component. Mr Kumar said he
could not find a single example worldwide of a private enterprise
with limited experience building out a plane under transfer of
technology."Look at Turkey, look at Japan, look at Brazil - look at
multiple countries. In all cases there is a fine balancing act of co-
opting the capabilities of both public and private enterprise," he said.

     India's Defence Ministry offered no response to the concerns

expressed by the trade lobbying group on the strategic partnership
model, which will also apply to building submarines and helicopters
as part of a $150 billion modernisation drive.But an official, referring
to sensitive technology, said the government has made clear in the
past that foreign firms can be allowed to increase their stake beyond
49 percent if the technology they bring in is state-of-the art."It can
be done on a case-to-case basis," the official said.

       Mukesh Aghi, president of the US-India Strategic Partnership

Forum, said that despite the starting problems, defence
manufacturing looked set to be a breakthrough area in ties between
India and the United States. "It's the next big thing. There is strong
support from the (US President Donald) Trump administration to
take this forward."
 
Conclusion
 
It seems Indian Defence manufacturing Sector is sitting pretty at the
cusp of a mammoth face-lift, with the US giants offering world's best
aero space technology to be transferred to Indian soils. If the Modi
Government tackles the teething issues expertly, the world's largest
importer of defence hardware could turn into the top exporter of
military hardware within a decade. 'Make in India' could be the
engine of prosperity and economic development of India, in the days
to come.
 Analysing India’s Economic Slowdown

Introduction

India, especially during the global economic meltdown was being

hailed as a global bright spot. However, the recent figures of the first
six months of 2017 reveal that India has lost its tag of the fastest
growing economy of the world, with its GDP falling from 7.6% when
Prime Minister Narendra Modi swept into power in 2014 to a measly
5.7% during the quarter April-June 2017. The 2% drop in GDP
effectively translates into a sum of around Rs 2 lakh crore. It is the
slowest pace of economic growth in the previous three years and the
analysts say that the road to recovery is steep and uncertain.
 
Reasons for Economic Slowdown

Two major reasons being ascribed to the economic slowdown are

sudden ban of 86% of the country's currency, and an unprepared,
‘hasty’ implementation of GST. Dr Manmohan Singh, the former PM
had predicted a fall in GDP by 2% when he had called the ‘Note ban’
an ‘organized loot and a legalized plunder’ in Parliament last year. It
may be noted that the informal, small scale sector in India, which
relies on cash transactions for its business constitutes 40% of the
country’s GDP and 90% of the job market. An abrupt ban of a major
chunk of the currency put this sector completely off the rail.
Demonetization did not met any of its intended goals as suggested
by the government to the desired limit, as 99% of the illegal tender
has come back into the system as legitimate currency.

The RBI has pointed out during its fourth bi-monthly monetary policy
review of 2017-18, that the implementation of GST has had an
adverse impact on manufacturing and is likely to account for a delay
in investment revival. RBI forecasted economic growth to 6.7% in the
current fiscal, from its earlier projection of 7.3%. Growth of the
manufacturing sector, which makes up 77.6% of the industrial
production measuring index, decelerated sharply to 0.1% in July
compared to 5.3% in the same period of 2016. Besides, GST has put
an additional burden on the common man as prices of 80 per cent of
goods and services have increased. While the industry is happy with
GST as they get input returns on raw materials, the traders and small
economy is feeling frustrated with the nitty-gritty’s of GST and the
Service sector is in a state of shell-shock to meet the mandates of
GST. All in all, the teething problems of GST are a major stumbling
block for economic growth.
 

Cascading Effects of Economic Slowdown

In order to boost growth, consumption needs to be bolstered, for

which the industry need to be incentivized so that manufacturing
resumes. However, the government wants to rein in fiscal deficit (gap
between earnings and expenditure) by curtailing public expenditure.
The banks in spite of being flush with currency after demonetization
are unwilling to drop lending rates. The foreign and domestic
investors are not willing to take any risk with further investment due
to the uncertain business environment. Hence, a vicious cycle of
monetary crisis is contributing towards the economic slowdown.
 
Reviving Economic Growth

• Boost Public Investment. Government needs to adopt a strategy

which delicately balances the need to push public investment, while
keeping the fiscal deficit under check. Public and departmental
enterprises that can spend on infrastructure should be asked to
speed up and enhance their capital expenditure.

• Restore Investor Confidence. The government must iron out the

wrinkles under the new tax regime expeditiously to restore investor
confidence. The investors are facing a liquidity crunch due to delays
in GST refunds and upfront payment of GST on inputs. Private sector
investments must be encouraged by giving suitable incentives, in
terms of soft loans, reducing red-tapism and improving ease of doing
business.

• Revive Consumer Sentiment. Policy makers must address the

declining demand for Indian products, both at home and overseas. A
wise mix of public spending and a lower interest rate regime could
help India fire demand at home, especially with the festive season
around the corner.

• Boost Exports. Exports constitute around 20% of India’s GDP and a

slump in exports is aggravating the economic slowdown.
Appropriately addressing the taxation issues will assist exporters in a
major way.
• Focus on Key Sectors. Government must provide extra stimulus to
certain sectors in which India has carved a niche for itself in the
global arena, like pharma, medical tourism, education, etc. The same
will provide a vital nudge to the flagging economic growth.
 

Conclusion

Notwithstanding, the not so good economic figures that have been

recently put up in the public domain, the macro-economics of the
country are still not so bad. The foreign exchange inflow is at its
peak, i.e. $32 billion, the total foreign exchange reserves at a record
high of $400 billion, banks are flush with nearly 1.7 trillion notes that
have come into the system after demonetization. The optimists
believe that it is only a temporary slowdown in the Indian economic
growth story caused by the twin jolt of demonetization and
inadequately planned implementation of GST. A good monsoon,
continuing low oil prices, getting over the hump of demonetization
and stabilization of GST regime is likely to revive the economy in the
ensuing quarters.
 EUTHANASIA - BOON OR CURSE TO
SOCIETY?

Introduction

     The meaning of the word” Euthanasia” means “ Good Death”. It’s
popularly known as “Mercy Killing” also. When a terminally ill patient
is suffering without any hope of recovering, slowly inching towards
death, medically induced quick death can be termed as Euthanasia.
  
  In many countries “Voluntary Euthanasia” is legal and "Involuntary
induced Euthanasia" is illegal throughout the world. For e.g.,
Scandinavian Countries.

Passive and Active Euthanasia.

   Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary types can be further

divided into passive or active variants.”Passive euthanasia” entails
the withholding treatment necessary for the continuance of life - like
cutting off life-supporting Ventilators. “Active euthanasia” entails
the use of lethal substances or forces, (such as administering a
poisonous injection and is therefore, more controversial. While some
authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful, they
are nonetheless commonly used. In some cases, such as the
administration of increasingly necessary, but toxic doses of painkiller
medicines, there is a debate whether or not to regard the practice as
active or passive. You will recall the super hit Bollywood Hrithik
Roshan movie- “ Izazat “ which deals with the theme of Euthanasia
beautifully.
Legal Status in India.

    Till date, inspite of numerous representations and PILs from public,

our Courts never gave legal sanctity to Euthanasia stating reasons of
“Right to live” and apprehensions of misuse of it by relatives of the
patient, with ulterior motives. However the move by the Centre on
10 October 2017, is worth noticing. Centre told the Supreme Court
that it was vetting a draft law allowing ‘Passive Euthanasia’ ,but was
opposed to permitting people to make a ‘living will’ - that they
should not be put on life-support in case of terminal illness- as it
could be misused.

Proposed Bill on Euthanasia

“ Management of Patients With Terminal Illness- Withdrawal of

Medical Life Support Bill” has been drawn up in keeping with the
recommendations of the Law Commission. Additional Solicitor
General PS Narasimha revealed this news to the Supreme Court
Bench , comprising CJI and four other judges, while hearing a petition
filed by an NGO - Common Cause, on the issue of passive Euthanasia
and ‘living will’. Narasimha states-“ Passive Euthanasia can be the law
of the land. However a will to opt against life support can be misused
by close relatives as many elderly people with terminal illness are
treated like a burden by many Indian families”.

    Advocate Prasant Bhushan representing the NGO, contended that

“Euthanasia would be part of Article 21 right and forcing a person to
take medical treatment against their will also is a social issue. He
stated-“ on one hand you are short of medical facilities etc, and on
other hand you force those who are in a hopeless situation to take
treatment. However Justice Chandrachud, Supreme Court, observed
that” it raised a philosophical question, on whether a person can
refuse treatment. An individual who refuses to undergo treatment
may become a burden on the resources of the state”.

   The judges favoured the “living will” as the CJI remarked-“ who will
take the decision to remove the life support from a patient?
Everybody is in a confusion. If there is a will to the effect, All
relatives and doctors are free to take a conscious decision. “Though
CJI also pointed out the scope of misuse of such a will. The judges
touched upon the chances of elderly people being exploited under
the grab of this bill. In the case of a rich elderly person the chances of
misuse of the Will is real.

    The Law Commission report is significant to understand. In its 241

st report the Commission favoured allowing withdrawal of life
support for certain categories of people - like those in persistent
vegetative state (PVS), in irreversible coma, or of unsound mind, who
lack the mental faculties to take decisions. However the opinion of
an approved medical board is favoured.

     The Report came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in
March 2011 in the Shanbaug case, in which it made a distinction
between active and passive Euthanasia. Shanbaug , a nurse at KEM
Hospital in Mumbai, remained in a vegetative state almost 42 years
after she was sexually assaulted and choked by a ward boy. She died
in May 2015.

Conclusion

   The debate- whether Euthanasia is a boon or curse to Society is

raging for decades in India. It is a welcoming change that the Courts
and Centre are seriously trying to find a fool-proof regulation and
place checks and balances to plug loop holes in the Bill, so that many
elderly, ill senior citizens of India are protected from the greed and
selfish attitude of their off-springs.
 Catalonia Crisis - Runs a Risk of a Civil War
on European Soil

Introduction

Catalonia is an autonomous region of Spain, located on the

northeastern extremity of the Iberian Peninsula. It was
designated as a nationality by ‘Statute of Autonomy’ by Spain.

The population of Catalonia makes up 16.1% of Spain’s 46.6

million, of which an estimated 10 million speak Catalan
language. Incidentally, Catalan is listed as one of the most
widely spoken languages in Europe.

Catalonia is one of the most industrious and productive regions

of Spain, with a 209bn Euro GDP as against 01 trillion GDP of
Spain.
Catalonia’s annual exports to other countries is double that of
any other Spanish region. The unemployment rate of Catalonia
in June 2017 was much below the national average of 17.2 per
cent.

The Catalans see themselves as different from the rest of

Spain, and hence, have been demanding independence from
Spain.

Historical Perspective

Catalonia was an independent region of the Iberian Peninsula

of the modern day Spain and Portugal and had its distinct
language, laws and customs.

The Catalan speaking region of Aragon and Catalonia was

consolidated in 1150, with the marriage of Petronilia, Queen of
Aragon and Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona.
The War of the Spanish succession ended with the defeat of
Valencia in 1707 and of Catalonia in 1714. Finally, with the last
of the islands in the region was also captured by1715, which
resulted in the birth of modern-day Spain.

The rulers of Spain imposed the Spanish language and laws on

the region.

The political movement for independence of Catalonia

commenced in 1922 when Catalan leader, Francesc Macià
founded a political party for Catalan state, called the Estat
Català.

In 1931, Estat Català and other parties formed a coalition called

the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) parties, which
won a dramatic victory in the municipal elections of that year.
Francesc Macià proclaimed a Catalan Republic, but after
negotiations with the leaders of the new Spanish Republic,
accepted autonomy within the Spanish state.
General Francisco Franco, during the Spanish Civil War, set
out to destroy Catalan separatism and abolished Catalan
autonomy in 1938. He took control of the region, killing 3,500
people and forcing many more into exile.

Later, in 1975, after the death of General Francisco Franco,

Catalan political parties concentrated on autonomy rather than
independence. The region was granted a degree of autonomy
in 1977.

The call for complete independence grew steadily until July

2010, when the Constitutional Court in Madrid overruled part of
the 2006 autonomy statute, stating that there is no legal basis
for recognizing Catalonia as a nation within Spain.

In September 2014 the Catalan parliament headed by Artur

Mas, the President of the Generalitat of Catalonia approved a
call for a referendum on the independence of the region.

However, the Spanish courts blocked this effort, though

Catalonia went ahead with the vote which saw 80% of those
voting agreeing to Catalan independence.

Once again on 30 September 2017, Catalans went out to vote

th

in another independence referendum for the region.

However, the region was caught up in violence and tension as

the Spanish courts blocked the vote as it goes against the
Spanish constitution. 800 people were said to be injured in
clashes with the police.

Catalans still got to the polls and 90% voted in favour or

independence for Catalonia.

Reasons for Spain’s Opposition to Catalonia’s

Independence
The Catalan region has long been the industrial heartland of
Spain. It ranks first not only for its maritime power and trade in
goods such as textiles, but is also a hub for finance, services
and hi-tech companies.

Catalonia is one of the wealthiest regions of Spain, which

accounts for 19 per cent of Spain’s GDP. Catalonia's
contribution to the Spanish economy is twice that of Scotland’s
to the UK.

Independent Catalonia would have a GDP of $314 billion

(£195bn), which would make it the 34th largest economy in the
world. That would make it bigger than Portugal or Hong Kong.
Its GDP per capita would be $35,000, which would make it
wealthier than South Korea, Israel or Italy.
Hence, its secession would cost Spain almost 20 per cent of its
economic output, which is naturally not acceptable to Spain.
Besides, Catalonia holds 52.5 billion Euros of debt that it owes
to the country’s central administration, which would be difficult
to recover in case it breaks away from Spain.

Why is Catalonia Demanding Independence

The Catalan region is historically distinct from Spain going back

as far as 1,000 years, with distinct language, traditions and
customs.

The region experienced a period of rapid economic growth from

the 1950s to ’70s and saw it become heavily industrialized and
grew as a tourist destination.

When the economic crisis hit Spain in 2014-15, it put a

particular strain on Catalonia which is one of Spain’s wealthiest
regions.
The greatest argument for independence of Catalonia is based
on the fact that this small northeastern region makes a huge
contribution to the country as a whole and tends to prop-up the
smaller less developed areas of the country.

Implications of Catalonia Crisis

The escalating crisis in Catalonia runs the risk of causing a

“civil war” on European soil.

Catalan businesses are considering moving out of the region

due to the threat of an impending independence declaration
and the region’s political stability.

Barcalona-based Sabadell bank has already announced its

plans to move its head office to the city of Alicante. Similarly,
Spain’s third-largest lender Caixabank is also considering
transfer of its legal base out of Catalonia to the Balearic
Islands.

Hence, the crisis may result in business losses in Catalonia,

which will further hurt the flagging Spanish economy creating
political and economic instability in the region.

Conclusion

The recent referendum though being called illegal by Spain,

demonstrates an expression of the people’s will, where Catalan
people no longer feel Spanish.

It is important that the United Nations and EU intervene to

prevent the crisis from escalating further and cause avoidable
bloodshed.
 Are the Rohingya Refugees a Security
Threat to India?

Introduction

The Rohingya population was historically concentrated in

the Arakan region of Burma, which is why they are also
called Arakanese Indians.

The said region is incorporated in the Rakhine State of

Myanmar, which is situated on its western coast and is
characterized by some fairly large islands such
as Cheduba and Myingun Island. It has an area of 36,762 sq
km and its capital is Sittwe.

Geographically this region is distinctly segregated as it is

bordered by the Bay of Bengal to the west, the Chittagong
Division of Bangladesh to the northwest and the Arakan
Mountains, rising to 3,063 meters (10,049 ft) at Victoria Peak,
separate Rakhine State from central Burma.

Myanmar has a majority of Buddhist population. However, the

Rakhine State is inhabited by a majority of Muslim population
and a minority of Hindus. The Rohingya population in Myanmar
was around 1.1 to 1.3 million before their mass exodus
commenced owing to ethnic cleansing of the region.

Tracing the History of the Ethnic Division in Myanmar

The Arab merchants arrived at the coastline of the Bay of

Bengal for trade since the third century. The Arakan region
became a hub center of maritime trade and cultural exchange
between Burma and the outside world.

Starting in the 8th century, Arab merchants began conducting

missionary activities, and many locals converted to Islam.
The British East India Company extended the Bengal
Presidency to Arakan region and encouraged Bengali
inhabitants from adjacent regions to migrate into the then lightly
populated and fertile valleys of Arakan as farm laborers.

In the early 19th century, thousands of Bengalis from the

Chittagong region settled in Arakan seeking work. The British
census of 1872 reported 58,255 Muslims in the region and by
the year 1911, the Muslim population had increased to
178,647.

The ethnic rift between the two communities can be traced

back to the Second World War, when the Japanese advance
triggered an inter-communal conflict between Muslims and
Buddhists.

The Muslims fled towards British-controlled Muslim-dominated

northern Arakan from Japanese-controlled Buddhist-majority
areas.
The Buddhists instigated cruel measures against the Muslims
in the Arakan region and thousands, fled from Buddhist-
majority regions to eastern Bengal and northern Arakan,
besides many died of diseases and starvation.

The Muslims in response conducted retaliatory raids from

British-controlled areas, causing Buddhists to flee to southern
Arakan.

Later, when the Indian freedom struggle was picking up steam,

in the 1940s, the Rohingya Muslims in
western Burma organized a separatist movement to merge the
region into East Pakistan (now Bangladesh).

In fact, before the independence of Burma in January 1948, the

Muslim leaders from Arakan approached Muhammad Ali
Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, to initiate action for
incorporating the Mayu region to Pakistan, considering their
religious affinity and geographical proximity with East Pakistan.
However, Jinnah declined by stating that he was not in a
position to interfere into Burmese matters.

Post independence of Burma, the Rohingya community was

recognized as an indigenous ethnic nationality of Burma by the
democratically elected government.

However, after the Burma's military junta took control of the

country in 1962, the Rohingya have been systematically
deprived of their political rights.

The Burmese Citizenship Law of 1982 was instituted which

says that Rohingya or any other minority community in the
country is eligible for citizenship only if he/she can provide a
proof of their ancestors to have lived in Burma prior to 1823.
Else, they would be called as “resident foreigners” or an
“associated citizen” (if one of their parents is a Myanmar
citizen).

Hence, despite being able to trace their history back to the 8th
century, the Rogingya of Rakhine state literally became
“stateless” overnight and lost entitlement to any civic services
being provided by Myanmar government.

Rohingya are denied basic rights; restrictions are placed on

marriage, employment and religious choice.

Trigger for the Recent Rohingya Crisis

The military junta unabatedly continued to carry out ethnic

cleansing of the region and deported a sizeable population of
Rohingya to Bangladesh. Even after the political reforms of
2011 and the first General Elections of 2015, things have not
changed much for the Rohingya.
The democratically elected President, Htin Kyaw has been
unwilling to grant citizenship to Rohingya Muslims.

In June 2012, due to an alleged rape of a Rahkine woman in

the Rohingya dominated area, major riots broke out between
the Muslims and the Buddhists.

Buddhist nationalists burned Rohingya homes and killed more

than 280 people. Thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled their
homes and took refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, a Muslim
majority nation.

The Rohingya formed a militant outfit called the Arakan

Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) in 2016. This militant
organization claimed a simultaneous launch of attack on 30
police posts and an army base in Rakhine state on 25 August
2017.
However, shortly before the Rohingya rebel attack that killed 12
security forces personnel, the Myanmar military had launched
"clearance operations" against the Rohingya Muslims in
Rakhine state that left over 3,000 dead, many more injured,
tortured or raped, villages burned, and over 500,000 Rohingya
(about half of the remaining Rohingya in Myanmar) fleeing to
Bangladesh.

Moreover, abysmal poverty and lack of development in the

Rakhine region has further fuelled Rohingya migration.

Are the Rohingya Refugees a Security Threat to India?

The Rakhine region is Myanmar’s least developed region, with

more than 78 per cent of households living below the poverty
line.

After the August 25 “clearance operations”, it is estimated that

th

a total of 87,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar to Bangladesh

and about 40,000 are already living in India.

These people who have endured such drastic measures are

highly susceptible to brainwash by militant organizations to
propagate hatred and terror.

The ISIS, which is losing its sheen in the Middle East, has now
heightened its activities in the region for a fresh recruitment
drive to enhance its staying power and is looking for good
reasons to remain globally relevant.

According to sources, the ISIS head-hunters have arrived in

India’s north-eastern state of Nagaland and around 2000 local
Muslims have volunteered to take up arms. The Imam of
Dimapur is said to have been involved in collecting a huge
amount of arms and ammunition from Bangladesh.
Similarly, it is believed that several radical Islamic organizations
are active inside the refugee camps in Bangladesh.

It is said that Pakistan’s JuD, elements of Al Qaida, Jamat e

Islami, Chhatra Shibir, ISIS and some other militant groups
have infiltrated into the relief camps for distribution of relief
material and are also to provide arms training.

It is a known fact that there are several elements in the

Bangladesh armed forces that are supporters of Islamic terror
originations and are opposed to Indo-Bangladesh amity.
In the past also huge consignments of arms and ammunition
have been dispatched into the India’s NE states from
Bangladesh by the Islamic militant organizations operating from
there.

Pakistan and the Islamic fundamentalists present in

Bangladesh have vested interests to exploit the prevailing
situation of unrest and destabilize India by fanning
radicalization.

Hence, Indian security forces will have to be extra vigilant to

counter this developing threat.

Conclusion

Rohingya refugees are spread across six locations in India,

which are, Jammu, Nuh in Haryana’s Mewat district, Delhi,
Hyderabad, Jaipur and Chennai.

Initially, the Indian government had issued Long Term Visas to

500 Rohingya, which could help them open bank accounts and
secure admission in schools. Later, looking at the perennial
influx of refugees and keep the security concerns in mind the
Home Ministry had taken a decision to deport the Rohingya.
However, the Supreme Court in response to a petition filed, has
put a hold on the deportation of the Rohingya refugees.

It may be noted that China has a major influence in Myanmar

and is its main trading partner. Incidentally, when global
economic sanctions had been imposed on Myanmar after
democracy was ousted by the military junta, Myanmar was
largely dependent on China for trade and commerce.

Now that democracy has returned to Myanmar, India, like many

other western countries, is making a beeline to exploit the
massive opportunities offered by the natural resources and oil
rich state of Myanmar.

Hence, India is not in a position to take a strong stance on the

Rohingya crisis, lest it antagonizes the government of
Myanmar, which is believed to be carrying out “operation
clearance” to stem the growing Islamic radicalization in the
Rakhine State.

THE RISE AND FALL OF ISLAMIC STATE (IS)

Introduction
 
‘Iraqi forces will continue the hunt for IS fighters’
The Islamic State’s “state of falsehood” has come to an end, Iraqi Prime
Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Thursday, after his troops captured the
wrecked historic mosque of Mosul, from where Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared
himself “Caliph” three years ago.

“The return of the al-Nuri Mosque and the al-Hadba minaret to the fold of the
nation marks the end of the Daesh state of falsehood,” Mr. Abadi said in a
statement, referring to the ultra hard-line Sunni group by an Arabic acronym.
He said Iraqi forces would continue to hunt the Islamic State’s fighters “to kill
them and detain them, down to the last one.”

The insurgents blew up the medieval mosque and its famed leaning minaret a
week ago as the U.S.-backed Iraqi forces advanced towards it. The IS black flag
had been flying from al-Hadba (The Hunchback) minaret since June 2014.
Authorities expect the long battle for Mosul to end in the coming days as the
remaining IS fighters are bottled up in just a handful of neighbourhoods of the
Old City.Nearly three years since the group's elusive leader Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi declared a self-styled Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS is reeling
from losses across its so-called "caliphate."It is fast losing its grip on Mosul, its
biggest hub in Iraq, and its de-facto capital in Syria -- Raqqa -- is all but
surrounded. But it's not just territory that the militant group is losing.
 
Present Developing Situation
 
Over the last six months, ISIS has seen its finances blocked, stock piling of
weapons stopped, their media propaganda suffered and several high-ranking
leaders killed or captured.

The ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’-an alliance of Kurds and Arab tribes -are
approaching the outskirts of Raqqa, and the battle will begin within "days”.
While the fight against ISIS is far from won, the lines of this war are slowly
being redrawn. As the group is driven from key cities and villages in what was
once its self-proclaimed caliphate, ISIS is evolving from territorial to
ideological threat.
Before he was killed in a drone attack, ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-
Adnani said that potential setbacks in Mosul and Raqqa would not spell the
group's end: "No, defeat is losing the will and the desire to fight."

For some ISIS fighters, there will be no escape from the battles of Mosul and
Raqqa. Nor do they want one. Urged on by the messages of al-Adnani and al-
Baghdadi, they will embrace martyrdom in the alleyways of Mosul and the wide
expanses of the Jazeera desert. Most of those who fight to the death are likely to
be foreign fighters, if past experience is any guide. Moroccans, Tunisians and
Chechens will be among them.Since its inception, ISIS has prepared for the 'day
after' the caliphate. Its battle cry has long been "Baqiya wa tatamaddad," or
"remain and expand."

While its expansion may take generations, the group's leadership is ready for a
stateless Islamic State. Top commanders and hardcore fighters will likely to
remain in Iraq and Syria, forming an underground resistance. IS has cultivated
deep influence in the Sunni population of Iraq and Syria. (less so in Syria where
many jihadists regard it as an interloper). Over the past decade, the group has
developed networks skilled at raising money, obtaining weapons and
clandestine organization across a wide swathe of Iraq -from Diyala in the east to
Rutbah close to the Jordanian border. Even as it is under pressure in Mosul,
ISIS remains active in many of these places, and is capable of carrying out
suicide bombings in Baghdad, Tikrit and elsewhere. It has shown resilience in
Syria, looking to establish footholds far from its Raqqa headquarters. In some
ways, it is returning to what it does best -agile attacks, mobility and surprise.
 
Switching Allegiances
 
As ISIS' fortunes decline, some militants may try to switch allegiance to other
groups. In Syria, these include the former ‘al Qaeda’ affiliate ‘Jabhat Fateh al
Sham’. But there's a long history of bad blood between the two groups, which
had a bitter and public falling out three years ago. Few in the ISIS hierarchy
would contemplate such a move. In Iraq, there are precious few alternatives for
ISIS militants because the group has systematically attacked rivals in the region.
Even so, ISIS' decline is an opportunity for al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria and beyond.
Some militants will see al Qaeda as the only option for continuing their
struggle. ISIS traces its origins to an al Qaeda franchise in Iraq (AQI).
 
Beginning Of The End
 
At least 75% of ISIS fighters have been killed since the US-led coalition
launched airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, according to US estimates. By last
December, they estimate ISIS' ranks had winnowed to between 12,000 and
15,000.

It is extraordinarily difficult to estimate how many foreign fighters remain in the

region. But far fewer foreign fighters have been able to reach the 'promised
land' in the last year than previously.

The most worrying possibility for the West is that these foreign fighters,
finding survival in Iraq and Syria difficult, post-caliphate, might return home to
carry out lone-wolf style attacks -as well as recruit new members and revive
underground networks. They will try to use migrant routes and often will travel
alone. The travel patterns of those involved in the Paris and Brussels attacks
uncovered deep flaws in the tracking of such individuals among European
security services. While it's now much harder for foreign fighters to travel
through Turkey, as migrant flows have slowed, an unknown number have
slipped through the cracks.

It only takes a handful of individuals to cross the Mediterranean, or travel

through the Balkans undetected, for a European city to be vulnerable to another
devastating assault.

As and when Raqqa falls, the logistical and financial help for such operatives
will have to find another home. (Recent attacks in Brussels and Istanbul both
appear to have been co-ordinated from Raqqa).Even so, in the age of
encryption, sympathizers are able to find ways to communicate securely with
ISIS leadership. The Uzbek national who carried out the New Year's Eve attack
on a nightclub in Istanbul had never been to Syria, but communicated with
commanders through the encrypted chat app Telegram, according to testimony
he provided Turkish prosecutors.Turkey, given its proximity to Syria and Iraq
and its use as a logistical rear-base by ISIS, may be especially vulnerable.Rather
than risk going home, some ISIS members may try to reach new jihadist
pastures.There's evidence indicating that hundreds have already reached other
ISIS-controlled provinces, or wilayats, especially in Libya.

Across the world, from Russia's North Caucasus to Nigeria, militant groups
have pinned their flags to the ISIS banner over the last three years. Some
comprise a few dozen men hiding in mountains and jungles; others have been
sophisticated and well funded, with close links to ISIS' head office. Still others
are hardened insurgent groups capable of inflicting heavy casualties on armies.
One such group is the Islamic State in Northern Sinai (ISNS), which has
inflicted hundreds of casualties on Egyptian security forces since affiliating
itself with ISIS in 2014.
It threatened Christians to leave Sinai, and boasted setting up checkpoints in the
middle of a coastal town, al-Arish. It also claimed responsibility for the terrorist
bombing of a Russian plane that exploded in mid-air, crashing in the Sinai
Peninsula in November 2015.ISNS is unlikely to be able to seize and hold
territory in Sinai, but does not seem close to defeat -despite a determined
offensive by the Egyptian military.Some ISIS fighters now in Syria and Iraq
may try to join ISNS and other active affiliates, much as ‘al Qaeda’ fighters
moved to Iraq and Yemen after 9/11. They will try to use migrant routes and
often will travel alone. But they will take with them skills learned in years of
combat.

US President Donald Trump has promised to bomb the entire IS head quarters
and finish them. This might be feasible amid the crumbling holdouts of the
caliphate, but as the remnants of ISIS go underground or escape, the apocalyptic
mindset they have come to represent will live on. It -or something very similar -
will find a host among Sunni in the Middle East who feel persecuted, and
among a few young and alienated Muslims in western societies who seek
purpose and revenge against wrongs perceived and real.
 
Conclusion
 
"The Islamic State is on the back foot militarily, it's losing territory," Charlie
Winter, senior fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation
and Political Violence at King's College London, who has studied ISIS
propaganda for years, declared. "Even if ISIS loses Mosul and Raqqa, the
ideology will live on."

Folks, Let us hope the World will once again wake up to face ‘sanity’.

The Raging Debate Over Right to Privacy

Introduction

A number of petitions had been filed in the court that

challenged the mandatory use of Aadhaar cards which assign a
unique 12-digit ID to every citizen. The Aadhaar database links
iris scans and fingerprints to more than a billion people.

The government of the day insists that the Aadhaar should be

made mandatory for all financial transactions to bring about
transparency in dealings and to act as a tool to curb corruption.

Also, the government feels that the data collected by the

Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) can help
targeted dissemination of the benefits of the government
welfare schemes to the deserving.

However, the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict

unanimously passed by a nine-judge Bench on 24 August 2017
stated that privacy is a fundamental right that, it is intrinsic to
life and liberty and thus comes under Article 21 of the Indian
constitution.

Further, the ruling added that whether Aadhaar can be made

mandatory, as the government insists for all financial
transactions and for benefits of welfare schemes, will be
decided by a separate and smaller bench of the Supreme
Court.

Emergence of the Debate on Right to Privacy

The Privacy Bill was table in the Parliament in 2011, with the
motive to provide for the right to privacy to citizens of India and
to regulate the collection, maintenance and dissemination of
their personal information and for penalization for violation of
such rights and matters connected therewith.
However, the Bill has not been debated in the Parliament and is
lying pending with the government.

The debate regarding right to privacy has been going on ever

since the 1950s. Earlier, in 1954, a six-judge bench had ruled
that privacy is not a fundamental right. The same decision was
upheld by an eight-judge bench in 1962. They said that privacy
was a common law right which when violated can be
compensated.

The ongoing constitutional challenge to the Aadhaar card

scheme of the Union government was at first considered by a
three judge bench of Supreme Court headed by Justice J
Chelameswar, in August 2015.

The Bench looked into the norms for and compilation of

demographic biometric data by government which was being
questioned on the ground that it violates the right to privacy.
Meanwhile, the attorney general for India observed that,
because the Indian Constitution does not specifically protect
the right to privacy, the very existence of a fundamental right of
privacy was doubtful.

Hence, the three-judge Bench opinioned that in order to quell

the controversy, it is better that the jurisprudential correctness
of right to privacy as a fundamental right is authoritatively
decided by a Bench of appropriate strength.

A 5-Judge Bench was constituted in October 2015, which

recommended setting up of a nine-Judge Bench as an eight-
judge bench had previously ruled on it in 1962.

Finally, after more than two years, and after almost six years of
the filing of the case by Justice K S Puttaswamy (retd)
accompanied by some two dozen cases, on July 18, 2017, a
nine-judge Constitution Bench was set up by the 44th Chief
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.

The nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled on 24

August 2017 that the ‘right to privacy’ is protected as an
intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article
21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution of India.

Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

The first and foremost implication is that it puts a question mark

on the validity of the Aadhaar scheme on the grounds that it
violates the right to privacy of the citizens.

However, the Union government has already issued an office

memorandum on 31 July 2017, by which it has constituted a
committee to “suggest a draft Data Protection Bill”.
The terms of reference defined for the above said Committee
pertains to the “study of various issues relating to data
protection in India” and “to make specific suggestions for
consideration of the central government on principles to be
considered for data protection in India and suggest a draft data
protection bill”.

Besides the Aadhaar, criminalization of homosexuality under

Section 377 will also become a matter of contention after this
verdict. The validity of the provision will raise further questions
as homosexual relationship between consenting adults will be
seen under the purview of privacy.

Moreover, a favourable verdict on the right to privacy also

poses a challenge to the validity of WhatsApp's new privacy
policy.

Personal and National Security Concerns

The terms of reference of the committee set up by the

government to “suggest a draft data protection bill” does not
encompass all aspects of privacy and data protection in the era
of e-commerce, drones, Google maps, Face book, Twitter,
smart phones, etc.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information

Technology that examined the work of department of
electronics and information technology has raised certain
questions pertaining to personal and national security, like:

 India’s surveillance and interception of data sent through e-

mails by National Security Agency of the US, as brought out
in the revelations by Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning
and Wiki leaks need to be scrutinized.
 The security ramifications of storing UID/Aadhaar data on
unsecure ‘cloud’ and the failure to enact a legal framework
for right to privacy.

 Government’s imposition of obligation of disclosure of

information and further linking it to bank accounts and
mobile numbers makes it vulnerable to hacking.

 Installation of checks and balances/ measures against

impersonation by certain individuals at the time of
enrolment for issue of unique identification numbers.

 Measures to prevent manipulation of biometric information.

 Security and privacy concerns owing to the UID data

presently hosted in a private data centre and not hosted in
a government data centre.

 Lastly, the proposal to converge the UID data with electoral

database, and EVMs can make the secret ballot system
vulnerable to hacking and has the potential of hijacking
India’s democratic system.

Confusion Galore

In the absence of clearly defined regulations on the subject,

there is utter confusion with respect to the right to privacy issue.

The banks have been threatening their accountholders to

furnish UIDAI-issued Aadhaar to experience seamless banking
experience or face suspension of their accounts, while, the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has made it clear on 20 October
th

that it has not issued instructions regarding mandatory linking

of the two.

The Centre Government has made it mandatory to quote the

Aadhaar number for opening bank accounts and also made
Aadhaar compulsory for 135 schemes (of 35 ministries)
including free cooking gas (LPG) to poor women, kerosene and
fertilizer subsidy, targeted public distribution system (PDS) and
MGNREGA.

However, the Supreme Court has restricted usage of Aadhaar

to six schemes where the government provides benefits or
subsidy to individuals.

Latest Development

Government has extended the deadline for the mandatory

linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobile numbers and
PAN from December 31, 2016 to March 31 next year.
Meanwhile, the Telecom Ministry has issued instructions to
mobile companies to link Aadhaar with mobile phones for
credible authentication mechanism by February 2018,
otherwise mobile services could be disconnected.

A fresh petition has been promptly filed by a petitioner in the

Supreme Court challenging this move of the government.

The Attorney General, KK Venugopal has informed that the

government-appointed expert committee on Data Protection
Law headed by former SC judge, Justice BN Srikrishna, has
started working towards a robust data protection regime.

It is believed that the reason for the government to extend the

proposed deadline for Aadhaar linking is that the above said
Committee is considering changes in the Aadhaar Act of 2016
and the Information Technology Act of 2000. The law in its final
form is said to be available by February 2018.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it is important for the government to collect the

data for more targeted dissemination of benefits of various
government welfare schemes to the citizens who need it the
most. Besides, it can play a vital role in controlling corruption,
as well as address the issues of illegal immigrants.
However, unless we can address the two conflicting
requirements of collecting and using data ethically, and the
need to create a robust mechanism to safeguard and secure
the data so collected, as also ensure that it does not impinge
upon the privacy of the citizens, the debate on the subject will
continue to rage.

ARTICLE 35 A – EYE OF A NEW STORM IN

KASHMIR
Significance

What is Article 35 A?

What is it’s political and demographical significance to the people of

Kashmir?

The answer to these questions and the pros and cons of its termination
from our Constitution are matters of grave concern to all citizens of India.

Article 35 A is a provision in the Constitution of India that empowers

the J&K Legislature to define permanent residents of the state. It was
added through the Constitution ( Application to Jammu and Kashmir)
Order - 1954, issued under Article 370.

The J&K Constitution which was adopted on November 17, 1954,

defines a permanent Resident as a person who was a state subject on
May 14,1954 or who has been a resident of the state for 10 years and
has “lawfully acquired immovable property in the state” The J&K
Legislature can alter the definition of PR only through a law passed by a
two third majority in Assembly.

It’s interesting to note here that the present PR Law replicates a state
subject law promulgated by Dogra King Maharaja Hari Singh in 1927
following a strong campaign by Kashmiri Pandits, who were opposed to
the hiring of civil servants from Punjab because it affected their
representation and monopoly in the Kashmir administration.

Is This Article Controversial ?

In 2014, the “We the Citizens” NGO filed a writ petition seeking striking
down of Article 35 A. While the J&K government filed a counter- affidavit
and sought dismissal of the petition , the Central Government did not do
so, despite pleas from the state government, especially its ally PDP.

On July 17, Attorney General KK Venugopal has told the bench of

them Chief Justice JS Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud that the
petition raised constitutional issues, after which the court referred the
matter to a three- judge bench and set six weeks for final disposal. The
Centre refused to take a stand on the issue with the AG telling the Court
that the question was “very sensitive” and required a “larger debate”.

The Union Government’s decision to abstain from supporting the J&K

State government’s position, has been seen by some as part of a series
of moves by it to weaken J&K’s special status. The Hindutva parties of
India are opposed to Article 35A because it bars non- state subjects
from settling and buying properties in J&K. The state Law Minister Abdul
Haq Khan along with state Advocate General Jahangir Ganai have been
camping in New Delhi, given the sensitivity of the case.

On 29 Oct 2017, separatist leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz

Umar Farooq and Mohammed Yasin Malik issued a joint statement
urging the people of Kashmir to launch a “ mass agitation” if the
Supreme Court cleared repeal of Article 35 A. “ A conspiracy has been
hatched to change the demography of the Muslim- majority state....Any
move to tinker with a state subject law will create a Palestine - like
Situation “.the statement screamed.

The present challenge to Article 35 A in the Supreme Court is based

on the ground that it could have been introduced in the Constitution only
through a constitutional amendment under Article 368 and not through a
Presidential Order under Article 370.However this is an argument that
the Supreme Court has rejected on at least three occasions earlier.
Is Article 35 A an apology to our fundamental rights as a citizen of India?
A major section of the Indians believe that ‘ Article 35 A is a blot on our
“Fundamental Right as citizens of the largest democracy of the world, ie;
Freedom to own Property and Freedom of Movement”, enshrined in the
Constitution of India. They feel that many clauses in Article 370 are also
contradicting with the “Fundamental Rights of an Indian”. The demand
for a “Uniform Civil Code “ is an off- shoot of these arguments.

However, many secular political parties in India support Article 370 and
Article 35A. They believe that any amendment to the existing
constitutional ‘special status’ bestowed on J&K, will further alienate the
already disgruntled Kashmiris from India. Such a move may strengthen
the separatists and Jihadis to wage a war against the Union of India for
independence.

Conclusion

New debates are raging over the ‘special status of J&K’. Main opposition
parties of our parliament now opined that the Government may consider
“ Autonomy to J&K”, which our PM Modi has vehemently rejected. The
nation is anxiously waiting for the Supreme Court verdict. If the verdict is
in favour for the repealing of Article 35 A , it could unleash fresh violence
and protect in Kashmir. It’s wise to remember- always the victims of such
turmoil are innocent gullible common people of Kashmir and security
personnel, not the perpetrators of mischief.
 CHILD MARRIAGE ACT –CLEANSING THE
DIRT

Introduction

   Child Marriage Act came into force in India in 1929, and got
amended in 2006, proclaiming legal age of marriage for girls as 18
and for boys 21. However, it is an irony that still there are 23 million
child brides in our country.

The reasons are obvious and hypocritical. There are many anomalies
within the law which does not, in fact, ban Child Marriage out right
but says that it is ‘voidable’ at the option of the contracting party
(who is a child at the time of marriage) and void only in certain
circumstances. To add further confusion to Child Marriage Act 2006,
Child marriages continue to be valid under the Hindu Marriage Act
1955 and Muslim Personal Law. It is indeed paradoxical that in India,
in-spite of many laws prohibiting Child marriage and protection of
children against exploitation, unabashedly these laws are ignored
and the guilty go unpunished. This is a sheer violation of human
rights of children- both boys and girls- with particularly negative
consequences for the health, welfare and dignity of the girl child.
Unfortunately, Child Marriage is deeply entrenched in society and
cannot be removed by the law alone.

       The worst anomaly of the Law of the land, in this matter was-
though sex with or without consent, with a minor girl ( under 18) was
considered punishable as rape, sex with a married minor girl ( above
15 ) was allowed(even without consent) and it was perfectly legal.

Land Mark SC Judgement

     The recent Supreme Court judgement making sex with a girl
between 15 and 18, even within marriage a criminal offence, came as
a huge relief for the girl child. It may have set in motion a series of
positive effects for the welfare of girl children in our society. In its
order, the Apex Court opined that it is removing the distinction
between a married and married child because “ it’s arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical and violative of the rights of the girl child and
not fair, just and reasonable and, therefore, violative of Article 14,15,
and 21 of the ‘Constitution of India’.

Impact On The Social Fibres Of India.

     It’s shocking that even in 21st century India, Child Marriage
continues to be rampant. At last count there were 23 million child
brides with approximately 30% of marriages in 2016 being child
marriages. The immediate consequence of this order will be for the
proponents of Child Marriage who take cover under the grab of
“tradition and belief”. With the entrenched patriarchy in Indian heart
lands, a child bride is often bought from poor families by old men
looking for sexual and domestic servitude. By making it a criminal
offence to have sex with child brides the SC, we hope, has snatched
away one of the primary motives for child marriage.

     A major consequence of this judgement is also its potential

towards reducing India’s burden of maternal and infant mortality.
There is a strong co-relation between child marriage and maternal,
neo- natal and infant mortality along with stunting and malnutrition.
Early marriage generally leads to early pregnancy. 12 % of girls aged
between 11-19 are already mothers in India. We are aware, a child’s
body is not adequately grown for pregnancy or child birth, and risks
to both the mother and infant’s survival are much higher. In addition,
underweight mothers tend to give birth to underweight babies. It’s
common knowledge that nearly 50% of new- born deaths are caused
due to complications arising out of low birth weight and premature
delivery.

According to the National Family and Health Survey -4 ( NFHS-4)

nearly 50% pregnant women in the age group of 14- 59 Are anaemic.
It’s noticed that more than half of these women in the age group - 20
to 24 years- were married before they attained the age of 18 years
and about 27% were anaemic. This has severe consequences for both
maternal and infant mortality.

    States and regions with high incidence of child marriage also show
greater prevalence of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity.
Madhya Pradesh, for instance, has the worst infant mortality of 47
deaths per 1000 live births and also tops the list of states for the
number of child marriages. Other states that display a similar pattern
are Odisha, Assam, Utter Pradesh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan among
others.

    In its judgement SC acknowledges the link between early marriage

and the physical and mental well-being of mother and infant. It says-“
the National Plan of Action for Children recognises that the early
marriage of girls s one of the factors for neo-natal deaths; early
marriage poses various risks for the survival, health and development
of young girls and to children born to them and most unfortunately,
it is also used as a means of child trafficking.”

Conclusion

   In-spite of Government welfare schemes like ‘Beto Bachao, Beto

Padhao’ there is a dire requirement of a reawakening among our
society to abolish this social evil. The Central Government needs to
re- examine the lukewarm “Prohibition of Child Marriage Act” and
amend it to give it more teeth, so that there is no loop holes left for
the guilty, to escape the punishment.
 SAUDI ARABIA- TURMOILED KINGDOM
Introduction

   King Salman Abd al- Aziz took over the throne of Saudi Arabia in
2015, and he named his son Mohammad ibn Salman, the Crown Prince
this summer, replacing former First Deputy Prime Minister and
Interior Minister Mohammad Ibn Nayef al-Saud, who was reportedly
put under palace arrest and compelled to resign. The reason given to
the world media was that Prince Nayef , the architect of the
Kingdom’s counter- insurgency programme, had become addicted to
pain killers after a 2009 failed assassination bid.
  
However political pundits of Saudi Kingdom say that Prince Nafef’s
real sin was opposing an embargo on Qatar, to punish it for defying
Saudi policy on Iran, and voicing doubts about wars against Tehran’s
proxies in Syria and Yemen.

   These wars are the cherished projects of Crown Prince Salman,

since the King and son believe that it’s essential to make a dent in
the power of Iran in the Middle East, to ensure Saudi Arabia’s long-
term security and prosperity in the face of Iran’s growing influence in
the region.

   However the war strategies of Crown Prince Salman has been going
badly, with Saudi Arabia locked in a battle of attrition and unable to
evict Iran from its east. In addition Saudi’s Islamic Jihadist proxies in
Syria have failed to overthrow the regime with Iran emerging from
the war, against the Islamic State, stronger than ever.

Deep Cracks in The House Of Saud

   The Crown Prince Salman has cracked his whip and put the entire
powerful lobby who challenge his authority under house arrest,
including the former Crown Prince and Interior Minister Prince Nayef.

   The Crown Prince’s purge has seen 11 princes, along with 38 top
Business tycoons and former ministers, jailed - all of them, the elite
of Saudi Society.

The most visible target is , Prince Talal al-Waleed, a philanthropist

and businessman worth over $ 17.1 Billion and whose holdings are
spread across Citibank, News Corp, Apple, Time- Warner and Twitter.
Prince Talal has financially aided Donald Trump early in the US
President’s career, but a bitter critic of his bid for office - and indeed,
of the affairs of the Kingdom.
    Another notable person under arrest, is Bakr bin Laden, a relative
of slain al- Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden who is a leading business
Oligarch, owning the giant Bin Laden construction empire. Another
bigwig who was the target of Prince Salman, was Prince Mutaib ibn
Abdullah, the son of the former king and the head of the National
Guard, the only military force operating outside the ministries of
interior and defence, which Prince Salman already controls.
Largely drawn from Saudi Arabia’s tribes, the National Guard is the
regime’s last line of defence. He was charged with corruption. The
arrested men have little hope of legal redress. Prince Salman’s Anti-
Corruption Committee is empowered to track funds, freeze assets,
ban individuals from travelling - all the while “ exempt from laws,
regulations, instructions, orders and decisions under Saudi Law, the
decree instituting it makes clear.

Is It Good For The Future of Saudi Arabia?

   Till date, for generations political power was shared across the
sprawling royal family, accommodating its often squabbling factions.
The Crown Prince Salman wants to tow a moderate Islam way of
living for the people of the kingdom, which is resented by the
fundamentally minded opposite lobby.

Though ruthless in his action against his detractors, Crown Prince

Salman is admired by the world as a futuristic king, who is sensible to
realise that the richness flowing from the Saudi oil, is soon getting
dried up. The Arab world admits that Prince Salman is a visionary who
has already started shaping the new modern Saudi Arabia, when
other oil - rich Muslim countries have not even started planning their
future course of action. The world is switching on to a fossil free
alternative energy mode with an alarming pace.

   Prince Salman, visualising the future, has already designed and

constructed a sparkling new city named ‘Neom’, ( means New Future).
Constructed to span across 25,000 square kilometres along Saudi
Arabia’s northwest coast, while reaching into Jordan and joined to
Egypt by a great bridge, Neom to be larger than New York (30 times),
will be Saudi Arabia’s future when oil runs out- a world hub for
renewable energy, 3-D printing technology, biotechnology, media,
and entertainment filled with smart buildings and robots to liberate
its residents from drudgery.

     It will be the most ambitious civilizational project since Emperor

Marcus Ulpius Traianus seized Arabia to safeguard Rome’s trade with
India, and laid the ground for great cities like Petra, Hejra, and
Mada’in Saleh.

“ This is the blank page you need to write humanity’s next chapter”
The Crown Prince Salman famously quoted.
Conclusion

     The Saudi Prince’s no - holds- barred campaign to seize

unquestioned power, which would allow him to transform his nation
and restructure the region’s geopolitics, has already mired the
kingdom in war- and his critics fear, could now lead to worse, in wake
of his unprecedented crack- down on the elites of the kingdom.

     For a secular India, it’s soothing to note that Crown Prince has
already promised a cultural change, notably by allowing women to
drive and ushering in “ moderate Islam”. Neom’s promotional
material has images of a ballerina, an Orchestra and women in work-
out gear, suggesting that the Crown Prince sees himself as an
ideological moderniser, cutting away at the monarchy’s historic
dependence on clerical power.
 The 31st ASEAN Summit & Significance of
Establishing the ‘Quad’

Introduction

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a

politico-economic conglomerate of ten member countries from
South East Asia.

The 31 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

st

Summit was held on 13-14 November 2017 at Manila,

Philippines.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi represented India at the

15 ASEAN-India Summit and 12 East Asia Summit. He
th th

happens to be the second PM to visit Philippines, since Mrs

Indira Gandhi.

PM Modi had bilateral talks on the sidelines of the Summit with

the PMs of Australia, Japan, Brunei, New Zealand and
President Donald Trump, USA.

General Information about ASEAN

The organisation came into existence on 08 August 1967. Initial
members included Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore
and Thailand, and later, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and
Vietnam were also included into the organisation.

ASEAN covers a land area of 4.4 million square kilometres, i.e.

3% of the total land area of the Earth and its territorial waters
cover an area about three times larger than its land
counterpart.

The member countries have a combined population of

approximately 625 million people, i.e. 8.8% of the world's
population.
ASEAN as an entity ranks as the seventh largest economy in
the world, behind the US, China, Japan, Germany, France and
the United Kingdom.

ASEAN Summit is held twice a year to discuss and resolve

political, economic and regional issues. Meetings with other
countries, outside of the bloc are also held during the ASEAN
Summit to promote external relations.

Bilaterally, ASEAN maintains strategic relations with Australia,

Canada, and the People’s Republic of China, the European
Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the
Russian Federation, and the USA.

Scope of ASEAN

Scope of ASEAN, as highlighted in the ASEAN Declaration is

to:
 Accelerate economic growth, social progress, and cultural
development in the region.

 Promote regional peace and stability.

 Promote collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of

common interest.

 Provide assistance to each other in the form of training and

research facilities.

 Collaborate for the better utilisation of agriculture and

industry to raise the living standards of the people.

 Promote Southeast Asian studies.

 Maintain close, beneficial co-operation with existing

international organisations with similar aims and purposes.
ASEAN Plus Three and East Asia Summit (EAS)

In 1997, the ten ASEAN leaders decided to further expand the

ambit of the organisation by integrating with other major
economic powers and created two more appendages:

ASEAN Plus Three: People’s Republic of China, Japan and

South Korea.

East Asia Summit (EAS):East Asia Summit (EAS) is a pan-

Asian forum held annually by the leaders of 18 countries
(ASEAN plus 08 countries) in the East Asian region, with
ASEAN in a leadership position.

Membership of EAS was initially all 10 members of ASEAN

plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New
Zealand, but expanded to include the United States and Russia
in 2011.

A meeting of the EAS usually coincides with the ASEAN

Summit. The 12 East Asia Summit was held on 14 November
th

2017.

Importance of Partnership with ASEAN to India

ASEAN members, together with the group’s six major trading

partners, namely, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand
and South Korea began the first round of negotiations on 26–28
February 2013 in Bali, Indonesia, on establishment of
the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEF) is
an alliance, which is being created on the model of the
European Union for strengthening financial and fiscal
cooperation with a special focus on improving multi-
lateralisation, which was expected to effectively relieve regional
short-term liquidity strains.
RCEP aims to forge economic integration amongst member
nations by promoting trade and investment facilitation,
accelerating interconnectivity, expanding financial cooperation,
stepping up poverty reduction cooperation, advancing maritime
cooperation as well as intensifying people-to-people
exchanges.

India had signed a Free Trade Area Agreement with ASEAN in

2009, which gave impetus to trade in the region. The paradigm
shift from ‘Look East Policy’ to ‘Act East Policy’, in 2014, has
further given a fillip to trade and commerce.

Presently, India is the sixth largest trading partner of the

ASEAN. Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore happen to be
India’s top three trading partners in ASEAN.

India-ASEAN trade increased from $65bn in 2015-16 to $70bn

in 2016-17. During this period, India’s exports to ASEAN
increased from $25bn to $30bn.

India is moving ahead to establish credible industrial,

technological and digital linkages with Malaysia, Thailand and
Singapore.

The ASEAN-India economic integration process has got a fillip

with the creation of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area in July
2015, following the entry of the ASEAN-India Trade in Services
and Investment Agreements.

With the institutional framework in place and the Modi

government’s commitment and focus towards enhancing trade,
it is expected that the trade with ASEAN will be doubled by
2025.

The most pivotal aspect of India’s Act East Policy is to improve

connectivity with the ASEAN countries. The same will give a
major fillip to cross-regional production networks.
In this direction India has made a considerable progress in
implementation of India-Myanmar-Thailand Highway and the
Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project.

Last year, India announced a line of credit of $1bn to promote

projects that support physical and digital connectivity with
ASEAN.

Further, a Project Development Fund with a corpus of $77

million was created to develop a manufacturing hub in
Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.

The envisaged highway (under construction) and rail

connectivity to energy giants like, Nepal and Myanmar and
further to Thailand, will improve people to people contact, thus
enhancing the sphere of economic cooperation and
interdependence.

The highly underdeveloped NE States of India, which lie at the

gateway to a region offering unlimited economic opportunities,
will witness an economic transformation.

Besides, there are diverse areas on which India and ASEAN

are jointly working, e.g. non-traditional security threats such as
terrorism, human and drug trafficking, cyber crimes and piracy
in the Malacca Straits, etc.

ASEAN Economic Community (AEC)

The most significant development during the 27th ASEAN

Summit was the signing of ‘The 2015 Kuala Lumpur
Declaration’ on the Establishment of the ASEAN Community,
by all 10 ASEAN leaders at the Kuala Lumpur Convention
Centre.

The ASEAN members have already taken several steps, such

as the removal of tariff barriers and visa restrictions, to make it
a reality. The move is also expected to boost political and
diplomatic cooperation between members of the grouping.

The key characteristic of AEC will be single market and

production base and a competitive economic region, which
would be fully integrated into the global economy.

Hence, ASEAN region will allow free movement of goods,

services, investment, skilled labour, and freer flow of capital.
India completed its tariff liberalisation obligations in December
2016, barring those against the Philippines.

Consequently, the AEC will now allow India an even greater

access to a market, which has a combined GDP of $2.57
trillion. This grouping is also viewed as a huge middle-class
market that Indian industries and services can take advantage
of.

Significance of Establishing the ‘Quad’

In an interesting recent development, a regional coalition has

been floated by the name of Quadrilateral or ‘Quad’. It
comprises of United States, India, Japan and Australia.

The ‘Quad’ bat for a free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-
Pacific region, amid China’s growing military presence in the
strategic area.

The replacement of the conventional term ‘Asia-Pacific’ with

‘Indo-Pacific’ indicates the importance accorded to the ‘rise of
India’ in this coalition, with which the US has strong and
growing ties.

The Indo-Pacific was an idea first mooted by Japanese Prime

Minister Shinzo Abe during his first term as PM in 2007.
The ‘Quad’ held its first official meeting on the sidelines of the
31 ASEAN Summit at Manila. Indian team at the ‘Quad’
st

consisted of Joint Secretaries in charge of the East and South

Asia Divisions in MEA.

The discussions were mainly focussed on cooperation based

on converging vision and values, to include means to enhance
connectivity, containing terrorism and other proliferation
linkages that impact the security and stability of the region.

The term ‘Indo-Pacific’ broadly refers to the Indian Ocean and

Pacific Ocean regions, which also includes the disputed South
China Sea where Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and
Brunei question China’s claims over almost the entire
waterway.

Hence, this coalition is also being viewed as a means to

counter China’s aggressive behaviour and increasing economic
clout and military presence in the region.

Interestingly, the Indo-Pacific concept had also figured

prominently during the recent visit by President Donald Trump
to the region, including to Japan and China.

Conclusion

Most of the ASEAN countries and Japan are projecting a tough

stance towards China’s aggressive design of unlawfully
encroaching upon land and maritime territories of other
countries.

It is being increasingly felt that the monopoly and expansionism

of China’s military might can only be checked through a
collective stand.

In order to limit India’s regional dominance, China has adopted

a policy of “String of Pearls” to isolate and intimidate India by
expanding its area of influence around Indian territorial
extremities.

Hence, forming a strategic partnership with the anti-China

camp will largely weaken Chinese aggressive posture.
India and the US have been calling for freedom of passage in
the international waters, much to the discomfort of Beijing,
whose claim over South China Sea was also struck down by an
international tribunal in favour of the Philippines last year.

However, the idea of ‘Quad’ will be hard to sell as the total

value of trade of the four ‘Quad’ countries with China is over a
trillion dollars.

Hence, all these countries will have to think twice before

antagonising China, e.g. India’s statement at the end of the
meeting had no mention about freedom of navigation or
maritime security in South China Sea or even a categorical
statement naming North Korea for nuclear proliferation.
 Successful Test Fire of BrahMos-A Cruise
Missile

Introduction

In 1998, the Government of India signed an agreement with

Russia to design, develop, manufacture and market a
Supersonic Cruise Missile System.

Accordingly, the Russian Federation's NPO

Mashinostroeyenia and India's Defence Research and
Development Organisation (DRDO) collaborated to form
the BrahMos Aerospace and jointly produced the BrahMos
missile. BrahMos is named after two rivers, Brahmaputra of
India and Moskva of Russia.

The BrahMos is a medium-range ramjet supersonic cruise

missile that can be launched from submarine, ships, aircraft, or
land. Russia supplies 65% of the BrahMos components,
including its ramjet engine and radar seeker.

It is the world's fastest anti-ship cruise missile in operation. The

missile travels at speeds of Mach 2.8 to 3 with a range of 290
km and is about three and a half times faster than the American
subsonic Harpoon cruise missile.

The land-launched and ship-launched versions are already in

service, the air version was successfully test fired on 22
November 2017.

The submarine-launched version is currently in the testing

phase. A hypersonic version of the missile, BrahMos-II, is
also presently under development, which will have a speed of
Mach 7-8 to boost aerial fast strike capability. It is expected to
be ready for testing by 2020.
India’s entry into the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) as a member in 2016 has opened up new
possibilities for India. India and Russia are now planning to
jointly develop a new generation of Brahmos missiles with
600 km-plus range and an ability to hit protected targets with
pinpoint accuracy.

Important Technical Terms

Ramjet:A ramjet may be called an air breathing jet engine that

uses the engine's forward motion to compress incoming air
without the requirement of an axial compressor.
Since the engine takes in oxygen from the atmosphere and
does not additionally require oxidizer for combustion of fuel, it
reduces the overall weight of the rocket and hence increases its
efficiency.

Super Sonic Combustion RAM Jet or SCRAMJET, rocket

engine was test fired by ISRO from Sriharikota, off the coast of
Andhra Pradesh, on 28 August 2016.

The rocket, also called the Advanced Technology Vehicle

(ATV), lifted-off a weight of 3,000 kg during its testing.

This path breaking technology is also planned to be used by

ISRO during the atmospheric phase of the rocket's flight, so as
to drastically bring down the launch cost of weather satellites.

Cruise Missile:A cruise missile is a guided missile used

against terrestrial targets that remains in the atmosphere and
flies the major portion of its flight path at approximately
constant speed.

Cruise missiles are designed to deliver a large warhead over

long distances with high precision.
Cruise missiles can be categorized by size, speed (subsonic or
supersonic), and range, and whether launched from land, air,
surface ship, or submarine.

Supersonic missile travels faster than the speed of sound, while

subsonic travels at a speed lesser than the speed of sound.

A hypersonic cruise missile would travel at least five times

the speed of sound, i.e. Mach 5.

BrahMos Missile Variants for Indian Defence Forces

Indian Army

The BrahMos Block I was first inducted into the army on 21

June 2007. Presently, three regiments of the existing
40 and 41 Artillery Divisions of the Indian Army hold the
th st

BrahMos missiles, which include one regiment of the Mark

I and two missile regiments of the BrahMos Mark II.

Each regiment holds between four and six batteries of three to

four Mobile Autonomous Launchers (72 missiles per regiment)
that can be connected to a mobile command post.

Indian Navy

At present, Brahmos has been inducted into eight warships of

the Indian Navy. The following ship classes of the navy are
equipped with BrahMos:

 Rajput-class Destroyer - INS Rajput is equipped with four

BrahMos missiles in 2 twin inclined launchers and INS
Ranvir & INS Ranvijay are armed with one stern mounted
8-cell BrahMos VLS launcher.
 Kolkata-class Destroyer - The three destroyers in this class
are armed with two bow mounted 8-cell BrahMos VLS
launchers.

 Talwar-class Frigate - Three ships, i.e. INS Teg, INS

Tarkash and INS Trikand are armed with one bow mounted
8-cell BrahMos VLS launcher each.

 Shivalik-class Frigate - The three frigates in this class are

armed with one bow mounted 8-cell BrahMos VLS
launcher.

 Visakhapatnam-class Destroyer - The four destroyers in

this class are planned to be armed with two bow mounted
8-cell BrahMos VLS launchers.

Indian Air Force

The BrahMos-A is a modified air-launched variant of the missile

which has a range of 290km that can be launched from a Su-
30MKI as a standoff weapon (can be launched without even
entering enemy’s air space).

Two Su-30MKI of the IAF were initially modified by the

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) at its Nashik facility and
integrated it with the missile’s aerial launcher.

In order to reduce the missile’s weight to 2.55 tons, many

modifications were made like using a smaller booster, adding
fins for airborne stability after launch, and relocating the
connector.

A demonstration flight was carried out at Hindustan Aeronautics

Limited Nashik on 25 June 2016 as a modified Su-30MKI
carrying BrahMos-A underwent a successful trial flight.

The missile can be released from the height of 500 to 14,000

meters (1,640 to 46,000 ft). After release, the missile free falls
for 100–150 meters, then goes into a cruise phase at 14,000
meters and the terminal phase at 15 meters.

Finally, on 22 November 2017, the missile was successfully

test fired for the first time from a Sukhoi-30MKI against a sea
based target in the Bay of Bengal.

The missile’s terminal altitude is as low as ten meters. (The

ship-launched anti-ship version of the BrahMos can fly 3-4
meters above the sea to avoid detection.)

The IAF is planning to modify 50 Su-30MKI aircraft to carry the

nuclear-capable cruise missile. In total, the IAF is expected to
receive 200 air-launched BrahMos-As in the coming years, with
first deliveries likely to commence from 2018.

Conclusion

The operational combat potential of the Indian Armed Forces

has been greatly enhanced as it completes the tactical cruise
missile triad capability after the successful test launch of
BrahMos-A.

Considering its long range of 290km and the fact that it can
carry nuclear warhead that can strike strategic targets deep into
the heart of both China and Pakistan, this latest capability will
serve as a major deterrent for our adversaries.
 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
(TRAI) Uphold Net Neutrality

Introduction

In plain simple words “net neutrality” implies that the Internet

Service Providers (ISP), like Airtel, Vodafone, etc will provide
their customers (net users) with unrestricted and equal access
to all lawful websites and services available on the net, up to
the limit of data usages plan subscribed to by the net user,
without giving any priority to any of the websites’ over the
others.

The controversy about the issue of “net neutrality” is about the

proposal (said to have been mooted by Airtel in 2015), under
which Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) had asked
for views of the Telecom Ministry on a “Consultation Paper”
prepared by it.

This Consultation Paper had obliquely suggested the removal

of “Net Neutrality” and proposed to allow the ISP to block apps
and websites and restrict their availability as a paid service to
the customers.

This development is said to have happed due to an intense

lobbying by the telecom operators to enable them to extort
more money from the consumers and businesses.

Salient Features of Net Neutrality

 Equal and unrestricted access to all lawful sites.

 Same speed of access for all subscribers of all apps and

websites at the level of telecom/ ISP.

 Non discriminatory data cost per KB/MB for access to

every site.
 No censorship or selective access to any information
available on the net.

 No preferential treatment for any particular website in

terms of speeding up its access, or making some sites free
over others.

Contentions of the Telecom Operators on the Issue

Telecom operators say that they obtain licence from the

government to provide the channel for various networks and
applications. They are required to pay Entry Fee, License Fee
and Spectrum Usage Charges, and have regulations regarding
quality of service; tariff and consumer protection regulations.

Revenue paid to the government is based on the size and the

bandwidth of the spectrum bought by them and they in turn
make money primarily from data usage by the consumers
(individuals and enterprises).

Till some years back networks were built around specific

applications, say voice, internet or Pay TV, i.e. voice, message
and video content. And telecom operators used to charge for
the data usage for these services.

The procedure that was being adopted was that if a consumer

bought an app/ content, the telecom operators did the billing
and the content provider had to depend on the telecom
operator for its revenue share from the amount collected by the
telecom operator.

In the recent times, major source of traffic on the net has

shifted to Google, Yahoo, MySpace, YouTube, Face book,
Wikipedia, etc which are not owned by the telecom operators.

Also, because of the computerisation of the banking system,

the telecom operators’ have no control over the billing and the
Internet businesses can easily bill directly through Internet
banking.

Hence, the revenue being collected by the telecom operators

has declined phenomenally.

Further, the system of auction of the telecom spectrum has

heightened the competition and resulted in reduction in their
profit margins.

Thus, the telecom operators’ have neither any control over the
content nor on the billing of the apps and services being
provided on the net and because of their declining profit margin
and hence, they want that the net neutrality should be removed.

Likely Consequences of Removal of Net Neutrality

Telecom operators can easily discriminate against certain types

of content and political opinions. This will hurt consumers and
diminish innovation in apps and content spaces.

Cartel of telecom operators could degrade traditional internet

access to force apps and content providers to use the telecom
operator’s new "premium" services. They may impose this
through discriminatory pricing and give incentives to favour
their own services, applications and content, in order to simply
‘kill’ competing services.

Telecom operators could compete for contents by charging

different fees for different content providers (e.g. Google, Flip
kart, etc), which will result in certain content being available
only with certain telecom operators, causing fragmentation of
the internet.

Telecom operators will be able to curtail the freedom of

expression and right to information by restricting the access to
the internet by the consumers.
Telecom Operators with their innate market power will
endeavour to have exclusive tie-ups with an established App.

The ability of smaller and start-up Apps to compete with

established Apps will be adversely affected and may deter
start-ups from joining the market.

Finally, if the net neutrality is removed, Internet access will

certainly become costlier.

Repercussions of the Debate on Net Neutrality

A petition to Communications & IT Minister Ravi Shankar

Prasad for stopping the net neutrality legislation got thousands
of signatures in a matter of hours. He assured on national TV
that the interests of the consumers will be kept foremost.

Netizens proposed that the TRAI must create a simplified

version of the consultation paper that is easy to understand and
did not have any explicit bias favouring the telecom operators.

Consequent to the debate, Airtel suggested that it would make

Internet access free for customers as long as the app
developers or content providers pay Airtel directly on behalf of
the customers.

Report of Department of Telecom (DoT) on Net Neutrality:

16 July 2015

Department of Telecom (DoT) set up a six-member Committee

in January 2015, to go into the depth of this contentious issue
and submit a Report. The Committee met over 45 organisations
including Facebook, Google, Flipkart, Amazon, Paytm, Viber
and Skype and telecom service providers.

Based on the findings of the Committee, the telecom

department panel on net neutrality submitted its report to the
Communications & IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. The same
has become the basis for the government's policy on net
neutrality.

Important aspects of the Report include:

 "The core principles of Net Neutrality must be adhered to",

i.e. Net Neutrality was upheld by the Committee.

 The free Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, like

Viber, Skype and WhatsApp, were recommended to be
licensed.

 The logic given for licensing was: firstly, to regulate the

internet telephony services and secondly, to provide a level
playing field to the telecom operators like Airtel, Vodafone,
Idea, etc who pay the licence fee and charge the customers
for voice communication services.

 No regulations were recommended to be imposed on

international VoIP Services and messaging services, which
will continue to provide free access.

 The Over-the-top (OTT) applications, like Google, Face

book, etc, were recommended to continue to remain
deregulated. However, it was recommended to work out
measures to ensure compliance of security related
requirements from OTT service providers.

 The Report suggested case by case “zero rating”, which

means that tariff will be App specific. The telecom operators
offer free internet browsing services to the consumers for
websites, but in turn pay for it to the government. Those
websites and apps that do not pay are discriminated, which
was considered to be against the principle of Net Neutrality,
e.g. Facebook and Telecom Firm, Reliance Communication
India have a tie up for the platform “internet.org”, which
provided access to only a select lot of websites, leading to
 allegations of discrimination by those not represented on
the platform.

 The international best practices along with core principles of

Net Neutrality was recommended to be formulated and
actions be initiated to make an objective policy, specific to
the needs of our country.

 The Report highlighted that the primary goals of public

policy in the context of Net Neutrality should be directed
towards achievement of developmental aims of the country
by facilitating "Affordable Broadband", "Quality Broadband"
and "Universal Broadband" for its citizens.

Free Basic
In May 2015, Face book announced that the Internet.org
Platform would be opened to only those websites that met its
criteria.

In September 2015, the app delivering these services, was

renamed Free Basics. This platform is being jointly offered by
Face book and Reliance, the sixth-largest mobile service
provider in the country, for free data services restricted only to
a few websites.

Face book also launched a major campaign essentially to

influence the outcome of the public consultation. Numerable
notifications were sent to all Face book users on a daily basis.

In the wake of a widespread opposition, owing to violation of

net neutrality, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
stopped this service, pending public consultation on the
subject.
Recent Developments

The US Federal Communication Commission headed by

Indian-origin chairman Ajit Pai, has recently announced
scraping of regulations on service providers imposed during the
Obama administration. This announcement revokes the
existing net neutrality clause for access of internet services.

However, in India the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

(TRAI) has finally come out with clear guidelines on November
29 , 2017 that favours net neutrality and these guidelines are
th

consistent with its earlier stand on Facebooks’s Free Basic

proposal.

Following up on the content of its consultation papers issued in

May 2016 and again in January this year, TRAI has reiterated
that there cannot be any discriminatory treatment of websites
on internet by service providers.

The Regulator has warned service providers against

preferential treatment/ blocking of certain websites on the
internet.

Thus in a nutshell, the telecom companies cannot charge the

consumers for access to certain content, or receive payments
from websites and Apps that promise greater promotion of their
products over the others.

The regulator has exempted content delivery networks, which

do not use public Internet, from restrictions on non-
discriminatory treatment. It is believed that this clause will
benefit telcos such as Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel, who are
trying to create their own content ecosystems.

TRAI has also permitted Internet access providers to use some

traffic management practices (TMPs) on their networks to
ensure quality of services, preserve security of networks, and
be able to provide emergency services as also, for
implementing a court order or government direction. This
comes with a caveat that these practices must remain
transparent and their impact on users must be declared.

In order to ensure that the telecom companies remain

sustainable and quality of content is not compromised, TRAI
has left a leeway, wherein the ‘quality of content’ being offered
by the service provider would be considered as a primary factor
for differentiation in the cost (exempted from the purview of net
neutrality).

The authority to decide whether the service qualifies as

“specialised services” and deserves exceptional treatment/
exemption from net neutrality will be decided by the
Department of Telecom (DoT).

TRAI had prescribed stringent monetary penalties for any

violation of its norms on net neutrality. The penalties start at Rs
50,000 per violation per day and could go as high as Rs 50 lakh
depending on the gravity of the violation.

The Regulator has recommended DoT to establish a multi-

stakeholder body comprising of telecom operators, Internet
service providers, content providers, civil society organisations
and consumer representatives to monitor and probe violations.

Representation against the Recommendations of TRAI

The Telecom Service Providers are opposed to two issues that

have been recommended by TRAI:

 Proposal to include the next big revolution and revenue

generator, Internet of Things (IoT), under 5G technology,
within the ambit of net neutrality.

 The over-the-top (OTT) communications service providers,

such as WhatsApp, Viber and Face book, who offer data-
 based call services, have been exempted from the
provisions of net neutrality while licensed telcos have not
been exempted.

Conclusion

The measured response by TRAI with respect to net neutrality

is likely address the problem of anti-competitive practices
adopted by the service providers.

The ruling will go a long a way to ensure free, equal and

unrestricted access of internet services to the consumers, as
also compel the service providers to continuously upgrade and
improve the quality of their content to remain competitive.
 CPEC - A DEVIL IN ANGEL'S DISGUISE FOR
PAKISTAN

Introduction

       'China Pakistan Economic Corridor' has been celebrated as the

game-changer project, spear- headed by China which was hailed as
the harbinger of economic prosperity to the impoverished Pakistan.
The Chinese investment plan for an economic Corridor from Kashgar
through Gilgit- Baltistan to Gwadar, promised twice as much FDI that
Pakistan had received since 2008. There was a military- political
consensus on the CPEC. However, in their exuberance to launch the
ambitious project, the Pakistani government failed to read the fine
print nor do their math. They did not factor in that the billions the
Chinese were going to pump into Pakistan was about 20% of
Pakistan’s $270 billion dollar economy which may hold the Pakistan
in captivity in the coming days. Besides, by 2030 Pakistan would have
to pay back $90 billion and this would be an additional burden on the
state.
                              
The stalled Bhasha - Diamer Dam Project

     Both the World Bank and the ADB had refused to fund this project
without a ’No Objection Certificate’ from India. As expected Pakistan
refused to approach India. Naturally, Pakistan turned to their big
brother China in May 2015, for financial assistance and Beijing agreed
to back up the Dam project, after it had languished for 15 years.
However, China wanted its pound of flesh from this deal. There were
preconditions about ownership, maintenance costs and collateral
security. Apparently, these conditions were unacceptable to
Pakistan. This turn of events marks the first chink in the CPEC, very
different from the euphoria seen two years ago. In November 2017,
Pakistan announced the withdrawal of Bhasha Diamer Dam project
from the ambit of CPEC, causing quite a stir in the Pakistan political
scenario.

Major Benefits of China from CPEC

     In April 2015,' Chinese President Xi Jinping' announced the mega

project CPEC - a $ 46 Billion proposal fully sponsored by China during
his visit to Pakistan, a total which was increased later. The mega-
project covered energy and infrastructure development which has
the potential to lift up the sagging economy of Pakistan. The project
is an important link to their grandiose 'Belt Road Initiative.'
  
The most important achievement of China, is access to Gwadar for
obvious geo-strategic and economic reasons. The development of
Gwadar and the infrastructure projects of road and rail linkages
across the country, are the glamorous aspects of the projects.
    
Another important aim of China is to establish a security and
communication grid all over Pakistan. A fibre optic link between
Pakistan and China that covers the entire country and reaches
Gwadar is now part of CPEC. In fact China sees it as a transmission-
carrier, which would enable the Chinese to popularise their culture
and exercise command and control over the region. The corridor
passes through the restive Balochistan and the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa
provinces. There are security issues and the Pakistan Army has
deployed two special security divisions to protect the Chinese labour
employed there and the construction equipments all the way from
Gwadar to Rawalpindi and Khunjerab.

When the plan speaks of joint efforts against terrorists, the Chinese
have the Uyghurs in mind, not just protection of their own
enterprises and labour in Pakistan.

   The third aim is establishing control over Pakistan’s agricultural

land for feeding its impoverished Kashgar district of Xinjiang.
Thousands of acres of agricultural land will be leased out to Chinese
companies for cultivation and agronomy.Work on these lines are
progressing in a war footing.

Conclusion

   Pakistan government has given Chinese firms a number of tax

concessions across the entire CPEC projects as compensation for
working in troubled zones.

The Chinese will have industrial parks or special exclusive economic

zones that should meet specific conditions with a perfect
infrastructure for their investment and projects with Chinese
employees.

     The Chinese endeavour could be to manage a very dependent

Pakistan that provides access to a deep-water port in the Arabian Sea
which opens a gateway to international trade. Also an opportunity to
outflank a rival in South Asia.

However some Pakistani parliamentarians fear that CPEC could mark

the arrival of another 'East India Company', which ultimately
engulfed the Indian Sub-Continent.

Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) Membership

Introduction

India, with its highly credible non-proliferation track record, has

been admitted as the 42 member of the elite export control
nd

regime, called the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) on 07

December 2017.

The decision was taken at the two-day plenary meeting of the

grouping on 06-07 December in Vienna, Austria. This
th

admission opens the doors for India to acquire critical

technologies that will help to appropriately address the
demands of India space and defence sectors.

India is now a member of two, out of the four export control

regimes, the other one being Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR).

India is putting in its best efforts to join the ‘Nuclear Suppliers

Group’ (NSG) (described ahead) and is at a fairy advanced
stage of joining the ‘Australia Group” (which was established in
1985 after the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in 1984 to help
member countries to identify those exports which need to be
controlled so as not to contribute to the spread of chemical and
biological weapons).

India has taken a conscious decision, based on principles, to

not to be a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or
the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which
has been providing the requisite cannon fodder to countries like
China to obstruct India’s entry into export control groups.

India’s entry into the WA, despite being non-signatory to the

NPT, also boosts its chances of admission into the folds of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Salient Features of the Wassenaar Arrangement

The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) is an elite club of countries

who subscribe to regulate the trade of dual use technologies,
e.g. connected with nuclear energy and control the export of
such arms and material. The ambit of its Charter is quite similar
to NSG and MTCR.

The WA was founded in 1996 and has its Headquarters in

Vienna, Austria. Other than China, all permanent members of
the UN Security Council are its signatories.

As enunciated in its Charter, the primary objective of the

organisation is to “promote transparency and greater
responsibility in transfer of conventional arms and dual-use
technologies.”

Implications of Admission into WA for India

The major implications for India are as follows:

 Facilitate industrial tie-ups for procurement and

manufacture of hi-tech items for Indian defence and space
programmes.

 Create a ground for realignment of India in export control

policy framework of other WA members, e.g. it can provide
eligibility to India for certain licensing exceptions given only
to WA member countries.
 Boost India’s chances for admission into the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG) as it is a non-signatory of NPT.

 Assist India to bolster bilateral ties with countries like

Russia and France, which supported its membership to the
organisation.

Reasons for India’s Push to Join the NSG

India is the fourth largest energy consumer after China, USA

and Russia and third largest importer in the world and its import
dependence is expected to grow to 50% of its current total
demand by 2030.

About 70% of India's electricity generation capacity is from

fossil fuel and coal accounting for 40% of India's total energy
consumption followed by crude oil and natural gas at 28% and
6% respectively.

The conventional sources of energy are limited and leave a

huge carbon imprint, which is highly detrimental for the very
survival of our ecosystem.

Therefore, it has become an imperative for India to

aggressively pursue the development of unconventional, less
polluting sources of energy. Amongst which, nuclear energy
happens to be the cleanest and most efficient form.

Before we look at India’s efforts to establish amiable contact

with the coterie of nuclear suppliers, let’s first understand a few
important connected aspects.

Nuclear Energy Status for Sustainable Growth

India’s current nuclear generation capacity is 4.8 GW and ranks

13th in the world, which account for only 1.2% of global nuclear
capacity.

The installed capacity of nuclear energy is presently 4780MW,

which accounts for 1.92% of the total power generation
capacity of the country.

Currently, four indigenously developed 700 MW PHWRs are

under construction, two each at Rawathbhata in Rajasthan and
Kakrapar in Gujarat. Several others are also planned.

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP), the largest nuclear

power station in India, is scheduled to have six 1000 MW
VVERs, (a type of Light Water Reactor) built in collaboration
with Atomstroyexport, the Russian state company and Nuclear
Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), with an installed
capacity of 6,000 MW of electricity.

The commercial operations of the first two 1000 MW VVERs,

started on 15 October 2016. The construction of the third rector
commenced on 29 June 2017.

The major challenges envisaged to be faced by the government

to increase the nuclear power capacity to the designated 60
GW by 2030 are:

 Ensuring a credible, high level of safety at the plants.

 Capacity building and ensuring a perennial supply of fuel for

the nuclear reactors. Nuclear liability in case of an accident
and allied issues are inhibiting foreign companies to set up
plants.

 Environmental clearances, politically motivated agitations

and other regulatory measures need to be addressed to
encourage and win the trust of foreign companies.
Reasons for India not Endorsing the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty (CTBT)

The endorsement campaign for NPT commenced in 1968 and it

entered into force in 1970 for a period of 25 years. However, on
11 may 1995, it was extended indefinitely.
A total of 191 states have joined the Treaty, North Korea which
has initially acceded to NPT, announced its withdrawal in 2003.

Four UN member states never joined the NPT: India, Israel,

Pakistan and Sudan.

The prime objectives of NPT is to prevent the spread of nuclear

weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in
the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of
achieving nuclear disarmament.

The treaty is reviewed every five years in meetings called

Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

As per the provisions of the NPT, non-nuclear weapon states

were prohibited from, among other things, possessing,
manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices.

All signatories, including nuclear weapon states, were

committed to the goal of total nuclear disarmament (which on
ground has not been implemented by the superpowers).

Similarly, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban

Treaty (CTBT) is a multilateral treaty by which states agree to
ban all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or
civilian purposes. It was adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 10 September 1996.
However, the CTBT has not entered into force as eight specific
states have not ratified the Treaty yet. It has been signed by 71
states.

The states that have not ratified the treaty are as under:

China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States have signed
but not ratified the Treaty; India, North Korea and Pakistan
have not signed it.

India is among the few countries, which follow a self-imposed

“no first use” policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons
unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.

The argument that India gives for not signing the NPT or the
CTBT is that these treaties creates a club of "nuclear haves"
and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the
legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested
them before 1967, but the treaties never explains on what
ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

India's then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said

during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it
is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation,
but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not
recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification
and treatment."

Role of Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG)

Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a multinational body

comprising of 48 members states, which is concerned with
reducing nuclear Proliferation by controlling the export and re-
transfer of materials that may be applicable to nuclear weapon
development and by improving safeguards and protection on
existing materials.

The NSG was founded in response to the first nuclear test

conducted by India in May 1974 and had its first meeting in
November 1975.
A series of meetings by member nations were held in London
from 1975 to 1978 and that is why this Group is also referred to
as the ‘London Group’.

The meetings resulted in agreements on the guidelines that

were formally published and essentially comprised of the list of
items, also called the Zangger “Trigger List”, which could only
be exported to non-nuclear states if certain International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards were agreed to or if
exceptional circumstances relating to safety existed.

India’s Pursuit for Nuclear Energy

In July 2006, the United States Congress amended US law to

accommodate civilian nuclear trade with India and endorsed
the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation
Act in December 2006.

India committed as part of the Deal to classify 14 of its 22

nuclear power plants as being for civilian use and to place them
under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

Considering India’s clean non-proliferation track record, the

above said legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear
material to India.

The next hurdle was to get the approval of the Nuclear

Supplier’s Group (NSG) to allow major nuclear suppliers to
indulge in nuclear trade with India.
During the initial meeting on 21-22 August 2008, the NSG
member countries, specially, Austria, Switzerland, Norway,
Ireland, and New Zealand, expressed strong reservations about
the lack of conditions in the proposed exemption Guidelines.

However, on 06 September 2008, India was granted the waiver

at the NSG meeting held in Vienna, Austria.
Consequently, India could commence nuclear trade with other
willing countries. President Bush signed the agreement
approved by the US Congress on 08 October 2008.

Further, as a result of protracted negotiations, PM Modi and

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot were able to seal the civil
nuclear deal with Australia, which holds the world’s largest
reserves of Uranium on 05 September 2014.

India’s Push for NSG Membership

India had applied for NSG membership in May 2016.

Concurrently, Pakistan and Namibia also applied along with

India.

Pakistan’s concurrent application for NSG was seen as an

apparent attempt to block India's Membership to the NSG. It
may be noted that Pakistan has serious allegation of
proliferation of nuclear technology by its scientist A Q Khan.

An elaborate plenary session of the NSG was held in Seoul

from 20-24 June 2016. However, China put a spoke on the
grounds that India was a non-signatory of NPT and giving
membership to India would set a wrong precedence.

Roadblocks in the Path of India’s Membership for NSG

India’s entry into the NSG is being very strongly contested by
China for obvious reasons and other “non-proliferation
hardliner” countries, like Austria and Ireland.
It needs to be understood that NSG member countries operates
on consensus and each member has an equal vote. Giving
India an admission into NSG is not as much of a debate, as
setting up precedence by allowing a non-signatory of NPT into
the NSG.
China has asserted its opposition to permit non Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members into the NSG on
07 December 2017 and is poised to resist consideration of
th

India’s NSG membership.

China’s opposition is broadly based along two lines: firstly,

keeping India out of the nuclear club, being its major competitor
in the economic arena and contender for nuclear material to
fuel its reactors, and secondly, keeping Pakistan pegged with
India for admission into NSG, so that a positive vote can never
come through, considering the dubious track record of nuclear
proliferation of Pakistan.

Conclusion

NSG membership would give India greater access to the

international nuclear market, and will opening up nuclear
commerce for fuelling its reactors.

Besides, the NSG can be a source of legitimacy for a nuclear-

armed state outside of the NPT, to be granted a special status
that would hugely enhance India’s image and regional power
projection.

India has been granted entry into two key export control
regimes, i.e. MTCR last year and WA, now. Hence, it may be
reasonable to assume that India’s aspirations for becoming a
member of the NSG will also see the light of the day sooner or
later.