UAI - I (National) 2020

PART-I-CONTENTS UAI‟s STUDY MATERIAL 2020
CONTENTS - PART-I-2020
I. NATIONAL CURRENT EVENTS
1. Right to Information (RTI) Act---1
2. Ayodhya Dispute---7
3. Assam - NRC---11
4. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)---13
5. National Population Register (NPR)---18
6. Bru Refugees---20
7. Bodo Peace Accord---22
8. Jammu & Kashmir---27
II. INDIAN ECONOMY

1. Economic Stimulus Measures---44
2. Inflation---49
3. RBI‟s Monetary Policy---52
4. State of Indian Economy---56
5. Budget Terminology---59
6. Union Budget 2020-21---63
7. 15th Finance Commission---76
III. WORLD ECONOMY

1. US-China Trade War---80
2. BREXIT---85
IV. DEFENCE
DEFENCE- NATIONAL
1. Army Reforms---95
2. Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)---101
3. NATGRID---105
i
4. Cyberwar---106
5. Raisina Dialogue---107
6. Sharang – Upgraded 15mm Artillery Gun---109
7. Joint Exercises---110
8. Him Vijay Exercise---113
9. Defence Exports---114
10. Thal Sena Bhawan---116
11. Permanent Commission for Women Officers in the Army---117
DEFENCE INTERNATIONAL
12. International Terrorism---119
13. US Space Force---127
V. FOREIGN POLICY
1. Direction of India‟s Foreign Policy---129
2. Indo-US Relations---134
3. Indo-Russian Relations---157
4. India-China Relations---172
5. Indo-Japanese Relations---185
6. Indo-Bangladesh Relations---195
7. Indo-Sri Lankan Relations---207
8. India-Saudi Arabia Relations---219
9. India-UAE Relations---229
10. India-Bahrain Relations---233
11. Indo-French Relations---235
12. Indo-German Relations---242
13. India-South Korea Relations---246
14. India-Brazil Relations---250

ii
VI. INTERNATIONAL CURRENT EVENTS

INDIA‟s NEIGHBOURS
1. Sri Lanka---252
2. Pakistan---263
3. Sino-Pak Relations---275
4. China-Nepal Relations---283
5. China-Myanmar Relations---287
6. Sino-Russian Relations---290
7. Myanmar – Rohingya Problem---300
ASIA
8. Afghanistan---308
9. US-Iran Confrontation---318
10. Saudi-Iran Confrontation---321
11. Israeli-Palestine Problem---323
12. Yemen---335
13. Libya---340
14. Hong Kong---342
15. Taiwan---346
AFRICA
16. Sudan---354
EUROPE
17. United Kingdom – Parliamentary Elections---362
AMERICAS
18. Impeachment of the US President---365
19. Bolivia---367
20. Chile---369
iii
VII. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

1. United Nations (UN)---371
2. BRICS---382
3. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)---391
4. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)---399
5. ASEAN, Indo-ASEAN Relations---402
VIII. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

1. Corona Virus – COVID-19---411
2. IndiGen – Genome India Project---419
3. India‟s Space Programmes---424
IX. ENVIRONMENT
1. India Open Defecation Free---436
2. Water – Jal Jeevan Mission---437
3. Pollution---446
4. UNFCCC – Climate Summit---453
5. UN Climate Action Summit---466
6. Forest Fires---467
X. AWARDS
1. Gallantry Awards---470
2. Nobel Prizes---471
3. Other Awards---473
XI. SPORTS
1. Badminton---475
2. Tennis---475
3. Doping Ban for Russia---477
XII. PERSONALITIES---478
iv
I. NATIONAL CURRENT EVENTS

1. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
I. Background:
1. Right to Information Act:
 The Act seeks to guarantee the fundamental rights to free speech and expression enshrined in
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The Right to Information Act is meant to be an improvement on the
Freedom of Information Act passed by the previous NDA Government.
 The Act lays down the architecture for accessing information, which is simple easy, time-bound and
inexpensive, according to the Prime Minister.
 The Right to Information Act came into effect on October 12, 2005.
2. Need for the Right to Information:
 Lack of authentic information on issues of public interest results in rumours and speculation as well
as baseless allegations.
 An effective information law will empower all individuals vis-à-vis the state.
 The right to information can be considered a constitutional right, being part of the right to free
speech and expression, which includes the right to receive and collect information.
 The right to information will help the citizens in performing their fundamental duties as set out in
the Constitution (Article 51A).
3. Drawbacks of the Freedom of Information Act 2002:
 Lacked the concept of penalties.
 The Freedom of Information Act was secondary to Official Secrets Act and other laws.
 The Act gave full exemption to security and intelligence agencies.
 There was no independent system of implementation.
4. Right to Information Bill Passed by the Parliament in May 2005: The Right to Information Bill was
passed by the Lok Sabha on May 11, 2005 and the Rajya Sabha on May 12, 2005. The Bill was passed with 146
amendments.
5. Salient Features of the Right to Information Act:

 Framework for Making Citizen's Right to Information a Fundamental Right: The RTI Act provides a
framework for making citizen's right to information a fundamental right under Article 19 of the
Constitution.
 Right to Information: Defined broadly, to include a right to copy and inspect records, take certified
samples and inspect public works. Information, that can be requested also, includes information relating
to a private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any law in force.
 Only Citizens can Request Information from a Public Authority: defined as anybody constituted
under the Constitution or a law made by Parliament or anybody owned or controlled by the Central
Government. This definition does not include private bodies, which perform public services or which
receive funds or concession from the Government.
1
 Information Commissions: to be set up at Central and State levels.
 Overrides the Official Secrets Act: Commissions to allow access to information if public interest
outweighs harm to protected persons.
 Responsibility of the Government to Provide Information: suo moto to reduce requests for
information.
 Free Information to People Below Poverty Line and a Reasonable Fee for Others.
 30-Day Deadline for Providing Information: the deadline could be 48 hours if information concerns the
life or liberty of a person.
 Penalty for Delay in Providing Information Without Reasonable Cause: Rs. 250 for each day and up
to maximum of Rs. 25,000.
 Exempted Groups: Intelligence and security organisations, unless information pertains to allegations of
corruption or human rights violations.
 All Categories of Exempted Information to be Disclosed after 20 Years: except cabinet deliberations
and information that affects security, strategic, scientific or economic interests, relations with foreign
states or leads to incitement of offence.
6. Procedure of Appeal if Information is Denied:
 First appeal to superior of public information officer.
 Second appeal to information Commission.
 Third appeal to High Court.
7. Merits of the Right to Information Bill:

 Comprehensive Mechanism for Citizens to Secure Information: The RTI Bill puts together a
comprehensive mechanism for the citizens to secure information under the control of the Government.
The legislation confers on all citizens the right of access to information and, correspondingly, makes the
dissemination of such information an obligation for all public authorities.
 Promotes Transparency and Accountability: The historic legislation would radically alter the
administrative ethos and usher in a new era of openness, transparency and accountability, according to
the Minister of State for Personnel, Suresh Pachauri.
 Empowers the Public: The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, pointed out that the Bill was a pace
setting measure with the aim to enlarge interface between citizens and the Government and further
empower the public.
 Adequate Safeguards to Prevent Misuse: The Prime Minister assured the Parliament that the RTI Bill
had adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and the penalties had given it teeth. Dr. Singh emphasised
that the Act strikes the right balance and was not intended to paralyse the public administration.
 Could Eliminate Corruption and Strengthen Democracy: The Prime Minister emphasised that the
RTI Bill would see the dawn of a new era, eliminate corruption and strengthen democracy.
 RTI Bill has Clearly Defined Areas for Providing Information: Mr. Pachauri pointed out that the RTI
Bill had clearly defined areas where information would be provided to citizens. It had a provision to deal
with situations where it came into conflict with the Official Secrets Act (OSA).
 Provision for Information Commissions a Significant Feature: Analysts point out that a significant
feature of the RTI Bill is the provision for Information Commissions which are independent high-level
bodies both at the Central and State levels that are dedicated to encouraging the citizen's right to know
and enforcing the provisions of the Act.
2
 Substantial Improvement Over the Freedom of Information Act: Analysts point out that the RTI Bill is
a substantial improvement over the Freedom of Information Act and other freedom of information laws
passed by various States. According to Mr. Pachauri the main change in the RTI Bill from the Freedom of
Information Act is in the nomenclature itself. The Freedom of Information Act did not have any penal
provisions which the RTI has.
 Better than the US Law: According to Mr. Ram Jethmalani, member of Parliament, the RTI Bill was
better than the US law which had 13 exceptions against seven in the Indian law.
8. Shortcomings of the RTI Bill:

 Omission of Chief Justice of India from the Appointments Committee will Undermine the
Selection Process: According to the Common Wealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), the amended RTI
Bill has left out the Chief Justice of India from the appointments committee on Information Commissions
which originally consisted of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the
Chief Justice of India. This could undermine the process designed to ensure that selection remains a
bipartisan process.
 No Clarification on the Relative Jurisdiction of Central and State Information Commissions: The
CHRI points out that the RTI Bill does not clarify the relative jurisdiction of Central and State Information
Commissions. It is not clear whether a citizen can file appeal with the State Information Commission if
there is an unreasonable refusal by the local office of a Central Government department or agency to give
information.
 Status of State Information Commissioners Not Cleary Spelt Out: The CHRI has also pointed out
that the RTI Bill does not clearly spell out the status of the State Chief Information Commissioner and
Information Commissioners.
 Lack of Strong Penalties: Analysts point out that the RTI Bill lacks strong penalties on bureaucrats who
don't comply with the law. The Bill only includes a complicated provision which permits penalties for
persistent failure to provide information without reasonable cause.
 Allowing Government Agencies to be categorised as Third Party would give Scope for Collusion
between two Public Authorities: CHRI has criticised the third party clause in the RTI Bill. Third parties
are those to whom the officials turn when petitioned for information. The definition of a third party includes
another public authority. The RTI Bill has allowed the third parties the right to appeal at both levels. It is
pointed out that by allowing government agencies to be categorised as third party, the law provides scope
for collusion between two public authorities.
9. RTI Bill becomes an Act: The RTI bill became an Act On June 15, 2005 when the President of India A.P.J.
Abdul Kalam gave assent to it. The RTI Act came into force on October 12, 2005.
10. Problems in the Implementation of the RTI Act:

 Reports of Information Seekers Being Threatened: Since the RTI Act came into force in October
2005, there has been a widespread debate about its usage and benefits to citizens. It is felt that the RTI
Act can be a tool for good governance. However, there have been reports in the media that some
information seekers have been threatened with dire consequences and in some cases the RTI applicants
have been physically assaulted.
 RTI Act Increasingly Coming into Conflict with Public Authorities in Court: Analysts point out that
the RTI Act is entering a phase where it was increasingly coming into conflict with public authorities in
court. It was pointed out that several orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) have
been challenged through writ petitions by authorities from whom information was sought and, in most
cases, stay orders have been obtained.
 RTI Act Being Misused: The Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan said that though the RTI Act was
expected to help root out corruption, it was being misused like most other Acts. He stressed that only a
negligible portion of the RTI Act has helped. Information continues to be inaccessible despite the RTI Act,
according to the Chief Justice of India.
3
 Government to Strengthen the Implementation of the Act in Favour of Genuine Information
Seekers: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stressed that it would be the Government's endeavour to
strengthen the implementation of the Act in favour of genuine information seekers and the people.
 RTI a People's Law - Cannot Remain the Privilege of a Few: Dr. Singh pointed to the manner in which
people had owned the RTI Act with their arms wide open and made it into a "People's Law". The Prime
Minister said that he was keen to ensure that RTI did not remain the privilege of a few.
 Stakeholders Need to Guard Against Growth of Professional Middlemen in Use of the Legislation:
Stressing on the overriding importance given to public interest in the RTI Act, Dr. Singh urged all
stakeholders to guard against the growth of professional middlemen in the use of the legislation as was
the case in some nations. Similarly, there was a need to guard against the RTI Act becoming a tool for
promotion of an adversarial relationship between different stakeholders as it would only serve to weaken
the Act, according to the Prime Minister.
II. Highlights of the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 Passed by

the Parliament (July 25, 2019):
 The Bill seeks to change the status of the Information Commissioners who are
on par with the Election Commissioners, and states that the term of office,
salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions shall be “as prescribed by
the Central Government”.
 “The functions being carried out by the Election Commission and the Central
and State Information Commissions are totally different. The Election
Commission of India is a constitutional body….On the other hand, Central
Information Commission and State Information Commissions are statutory
bodies established under the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
 The Bill aimed at institutionalisation and streamlining of the RTI Act, according to
the Minister of State in the Prime Minister‟s Office Jitendra Singh.
 The Bill strengthened the overall RTI structure, corrected anomalies and was an
enabling legislation for administration, Mr. Singh said in the Lok Sabha.
 The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on July 22, 2019 and the Rajya Sabha
cleared it on July 25, 2019.
 The Opposition staged a walkout during the vote on its motion to send the
legislation for scrutiny by a Select Committee. The Opposition motion was
defeated 75 to 117 in favour of the government.
 “The amendment was brought without any motivation and in good faith. It will
lead to institutionalisation of the Information Commission and will strengthen
the provision of RTI Act,” according to Mr. Singh.
III. The Government Notified the New RTI Rules (October 24, 2019):
 On October 24, 2019, the Union Government notified new rules under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act which reduced the tenure of Information Commissioners
from five years to three.
4
 The Right to Information Rules, 2019 notified by the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions set the tenure of Information Commissioners at three
years and give the Government the discretion to decide on “conditions of
service”.
 The Chief Information Commissioner‟s salary was fixed at ₹2.5 lakh and an
Information Commissioner‟s at ₹2.25 lakh.
IV. Supreme Court Declared „Office of Chief Justice of India comes under
the RTI Act‟ (November 13, 2019):
 On November 13, 2019, the Supreme Court declared that the office of the Chief
Justice of India (CJI), is a „public authority‟ under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act.
 The five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court said the Supreme
Court is a “public authority” and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the
institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of
the CJI.
 The Supreme Court observed that “transparency and accountability should go

hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial
independence, it added.
 The Supreme Court also said that the right to know under RTI was not absolute.
The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of
individual judges.
 “Right to information should not be allowed to be used a tool of surveillance,”

the Court observed.
 The Court also held that personal information of judges should only be divulged
under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.
 The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court judgement of 2010 that the CJI
does not hold information on the personal assets of fellow judges in a fiduciary
capacity.
V. Significance of the Supreme Court Ruling:
 The Supreme Court judgement declaring the office of the Chief Justice of India
as a public authority under the RTI Act was welcomed by Right to Information
activists.
 The Supreme Court decision would now serve as a precedent to help in bringing
more transparency, especially on the part of institutions that had hitherto been
reluctant to comply with the Act, according to RTI activists.
5
 The most significant aspect of the judgement was the Supreme Court‟s
acknowledgement that “transparency and accountability go hand in hand, and
that transparency need not lead to any compromise in judicial independence,”
Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convener of the National Campaign for People‟s Right to
Information (NCPRI) said.
 “In practical terms, this means that the citizens can file RTI applications to the
SC, and the CPIO [Chief Public Information Officer] of the court cannot deny
information saying it is held by the CJI‟s office and not the registry,” Ms.
Bhardwaj said.
 Analysts point out that with the Chief Justice of India under the RTI Act, there will
be greater transparency by public authorities.
 The Right to Information Act plays a key role in enhancing accountability, citizen
activism and participative democracy, according to analysts.
6
I.2. AYODHYA DISPUTE

I. Background:
 1528 - A mosque was built in Ayodhya by Mir Baqi, a general of the first Moghal emperor Babar, allegedly
at the site of a temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram.
 1853 - British erected barricades to separate worshippers after incidents of violence.
 1949 - Idols of „Ram Lalla‟ appeared inside the mosque. Premises declared disputed and the gates
locked.
 1959 - Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Raghunath file a case, seeking permission to conduct puja
 1961 - Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, UP, filed a case claiming the mosque and the surrounding land was
a graveyard.
 1986 - Faizabad district judge ordered the gates of the disputed shrine to be opened to Hindus for
worship. Babri Masjid Action Committee was launched.
 1989 - Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court authorised transfer of all cases from the Faizabad
District Court to the High Court. Shilanyas, or ground breaking ceremony, performed adjacent to the
disputed site.
 1990 - The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President L.K. Advani launched Rath Yatra from Somnath to
Ayodhya in support of the temple. He was stopped in Bihar.
 1992 - On December 6, the Babri Masjid is demolished by a mob of „Kar Sevaks‟. Communal riots broke
out in many parts of the country. On December 16, the Liberhan Commission was appointed to inquire
into the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
 1994 - Centre acquired about 70 acres of land, including the disputed site.
 2003 - The Allahabad High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to undertake
excavation of the disputed site to ascertain whether a temple existed at the place where the Babri Masjid
was constructed.
 2003 - The ASI report submitted to the Allahabad High Court said that the excavations found distinctive
th
features of a 10 century temple beneath the Babri Masjid site.
 July 2010 - The Allahabad High Court reserved its judgement and offered all parties a chance for
amicable settlement, but no headway was made.
 September 23, 2010 - The Supreme Court delayed the High Court verdict giving talks a final chance.
 September 28, 2010 - The Supreme Court gave a go head to the High Court to deliver the verdict on
September 30, 2010.
 Allahabad High Court Verdict on the Dispute (September 30, 2010): Plaintiffs representing Lord
Ram, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board were declared joint title-holders of the
property.
 Supreme Court Stayed the Allahabad High Court Verdict on Ayodhya (May 9, 2011):
 On May 9, 2011, the Supreme Court Stayed the September 30, 2010, judgement of the Allahabad
High Court that directed the division of 2.77 acres of land of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri
Masjid site at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh into three parts among the Hindus, the Muslims and the Nirmohi
Akhara.
7
 A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, admitted a batch of appeals
from both Hindu and Muslim organisations. The appeals were filed by the All-India Hindu Mahasabha
and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P; and the Nirmohi Akhara
 The Apex Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo at the site.
II. Supreme Court Permitted the Construction of a Temple at the Disputed

Site and a Mosque within Ayodhya (November 9, 2019):
 On November 9, 2019, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court permitted the
construction of a temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood, and
asked the government to allot a “prominent and suitable” five-acre plot for
Muslims to construct a mosque in Ayodhya.
 In a unanimous judgement, the Supreme Court asked the Centre, which had
acquired the entire 67.73 acres of land including the 2.77 acres of the disputed
Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid premises in 1993, to formulate a scheme within
three months and set up a trust to manage the property and construct a temple.
 The Court also directed that the Sunni Central Waqf Board should be given a
five-acre plot, either by Centre from within its acquired area, or by the Uttar
Pradesh government “at a suitable, prominent place in Ayodhya”.
 The Sunni Waqf Board would be at liberty to construct a mosque there. This
should be done simultaneously with the transfer of the property to the proposed
site.
 The Supreme Court declared that the demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid
on December 6, 1992, was “an egregious violation of the rule of law” and “a
calculated act of destroying a place of public worship”. The Muslims have been
wrongly deprived of a mosque which has been constructed well over 450 years
ago, the Supreme Court Bench said.
 The Supreme Court referred to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of
1991, which prohibits the conversion of the status of any place of worship, to say
that all religions are equal.
 “The Constitution does not make a distinction between the faith and belief of one
religion and another. All forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal,” the then
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.
 “This court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied. Justice would not
prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have
been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should have
not been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law,” the Supreme
Court said.
 The Supreme Court also said that the Allahabad High Court‟s remedy of a three-way
bifurcation of the disputed premises “defied logic”. It did not “secure a lasting sense of
peace and tranquillity”.
 The Supreme Court concluded that the Sunni Central Waqf Board was unable to
prove its claim of exclusive title and continuous possession of the disputed site.
8
 “The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive
possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction
in the sixteenth century,” the Supreme Court observed.
 The Supreme Court held that there was both oral and documentary evidence to
support the Hindus‟ faith that the Janma Asthan was located where the Babri
Masjid was constructed. It was beyond the ken of the Court to probe whether this
belief was justified. Judges cannot indulge in theology, but restrict themselves
to evidence and balance of probabilities.
 The Court observed that there was proof of extensive worship offered by the
Hindus, especially in the outer courtyard where the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi
are located, even before the annexation of the Oudh by the British in 1857. The
Hindus‟ possession of the outer courtyard has been established.
 The Supreme Court accepted the version of the Archaeological Survey of India
(ASI) that the mosque was not constructed on vacant land. The ASI had
suggested the remains of a large pre-existing structure underneath the Babri
mosque which was “non-Islamic” in nature. The ASI had pointed out that the
artefacts collected from the dig and the pillars of the mosque were of a
non-Islamic origin.
 The Supreme Court refrained from arriving at a conclusion on the issue whether
the pre-existing structure was demolished to construct the mosque. It said the
ASI had also maintained a studied silence, only venturing that the pre-existing
structure was used to build the mosque.
 The Court dismissed the contention raised by the Hindu side that the land, Ram
Janam Asthan, was a legal personality just as the minor Ayodhya deity, Ram
Lalla, was. The Supreme Court said this claim was a “mirror image” of the
Muslim‟s claim that the disputed site was waqf property.
 The Supreme Court dismissed the Nirmohi Akhara‟s petition as time-barred and
rejected its suit claiming shebaiti (managerial rights) over the property. The
court, however, invoked its extraordinary powers to ask the government to give
Nirmohi Akhara, considering the sect‟s historical presence at the disputed site,
to provide it with an “appropriate role in the management” of the property.
 The Supreme Court made it clear that the Ayodhya judgement will not act as a
precedent to justify communal mobilisation against places of worship of other
faiths. In this context the Constitutional Bench referred to Section 5 of the Places
of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.
III. Prime Minister Narendra Modi Announced the Formation of a

15-Member Trust for the Construction of Ram Temple (February 5, 2020):
 On February 15, 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in the Lok Sabha
the formation of a 15-member Trust named „Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth
Kshetra, to take forward the process as per the Supreme Court‟s orders.
9
 The Trust will be empowered to take independent decisions on the construction

of the Ram Temple and other related subjects, Mr. Modi said.
 The Prime Minister also announced that the government had decided to transfer
the entire 67.6703 acres to the trust.
IV. Sunni Waqf Board Accepts the Land Allotted to it by the Uttar Pradesh
Government to Build the Mosque:
 The Uttar Pradesh government allotted five acres of the land to the Sunni Central
Waqf Board in Dhannipur village in Sohawal tehsil of Ayodhya, about 25 km from
the site where the Babri Masjid once stood.
 “Following the Supreme Court verdict, the Sunni Waqf Board does not have the
choice of rejecting the five-acre alternative land for the construction of a mosque
at Ayodhya as it would amount to contempt of court,” chairman Zufar Ahmad
Farooqui said.
 “We had been saying since the very beginning that we will abide by the court
verdict on the issue, and because of this we did not go in for a review of the
verdict,” Mr. Farooquie said.
V. Implications of the Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict:

 Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the nation that the Ayodhya verdict marked
the beginning of a new chapter for “New India”, where there would be no place
for fear, bitterness and negativity.
 The judiciary had demonstrated that all complicated issues could be resolved
through the Constitution and within the ambit of the law, Mr. Modi said.
 The date on which the verdict had been delivered, November 9, was particularly
significant as it was on that day that the Berlin Wall, dividing East and West
Germany, had been brought down “and people on opposite sides reconciled”,
the Prime Minister said.
 “We also saw the opening of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor. Ayodhya verdict on
this day, therefore, is telling us that the message from the date is to be united in
harmony and amity,” Mr. Modi said.
 “The way all sections of people have accepted the verdict with open hearts, it
shows the strength of our unity and national character. Even after thousands of
years, unity in diversity is very much in evidence and today‟s verdict, and the
whole event, will be referred in this context for years to come,” the Prime Minister
said.
 Analysts point out that the Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict is welcome and has
been met with relative calm with no organisation attempting to vitiate the
atmosphere.
 The Supreme Court verdict made it clear that any attempt to demolish any other
place of worship would be wholly illegal. India needs to move ahead and focus
on building internal cohesion and economic strength to claim its unique space in
the world and in history.
10
I.3. ASSAM - NRC

I. The National Register of Citizens (NRC):
 The National Register of Citizens (NRC) was first published in Assam in 1951
when the State had 80 lakh citizens.
 In 1979 a six-year agitation was launched by the All-Assam Students Union

(AASU) demanding identification and deportation of illegal migrants.
 The agitation culminated in the signing of the Assam Accord in 1985 between the
Rajiv Gandhi Government, the AASU and the Asom Gana Sangram Parishad.
 According to the Assam Accord of 1985, anyone who entered the State after the
midnight of March 24, 1971, was considered a foreigner. The State Government
was to “detect and deport” illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
 In 2005, another agreement was signed among the Centre, the Tarun Gogoi
Government and the AASU mandating an update of the NRC.
 The update of the NRC by the Gogoi Government was stopped after violence
broke out in some parts of State.
 The Assam Public Works, a Non-Government Organisation (NGO), petitioned the

Supreme Court for identification of Bangladeshi foreigners and deletion of their
names from the electoral rolls. The Supreme Court directed the State to complete
the NRC update first.
 There are 3.28 crore applications submitted to the NRC.
 On the directions of the Supreme Court, the Registrar-General of India would

publish the first list of December 31, 2017 to distinguish Indian citizens living in
Assam from those who illegally entered the State from Bangladesh after March
24, 1971.
II. The First Draft of the Updated NRC Published on December 31, 2017:
 On December 31, 2017, the first draft of the updated National Register of Citizens
(NRC) for Assam was published listing 1.90 crore names out of the 3.28 crore
applications.
 Assam is the only State in India that prepared an NRC in 1951 and has now
become the first State to get the first draft of its own updated NRC.
 The NRC, 1951, was updated in Assam with the names of applicants whose
names appear in the NRC, 1951, or any electoral rolls of the State up to the
midnight of March 24, 1971, and their descendants and all Indian citizens,
including their children and descendants who have moved to Assam post March
24, 1971.
11
 The Registrar-General of India Sailesh announced the publication of the first

draft of the updated NRC and said that verification of the remaining applicants
was under way and the subsequent draft would be published after the names
were verified.
III. Complete Draft of NRC Published on July 30, 2018 – 4 Core People
excluded.
IV. June 26, 2019 – Second exclusion list published with 1,02,462 names.
V. Final NRC Published (August 31, 2019):
 On August 31, 2019, the Assam‟s final National Register for Citizens (NRC) was
published with more than 19 lakh of the 3.3 crore applicants being excluded.
 The publishing of the final NRC concluded a five-year, Supreme Court monitored
exercise costing ₹1,220 crore.
 The final NRC in Assam contains the names of 3,11,21,004 of the total of 3,30,
27,661 applicants for inclusion in the document.
 The NRC Coordinator Prateek Hajela said the process of the NRC update in
Assam differs from the rest of the country and is governed by rules framed as
per the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, enshrined in the Assam Accord.
 “Updating the NRC was a mammoth exercise involving about 52,000 Assam
government officials working for a prolonged period,” Mr. Hajela said.
 According to officials, the people excluded from the NRC cannot technically be
called foreigners as they have legal options to challenge their exclusion from the
NRC. Each of them has 120 days to appeal before the Foreigners‟ Tribunals,
which in turn have six months to dispose of the cases. The appellants can
thereafter approach the Guwahati High Court to establish their citizenship with
proper documents or end up in detention camps for foreigners.
12
I.4. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT

(CAA)
I. Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) Passed by the Parliament:
1. Salient Features of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB):
 The Bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 by seeking to grant citizenship
to undocumented non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan who
came to India on or before December 31, 2014.
 Bill seeks to allow members of six communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Afghanistan to apply for naturalisation.
 Inserts December 31, 2014, as the cut-off date for members of the Hindu,
Buddhist, Christian, Parsi, Jain and Sikh communities from Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Afghanistan to be eligible to get Indian citizenship.
 They should have stayed for at least five years to be eligible for naturalisation.
 Residential requirement for citizenship through naturalisation for others is 11

years.
 All cases against non-Muslim illegal migrant before any authority, including
foreigners tribunals or courts, shall stand abated.
 The Bill enables a person who does not have proof of birth of his parents in
support of his being of Indian origin to apply for citizenship by naturalisation on
completion of six years residency.
 The Bill allows OCI (Overseas Citizenship of India) cards to be cancelled if

cardholder violates any law, after an opportunity to be heard.
 Manipur would be brought under the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system, exempting it
from the Citizenship Amendment Bill, Home Minister Amit Shah told the Lok Sabha.
 The Bill will not apply to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura
as included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
 The Bill will also not apply to Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland, which
are protected by the Inner Line Permit (ILP). Citizens of other States require ILP
to visit these three States as per the Bengal Easter Frontier Regulation, 1873.
 The ILP exemption means that the six minority communities who will be become
Indian citizens as per the proposed CAB will not be able to take up jobs, open
businesses or settle down in these areas and will require a permit to enter these
States.
13
2. CAB Passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha:

 On December 9, 2019, the Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill
(CAB) that seeks to give citizenship to refugees from the Hindu, Christian,
Buddhist, Sikh and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution in
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The Bill was passed 311-80 with zero
abstentions.
 The Rajya Sabha passed the CAB on December 11, 2019, with 125 votes in favour
and 99 against. The current strength of Rajya Sabha is 240.
3. Government‟s Stand on CAB:

 Union Home Minister Amit Shah told the Lok Sabha that the CAB was a
“historic Bill” that sought to complete what the “Nehru-Liaqat pact could not
do.”
 Mr. Shah said the CAB abided by the Constitution and “there is no violation.”
“Under the principle of reasonable classification citizenship can be granted and
there is no violation of Article 14,”
 “India can‟t be a mute spectator to the religious persecution of minorities

happening in our neighbouring countries. We have given refuge to everyone
without exception at various points of time in history,” the Union Home Minister
said.
 Mr. Shah pointed out that the Muslim population had grown to 14% from 9.8%.
“This Bill will not affect Indian Muslims or their rights at all.”
 In the Rajya Sabha Union Home Minister said, “The Bill has no provision to snatch
citizenship from anyone but to grant citizenship to the refugees. There is no need
for Indian Muslims to live in fear. India has given respect to its Muslim
population. This Bill does not discriminate against them. India will never be
Muslim mukt (free).”
 Mr. Shah said Muslims need not worry. He also clarified that “…..If you expect that
Muslims from all over the world would be accommodated here than you are
mistaken. This country will not function like this.”
 The Union Home Minister said he was mindful of the concerns of people in the
Northeast, and all the (Hindu Bengalis) refugees from the then East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh) who came to West Bengal will be given citizenship.
4. The Opposition Stand:

 Opposition leaders said the CAB was unconstitutional. “The basic idea of India
has been violated in the Bill,” Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said.
 “This Bill proposes to grant citizenship on religious lines, which is against the
core of the Indian Constitution,” Namma Nageswara Rao, TRS floor leader in the
Lok Sabha said.
14
 The Opposition said the legislation could be challenged on legal grounds.

 Kapil Sibal of the Congress asked how the government would differentiate between
illegal migrants and those persecuted on religious grounds.
II. President‟s Assent for CAB makes it Citizen‟s Amendment Act (CAA),
2019: On December 12, 2019, President Ram Nath Kovind gave his assent to the Citizenship
Amendment Bill (CAB) to make it Citizen‟s Amendment Act, 2019.
III. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 Came into Force (January 10,
2020):
 On January 10, 2020, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification
that the provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 came into force.
 The CAA rules are yet to be notified.
IV. Widespread Protests Against the CAA:

 Widespread protests were witnessed in the country after the CAA was enacted.
Protests were witnessed in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Kerala,
Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka.
 The protests were against the CAA and its link with a proposed countrywide
National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).
 Several Opposition ruled States passed resolution against the CAA, NPR and
NRC.
 Gujarat Assembly passed a resolution supporting the CAA.
 Kerala government challenged the CAA in Supreme Court.
 On January 12, 2020, leaders of the Opposition parties demanded immediate
withdrawal of the CAA and appealed to non-BJP Chief Ministers, who had earlier
announced not to carry out the proposed NRC, to suspend the exercise of
enumeration of the National Population Register (NPR) as it is “a prelude to a
nation-wide NRC (National Register of Citizens)”.
V. Prime Minister Narendra Modi‟s Stand on the CAA:

 On January 28, 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019, was a measure to correct “historical injustices” and to
fulfil the BJP‟s “old promise” to religious minorities in India‟s neighbourhood.
 On February 16, 2020, Mr. Modi said despite international pressure, the
government will continue to stand by its decision to revoke Article 370 in Jammu
and Kashmir and introduce the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
 The Prime Minister said the country had “awaited” these decisions for many
years. “In national interest, these decisions were necessary.”
15
 “Despite the various international pressures, we stand by these decisions and

will continue to stand by them,” Mr. Modi said. He stressed that the country was
now taking decisions that were always left behind in the past.
VI. President Ram Nath Kovind – Enactment of CAA Fulfilled the Wish of
Mahatma Gandhi:
 On January 31, 2020, President Ram Nath Kovind, while addressing the Budget
session of the Parliament to both Houses, said the enactment of the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA) fulfilled the wish of Mahatma Gandhi who had said,
“Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan, who do not want to stay there, could come to
India. It is the duty of the government of India to ensure a normal life for them.”
 “It is our responsibility to honour this wish of the founding fathers of our nation.
I am happy that both Houses have fulfilled this wish by enacting the Citizenship
Amendment Act,” the President said.
 Mr. Kovind clarified that “the procedures which have existed for people from all
faiths of the world who believe in India and who wish to obtain Indian citizenship
remain unchanged. A person of any faith can follow these procedures and
become a citizen of India.”
VII. Challenging Validity of Central Laws by States:

 Constitutional experts point out that granting citizenship is the sole discretion of
the Union of India.
 “Citizenship has always been on the Union list and only the Centre can frame
rules regarding implementation of such rules, States have no say,” according a
former law commission chairman.
 Laws framed by the Parliament with regard to citizenship have to be
implemented by the states, according to the former law commission chairman.
 „Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens‟ constituted Item No.17 in „List 1‟ or the
Union List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, according to a senior
government functionary.
 “The Centre has the exclusive right to legislate on subjects in the Union list.
Also, Article 256 of the Constitution makes it binding on states to exercise
executive power so as to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament. The
executive power of the Union extends to giving directions to a state as
government of India deems necessary for the purpose,” the government
functionary said.
 Kerala challenged the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 in the Supreme Court
invoking Article 131 of the Constitution, which confers exclusive jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes between two or more States, or
between States and the Centre.
 Kerala said in its suit that it would be compelled under Article 256 to comply with
the CAA, which was “manifestly arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights”.
16
VIII: Supreme Court Refused to Stay the CAA without Hearing the
Government (January 22, 2020):
 On January 22, 2020, the Supreme Court said the Citizenship Amendment Act
(CAA), 2019, is “uppermost in everybody‟s minds”, but refused to stay the law
without hearing the government.
 A total number of 144 petitions against the CAA were listed before the Supreme
Court.
 The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad A. Bobde said all petitions on CAA would
be subject to a common final decision.
IX. India Briefed Nations on CAA:

 On December 18, 2019, India‟s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar shared
India‟s perspective on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 with the US
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the sidelines of the “2+2” Ministerial
meeting in the US, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson said.
 India has maintained that the developments regarding the citizenship code is an
internal matter.
 On January 2, 2020, the MEA said that the Union government pursued a rigorous
“two pronged” strategy on conveying its explanation on the Citizenship
Amendment Act (CAA) controversy in India.
 The MEA stressed that the Act merely speeds up citizenship applications for
communities mentioned in it and is not seeking to change the Constitution.
 “We did reach out to countries across the regions, and wrote to all our missions
and posts asking them to share our perspectives with the host governments [on
CAA and NRC],” MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.
 The government also met diplomats in Delhi, according to Mr. Kumar.
 “We asked [the embassies] to convey that the Act provides expedited
consideration for Indian citizenship to persecuted minorities already in India,
from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. It doesn‟t affect the existing
avenues already available to other communities,” the MEA spokesperson said.
 India had expressed strong concern to the Malaysian charge d‟ affaires about
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad‟s “ill-advised and avoidable”
comments on the CAA, according to Mr. Kumar.
 On February 20, 2020, the MEA spokesperson said that the UN Secretary General
Antonio Guterres should spend more time addressing the threat of terrorism that
emanates from Pakistan. He stressed that terrorism was a more pressing issue
as it violated human rights.
 “He made a few comments on Kashmir and on some other aspects of India and
on NRC as well. Our position has not changed,” Mr. Kumar said.
17
I.5. NATIONAL POPULATION

REGISTER (NPR)
1. National Population Register (NPR):
 The National Population Register (NPR) is a database of the usual residents in

India who have stayed in a local area for the past six months or more and who
intend to remain in the same place for the next six months or more.
 Unlike the Census which provides information only on the status of the residents
of India and population swings, the NPR is individual and identity specific.
 In 2010, the first NPR database was created. The electronic database of more
than 119 crore usual residents of India has been created under the NPR in
English and other regional languages.
 The NPR data collection is done under the aegis of the Registrar General and
Census Commissioner of India.
 The NPR is undertaken under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the
Citizenship (Registration and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
 In 2015-16, the NPR was updated throughout the country except in Assam and
Meghalaya.
 The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and issue of National Identity Cards)

Rules, 2003 mandates that particulars of “every family and individual” in the NPR
would be used for verification in the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process.
2. Union Cabinet Approved NPR Update and for Conducting Census of

India 2021 (December 24, 2019):
 On December 24, 2019, a meeting of the Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime
Minister Narendra Modi approved over ₹3,941.35 crore for updating the National
Population Register (NPR) across the country, barring Assam, and ₹8,754.23
crore for conducting the Census of India, 2021.
 Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar said, “The UPA

government started the NPR in 2010, and it is an exercise that has to happen
every 10 years. There is no need to give proof, documents, biometrics. The
government trusts the people.”
 “At present, there is no proposal to create an NRC in the country based on NPR
data. No biometric is being collected. No documents are being collected at the
time of door-to-door enumeration,” according to a senior Home Ministry official.
 The NPR was being updated for efficient delivery of social benefits by linking it
with various government schemes, the official said.
18
 The decennial census will be conducted in two phases – house listing and
housing census from April to September, 2020, and population enumeration
from February 9 to 28, 2021.
 The NPR was updated in 2015 by seeding it with biometric details of Aadhaar.
 In updating the NPR in 2020, details under 14 categories would be collected

through door-to-door enumeration, along with the census.
 Officials of some States asked the Registrar General of India (RGI) to remove the
column on “place of birth of mother and father” in the proposed NPR to be
updated.
 The RGI and other Home Ministry officials told the State representatives that
respondents could skip the questions in the NPR form if they wanted and
answering them was not mandatory but „voluntary‟, according to a senior
government official.
 “No documents are required to be shown by people during the NPR and Census
exercise. People can give the details they want to. NPR should not be linked to
the National Register of Citizens (NRC),” the Minister of State for Home G. Kishan
Reddy said.
 On February 25, 2020, the Bihar Assembly passed a unanimous resolution

stating that there is no need for a National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the State,
and the implementation of the National Population Register (NPR) would be done
strictly according to the 2010 format.
 Some other State Governments including Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab have
objected to the implementation of the NPR 2020, pointing out that it is a
harbinger for a nationwide NRC to identify illegal migrants.
 The workforce for updating of NPR 2020 has to be provided by the State
governments.
 On January 17, 2020, the Supreme Court asked the government to respond to a
petition to declare a Union Ministry of Home Affairs‟ notification of July 31, 2019
to update the National Population Register (NPR) as unconstitutional and
violative of the fundamental rights of dignity and equality.
19
I.6. BRU REFUGEES

I. Quadripartite Agreement to Settle 34,000 Bru Refugees in Tripura
(January 16, 2020):
 On January 16, 2020, a quadripartite agreement was signed between the Centre,
the States of Tripura and Mizoram and leaders of the Bru community to
permanently settle 34,000 internally displaced Bru people in Tripura.
 Brus or Reangs are the second largest ethnic group in Mizoram.
 In 1997 there was a mass exodus of Brus in Mamith subdivision due to violent
clashes. Mamith is a Bru-dominated area, the clashes occurred when the Brus
demanded creation of an autonomous council that was opposed by Mizo groups.
 Union Home Minister Amit Shah presided over the signing of the quadripartite
agreement. The Chief Minister of Tripura Biplab Kumar Deb and Mizoram Chief
Minister Zoramthanga were also present.
 The Centre has sanction around ₹600 crore as the settlement package, according
to Mr. Shah.
 “Due to ethnic tensions in Mizoram, around 34,000 people were forced to live in
sub-human conditions in tents in Tripura. No solution could be reached all these
years. In 2018, an agreement was signed and a package was sanctioned, but
many people did not want to go back to Mizoram. Only 328 families moved back,”
Mr. Shah said.
 “Due to the initiative by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, negotiations were started
afresh. The displaced people will be settled in Tripura permanently,” the Union
Home Minister said.
 Tripura‟s erstwhile royal Pradyot Deb Barman, who is one of the signatories, said
he would donate 35 acres of land for the purpose.
 North East Democratic Alliance convener Himanta Biswa Sarma said the Brus
would get voting rights and tribal status in Tripura.
 The Brus who have settled in Mizoram would not have the option to come back,
Mr. Sarma said. Around 30,000 Brus had returned to Mizoram in batches.
 The Brus would get a one-time assistance of ₹4 lakh as fixed deposit, the Union
Home Minister said.
 “A 40/30 feet plot of land, an aid of ₹5,000/month for the next two years, free
ration and ₹1.5 lakh to build houses will be given to them. The Tripura
government has identified land to settle them,” Mr. Shah said.
20
 Mr. Sarma said the government was aware of the paucity of land in Tripura but
efforts were being made to settle the Brus in clusters.
 The funds to buy land would be jointly shared by the Centre and State
government, according to Mr. Sarma.
II. Implications of the Quadripartite Agreement to Settle Bru Refugees in

Tripura:
 In his Mann ki Baat radio address in January 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi
said the Bru-Reang agreement was one of the biggest achievements of his
government in the past few months.
 Mr. Modi pointed out that the insurgency in the northeastern region had come
down significantly.
 “With it, the close-to-25-year-old Bru-Reang refugee crisis, a painful chapter, was
closed for ever,” the Prime Minister said.
 The agreement was an example of cooperative federalism, Mr. Modi said,

thanking the Chief Ministers of Tripura and Mizoram for helping to conclude it.
 The Prime Minister said the insurgency in the northeastern region had significantly
come down. He cited the recent surrender in Assam of 644 militants of eight
groups. In 2019 more than 80 insurgents returned to the mainstream in Tripura.
Tripura was the first State in the region to lift the Armed Forces (Special Powers)
Act.
 Concerns have been raised that the settlement of Brus in Tripura had the
potential of creating conflicts between the indigenous communities of Tripura
and the Brus.
21
I.7. BODO PEACE ACCORD

I. Background:
1. Largest Tribal Group in Assam: The Bodos are the largest tribal group in Assam speaking a language
belonging to the Indo-Tibetan family. They have been demanding a homeland on the northern bank of
Brahmaputra.
2. Bodo Movement: The Bodo Movement which gained momentum in the early Eighties was against
encroachment on Bodo lands by migrants from other parts of the country. These migrants included Muslims,
labourers from Bihar, Santhalis and other ethnic groups.
3. Bodo Accord: In 1993, the Bodo Accord was signed between the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) Chief,
S.K. Biswamutiary and the Assam Government. This resulted in the formation of the Bodoland Autonomous
Council (BAC).
4. Accord Not Accepted by All Bodos: However, the Accord was not accepted by all Bodos. The militant
groups like the Bodo Liberation Tiger Force (BLTF) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB)
denounced the Accord and stepped up their terrorist activities.
5. Demands: The BAC, which remains an interim body, is hardly functional. Even the boundary of BAC remains
undefined and a matter of dispute. The Bodos want a 10 km belt along the Assam-Bhutan border to be included
into the BAC.
6. Defect in the Accord: Analysts feel that the most serious defect of the Bodoland Accord is that it lacks a
constitutional guarantee. No amendment was made in the Indian Constitution to recognise the Accord. The State
Government is empowered to dissolve the BAC at its will.
7. JWG on Bodo Problems: A Joint Working Group (JWG) was formed in September 1997 to study all aspects
of Bodo problems. The JWG failed to take off owing to differences between the Centre and the Bodo groups over
its terms of reference.
8. Talks between the Centre and Bodo Groups:

a. Tripartite Talks: On May 25, 1998, a tripartite meeting was held between the Centre, State Government and
the Bodo leaders. The meeting was attended by about 40 Bodo leaders belonging to the All Bodo Students Union
(ABSU), Bodo Peoples Action Council (BPAC), Progressive Democratic Front (PDF), etc.
b. Demand Statehood: The Bodo leaders insisted that the BAC could not solve the Bodo problem and that only
the creation of a separate State of Bodoland in lower Assam could resolve the Bodo problem.
c. Additional Areas for BAC: The Government on its part persuaded the Bodos to drop their demand for a
separate State and offered additional areas for the BAC, greater financial autonomy and a special package for the
development of the council area.
d. More Autonomy for BAC: The Centre feels that a BAC with more autonomy would take better care of Bodo‟s
problems. The Rs. 40 crore budget of the BAC which was earlier routed through the Assam Government, may
now be extended directly to the Council.
e. BLT:
 The Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT) emerged in 1996 after the Bodo Accord of 1993 turned out to be a
non-starter.
 The BLT began its violent campaign with the bombing of the Brahmaputra Mail on December 30, 1996.
 On March 2000, the BLT entered into a ceasefire with the Government and began peace negotiations
that culminated in the February 10, 2003, MoS.
f. Positive Signal to Other Outfits: The Centre hopes that the agreement with the BLT will send a positive signal
to other underground outfits in Assam, including the ULFA and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland
(NDFB) and the Dima Halam Daoga (DHD) operating in the Karbi Anglong districts of Assam.
g. Demands of the NDFB: The banned NDFB has demanded that unless the Centre gives an assurance about
the formation of a separate State of Bodoland, its leaders will not participate in any peace talks. However the
State Government and a majority of the people of the Brahmaputra valley are against further division of Assam.
22
9. Bodo Accord - 2003:

a. MoS Signed: On February 10, 2003, the Centre, the Assam Government and the Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT)
signed a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) reviving hopes for peace in Assam after 15 years of armed struggle.
b. Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC):
 The MoS will result in the formation of a 46-member Bodoland Territorial Council under the Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution comprising of the districts Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baska and Udalguri.
 40 members of the Council would be elected, with 30 seats being set aside for tribals, five for
non-tribals and five for other groups. Six members would be nominated by the Governor from
communities not otherwise represented.
 The existing Bodo Autonomous Council would be abolished. Elections to the new BTC would be
held after its formation.
 The BTC, covering about 8,000 sq. km, would comprise of about 3,082 villages and a population
of about 23 lakhs. The status of an additional 95 villages would be considered by a three-member
committee.
 The BTC will have control, administration and virtual governance over 10 socio-political areas.
 The BTC will also have 40 departments transferred by the State Government to its control; receive
Rs. 100 crore assistance a year for five years to develop the socio-economic infrastructure in BTC areas,
a Centrally-funded university and a Central institute of technology.
 The Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT) will be disbanded and disarmed within a week of the formation
of the BTC‟s interim committee that can be in power for a maximum of six months till the first elections
to the Council are held.
10. Significance of the Accord:

a. Gains for the Bodos:
 Analysts point out that the accord gives the Bodos an area they can call their homeland and the right to
govern themselves.
 It helps in preserving the identity of the Bodos which they felt was being threatened.
b. BTC more powerful than Autonomous Bodies: Although the Bodo Territorial Council is to be formed under
the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, the accord gives it more powers than many other autonomous bodies.
Wide-ranging powers have been given to the BTC in many socio-political areas.
c. Basis for a Lasting Settlement: Analyst point out that the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) entered into by
the Union Home Ministry and the Assam Government with the BLT, could be the basis for a lasting settlement of
the Bodo Problem that has been affecting the region for over a decade.
d. Generating a Sense of Hope Among the Ethnic Communities in the Northeast: Analysts feel that the
Bodo Accord has generated a sense of hope among the ethnic communities in the Northeast. It also underlines
the fact that a solution to all contentious issues can be found only through a peaceful dialogue.
11. Bodo Militants Lay Down Arms: On December 6, 2004, the Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT) laid down their
arms at a function, signalling the end of years of armed struggle. About 2,623 BLT cadres laid down their arms.
The Assam State Government has announced amnesty to all cadres and withdrawal of cases against them.
12. Proper Implementation of the Accord Including All the People of the Region in the Democratic Set Up:
Analysts opine that the MoS in the Bodo-dominated areas will achieve its purpose only if the political leadership at
all levels displays a sense of purpose and includes all the people of the region in the democratic set-up.
13. ABSU Intensifies Demand for a Separate State of Bodoland:
 On March 2, 2010, the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) decided to revive the movement for the
formation of a separate State of Bodoland accusing the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) of failing to
meet the hopes of the Bodos and also charged the Assam Government of not protecting their identity,
culture and language.
23
 On March 2, 2012, the ABSU held a rally to mark the completion of 25 years of the statehood
movement and vowed to intensify their struggle for the creation of a separate State of Bodoland to be
carved out of Assam.
 The ABSU president Pramod Boro demanded that the Centre should immediately initiate a political
dialogue on the statehood issue.
 After the statehood movement was revived in 1996, the Centre had told the Bodo leaders that it
had no policy to create new States, according to the ABSU president. He pointed out that in 2000 the
Centre created three States while turning down the demand for a separate Bodoland.
 ABSU insisted that Assam must be divided to ensure tribal rights as once the land belonged to
the tribals of Bodo origin and other ethnic groups.
14. Violence in Bodo Territorial Areas (July 2012):

 On July 19, 2012, unidentified gunmen injured two student leaders of the All Bodoland Minority
Students Union and All Assam Minority Students Union in Kokrajhar district.
 On July 20, 2012, four Bodo youths of the former Bodo Liberation Tigers were killed by a mob in
Joypur village.
 The incident sparked a series of attacks and counter-attacks blowing up into a full-scale conflict
in Kokrajhar district and spread to three other districts - Chirang, Dhubri and Bongaigaon.
 The rioting between Bodos and Muslims led to the death of around 40 people and an exodus of
over 1,70,000 people who took shelter in relief camps.
 The Army deployed in the riot-affected districts of Assam.
15. Assam Violence – Bodo Militants Kill Migrants (May 02, 2014):
 On May 02, 2014, the Army was called out and an indefinite curfew imposed in the Bodoland
Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) of Kokrajhar and Baksa in Assam after suspected National
Democratic Front of Boroland (NDFB) militants killed 30 Muslim migrants in three separate
attacks.
 According to the Assam police the National Democratic Front of Boroland (Songbijit) carried out
the attacks.
II. 3rd Bodo Peace Accord - Tripartite Agreement Signed between the
Centre, the Assam Government and Bodo Groups (January 27, 2020, New
Delhi):
 On January 27, 2020, the Centre, the Assam Government and all the four factions
of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) signed a tripartite
agreement to redraw and rename Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) in
Assam, currently spread over four districts of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and
Udalguri.
 According to the agreement villages dominated by Bodos that were presently

outside the BTAD would be included and those with non-Bodo population would
be excluded, Assam Finance Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said.
 Bodos living in hills would be granted Scheduled Hill Tribes status.
24
 The BTAD will be renamed as the Bodoland Territorial Region whose area will be
determined by a commission that will examine inclusion of villages contiguous
to BTAD and having majority tribal population.
 The constituencies in the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) will be increased
from the present 40 to 60 after the alteration in the area without adversely
affecting the existing percentage of reservation for tribals.
 The Government of Assam will notify Bodo language in Devangri script as an
associate official language in the State.
 The memorandum of settlement said that the criminal cases registered against
members of the NDFB factions for “non-heinous” crimes shall be withdrawn by
the Assam government and in case of heinous crimes it will be reviewed.
 Union Home Minister Amit Shah presided over the event.
III. Significance of the Agreement:
 Union Home Minister Amit Shah said the signing of the agreement would “end
the 50-year-old Bodo crisis”.
 “Today, Assam is united. Around 1,500 NDFB (P), NDFB (RD) and NDFB (S) will
be rehabilitated by Centre and Assam Government. They will be assimilated in
the mainstream and will surrender on January 30 on Bapu‟s death anniversary,”
Mr. Shah said.
 The familes of those killed during the Bodo movement would get ₹5 lakh each.
Since 1972, the Bodo movement has claimed nearly 4,000 lives.
 “After the agreement, the NDFB factions will leave the path of violence,
surrender their weapons and disband their armed organisations within a month
of signing the deal,” the Union Home Minister said.
 A Special Development Package of ₹1500 crore would be given by the Centre to

undertake specific projects for the development of Bodo areas, Mr. Shah said.
IV. Prime Minister Narendra Modi‟s Visit to Assam (February 7, 2020):

 Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Assam on February 7, 2020.
 “We are celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and its
relevance has increased after the signing of the Bodo Accord. It will serve as an
inspiration [for others] to renounce the path of violence,” Mr. Modi said
 “The Bodos have received respect for decades. The previous accords signed in
1993 and 2003 could not restore peace completely,” Mr. Modi said.
25
 “After the signing of the latest accord, no demands of the Bodos are left.
Through this pact , the (newly created) BTR (Bodoland Territorial Region) will get
strengthened. Everyone has won through this pact. Peace and humanity have
won too. Our first and foremost priority now will be development. I will never
retreat without fulfilling your aspirations,” the Prime Minister said at a rally
organised in western Assam‟s Kokrajhar to celebrate the signing of the third Bodo
Peace Accord.
V. Implications of the Signing of the Third Bodo Peace Accord:

 Analysts point out that the tripartite Bodo agreement for the Bodo Territorial
Region (BTR) is the first peace agreement in the Northeast where all the
insurgent groups of the specific area have signed the agreement with a
commitment to end violence.
 The third Bodo Peace Accord signed on January 27, 2020 to end the demand for
a separate State or Union Territory for the Bodo community, was welcomed
across the Bodoland Territorial Areas District (BTAD).
 “This is a historic accord signed keeping in mind the interests of all communities
living in the BTAD. I don‟t think it has room for any complaint,” Biswajit Daimary,
Rajya Sabha member said.
 The accord was inclusive and would ensure lasting peace in the BTAD that had
been torn apart by four decades of violence and ethnic conflicts, according to the
All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) president Promod Bodo.
 The non-Bodos said the accord did not have anything positive for them.
 “We are not against the peace process but this accord has ignored the interests
of the other ethnic communities in the area. In fact, the government has repeated
the mistakes made during the signing of the BTC (Bodo Territorial Council)
Accord,” Naba Kumar Sarania, independent member of Lok Sabha from Kokrajhar
said.
 Analysts point out that greater contiguity of Bodo-dominated areas would help in
making governance more efficient in the Sixth Schedule administrative unit.
However, it has increase insecurity among non-Bodos in the existing BTAD.
 The 3rd Bodo Peace Accord confers Scheduled Tribe (Hills) status to Bodos
living in the hill areas outside BTAD. This has been opposed by the Karbis who
feel that it would adversely impact the “identity of the Karbis”.
 Other insurgent groups could push for similar terms for concluding agreements
with the Centre, according to analysts.
 The tripartite Bodo agreement could also stimulate a demand for territorial and
administrative rights of the Naga territories of Manipur in the Naga Peace Accord
being worked out since 2015, according to analysts.
 Analysts point out that the 3rd Bodo Peace Accord‟s success lies in the
stakeholders working out a power-sharing arrangement in the proposed Bodo
Territorial Region (BTR) with equity.
26
I.8. JAMMU & KASHMIR

I. Background:
1. Oct 22, 1947: Northern tribals along with Pakistani irregulars invaded Kashmir. Maharaja Hari Singh sought
India‟s help and signed the instrument of Accession.
2. 1948: India‟s Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, took the Kashmir issue and Pakistan‟s intrusion to the UN
Security Council. Regular Pakistani soldiers entered Kashmir. The UN issued a resolution calling for a cease-fire,
withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the occupied territory, a cut in the Indian forces in Kashmir and the holding of
Plebiscite.
3. 1949: Cease-fire came into effect but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from POK (Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir).
4. 1951-54: The Indian Constituent Assembly agreed to link Kashmir to the Indian Union through Article 370 of the
Indian Constitution. Kashmir‟s Constituent Assembly approved the Article and then dissolved itself.
5. 1965-66: Pakistan attacked India on September 3, 1965, and a 22-day war broke out. The Soviet Union
brokered a cease-fire and the Tashkent Agreement was signed.
6. 1972: The Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan. The Agreement calls to restraint the use
of force and to resolve all outstanding issues bilaterally including the dispute over Kashmir.
7. 1987: There was widespread alienation after the alleged rigging of the elections.
8. 1989: Insurgency escalated in the Kashmir valley.
9. 1990-91: President‟s Rule was imposed in the Kashmir valley. The exodus of Kashmiri Pundits from the valley
started. In a spate of terrorist violence, thousands of people have died so far, and 300,000 people have been
driven out of their homes. Pakistan has been actively involved in this carnage of violence.
10. 1999: The Kargil conflict. Indian and Pakistan troops fight a 50-day war. India successfully drives out
infiltrators from the area.
11. 2002: In order to stop cross-border terrorism, India mobilises the Armed Forces on the border with Pakistan.
12. ARTICLE 370:
a. 1950: The Indian Constitution came into effect embodying the constitutions of all States. Jammu and Kashmir
is linked to the Indian Union through Article 370 which is incorporated as “transitional and provisional”. Article 370
limits the power of Parliament to make laws for Jammu and Kashmir and the State is left free to handle all aspects
except defence, foreign affairs and communications.
b. Four Main Features of Article 370: According to experts, Article 370 has the following four main features:
 The Union‟s legislative power extends to all matters on the instrument of Accession in consultation with the J
& K Government.
 The concurrence of the J & K Government is required to apply or extend Union laws beyond, the Instrument of
Accession.
 The concurrence of the J & K Government is also required to apply or extend any parts of the Indian
Constitution to J & K.
 J & K was entitled to, and drafted, its own constitution in 1957.
c. 1952: Sheikh Abdullah signed the Delhi Agreement with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru under which Article
370 is formally accepted.
d. 1954: Sheikh Abdullah was removed from power and imprisoned after he expressed doubts about acceding to
India.
27
e. 1954: Under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, the Kashmir Assembly ratified the legality of the State‟s accession to
India.
f. 1954: The jurisdiction of the Indian Government is extended to all subjects on the Union List. Custom barriers
between India and Kashmir are removed and central excise, civil aviation and posts and telegraph extended.
g. 1964-66: Article 356 and 357 are extended to Jammu and Kashmir, whereby the Centre can declare
President‟s Rule. Provisions of the Constitution relating to the direct election of the representatives to the Lok
Sabha are applied, whereby Members of Parliament from Kashmir would be directly elected by the people instead
of the Kashmir Legislative Assembly.
h. 1975: Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah sign an Accord with an understanding that Article 370 would be
restored to its pre-1953 status. It was also agreed that the powers of the State Governor, which till then could be
changed only by the State Assembly would come under the purview of the President.
13. Militancy in the State:
a. Shadow of Militancy Since 1989: The Kashmir valley has been under the shadow of militancy since 1989.
The militants are divided into those who want the State to join Pakistan and those who want to be independent.
There is large-scale infiltration of foreign mercenaries from across the border.
b. ISI Running Proxy War: Pakistan‟s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spends about Rs.60 to 80 crores every
year for running proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, according to reports.
c. Foreign Mercenaries: Besides youths from Jammu and Kashmir and POK, a large number of heavily armed
foreign mercenaries are also operating in the State, attacking military and civil targets.
d. Major Militant Groups:
 Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF): Pro-independence Kashmiri group. It was set up in the
1960s by Maqbool Butt and Amanullah Khan and revived in the late 1980s. It is no more an active militant
outfit but is politically relevant.
 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen: Pro-Pakistani outfit. It was formed in 1989 and is regarded as the strongest militant
group. It nurtures political ambitions. Syed Salahuddin is its chief.
 Al-Umar-Mujahideen: Deadly group of downtown Srinagar. It was founded in 1990 and is headed by
Mushtaq Zargar. It is politically not in the reckoning and is struggling to gain prominence among militants
of various hues.
 Harkat-ul-Mujahideen: Pan-Islamic group formed in 1993, known as Harkat-ul-Ansar and Al-Faran.

Very active and ruthless.
 Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT): Pan-Islamic group formed in 1994. Operates from Pakistan. Introduced
„Fidayeen‟ (suicide squad) attacks. It is one of the strongest outfits which are backed by Pakistan.
 Al-Badr: Pan-Islamic group, operates mostly in border areas. Formed in 1999. Dominated by foreigners,
operates under the direct control of Pakistan‟s ISI.
 Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM): Fanatic Pan-Islamic group. Formed in January 2000 by Maulana Masood
Azhar, notorious for human bombs. Gets lavish patronage from ISI.
e. APHC: The All Party Hurriyat Conference is a conglomerate of Jamaat-i-Islami, Peoples Conference, JKLF
(Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front) and many other groups that have been leading the secessionist
movement. The APHC boycotted the elections in the State.
14. Ceasefire Along the International Border and the LoC - 2003:
 November 2003 - Ceasefire Came Into Being: The then Pakistan Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan
Jamali called for a unilateral ceasefire on November 23, 2003. India responded positively to Pakistan's
offer and the ceasefire came into being on November 26, 2003.
 Decline in Infiltration After the Ceasefire
28
15. Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA):
 The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was approved by the Parliament on May 22, 1958
and was amended in 1972.
 The AFSPA gives the security forces extraordinary powers and protection.
 The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of AFSPA in 1997 but directed the security
forces to strictly observe certain guidelines while exercising the special powers conferred on them by
the Act.
 Defence analysts point out that the provisions of the AFSPA and the safeguards that accompany its
imposition are intended to prevent the possibility of any arbitrariness in the exercise of power
under the Act.
16. Arguments in Defence of AFSPA:

 AFSPA the Cornerstone of the Army‟s Functioning in Terrorism-Hit Areas: The Army has
emphasised that the AFSPA was the cornerstone of its functioning in terrorism-hit areas. Fighting
low-intensity wars was near impossible without it.
 Army Needs Special Legal Powers in Areas of its Operation: A concept paper on Management of
Internal Conflicts pointed out that the Army needed special legal protection and powers in the areas
where it operated. It was argued that it was imperative to use special legislation from the point of view of
morale as well as operational efficiency to protect the rights of soldiers. Thus, the imposition of the
AFSPA and the Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) where ever the Army is deployed in internal security
operations, should be “axiomatic”.
 AFSPA is Essential in Areas where the Civil Forces have Failed to Contain a Situation: The Army‟s
argument in favour of AFSPA is self-evident as the very presence of it in an area, means that normal laws
and civilian forces have failed to contain a situation.
 Terrorists and Insurgents Could be Emboldened by the Withdrawal of AFSPA: It is also argued that
withdrawal of AFSPA could embolden the insurgent and terrorist outfits, which are relatively subdued due
to the action taken by the security forces.
17. Pulwama Terrorist Attack - Suicide Bomb Attack on a CRPF Convoy by Pakistan-based JeM
(February 14, 2019):
 On February 14, 2019, at least 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel were killed when
a convoy in which they were travelling was attacked by a Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) suicide
bomber, who rammed his explosive-laden vehicle into one of the convoy‟s buses on the
Srinagar-Jammu Highway.
 The suicide bombing in the Lethpora area of Pulwama district also critically injured at least eight
jawans. About 2,500 personnel of the CRPF were travelling to the Valley at the time of the terror
attack.
 This was the deadliest terror attack in terms of casualties in the last three decades of militancy in
Jammu and Kashmir.
 Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh blamed the “Pakistan-based, Pakistan-backed” JeM for the
“dastardly” attack.
18. Article 370 Withdrawn, Article 35A Scrapped and the State of Jammu and Kashmir
divided into Two Union Territories (August 5, 2019):
 On August 5, 2019, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government redefined the Centre‟s
relationship with the State of Jammu and Kashmir through a three step process – Revocation of
Article 35A, withdrawing Article 370 and moving the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill
2019 to split the State into two Union Territories.
29
 Union Home Minister Amit Shah introduced two special Resolutions to recommend that the
President issue a notification rendering Article 370 inoperative, and the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Bill 2019 creating the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in the
Rajya Sabha.
 The first Resolution informed the Rajya Sabha that the President had used his powers under
Article 370 to fundamentally alter the provision, extending all Central laws, instruments and
treaties to Kashmir. However, the altered Article 370 will remain in the statute book.
 The Home Minister said if the Union Territory model worked well, the government would consider
giving Jammu and Kashmir the status of a State again and “no constitutional amendment would
be required”.
 The Home Minister termed Article 370 discriminatory on the basis of gender, class, caste and
place of origin. He pointed out that it was “temporary in the first place and it has to go in the
larger interest of the people of the State”.
 Mr. Shah said that from 2004 to 2019, the Centre sent over ₹2,77,000 crore to the State, but it did not
percolate to the masses. “There was no development in the State because of corruption. 370
stopped anti-corruption bodies to function in the State. A monopoly was there”.
 Mr. Shah said the Resolution for Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution of India “would pass
every legal scrutiny”.
 The Home Minister said this was a “new experiment” and everyone should support it.
 “Terrorism cannot end in the State till Article 370 or 35A continue. They are an obstacle to
development. We want to embrace the Kashmiri youth. The move will bring development, tourism
and industries to the State. These opportunities till now were controlled by only three families,”
Mr. Shah said.
 Anticipating law and order problems in the Valley, former Chief Ministers Omar Abdullah and
Mehbooba Mufti were place under house arrest and communication networks as well as Internet
were shut down. Thousands of additional Central Security personnel were deployed.
 The Resolution and the Bill were passed by the Rajya Sabha on August 5, 2019 and the Lok
Sabha on August 6, 2019.
 The Union Home Minister said in the Lok Sabha that the government would not talk to the Hurriyat,
but was ready to speak to the people of Kashmir.
 The security forces would not be moved out of the Valley until the situation became fully normal,
according to Mr. Shah.
 The Union Home Minister pointed out that the Centre‟s decision did not impact in any way India‟s
claim over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), and the government would continue to press for it.
19. Article 35A Scrapped:

 Article 35A is a provision incorporated in the Constitution in 1954 through a Presidential Order,
and not by Parliamentary debate.
 Article 35A protected the laws such as bar on outsiders buying property in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir and women marrying non-Kashmiris losing their property rights. Non-permanent
residents were also denied government employment, scholarships or other aid provided by the
state
 The government revoked the 1954 Presidential proclamation through a gazette notification.
 The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 passed by the Rajya Sabha on
August 5, 2019 and Lok Sabha on August 6, 2019 abolished the status of “permanent resident”
granted by Article 35A introduced in the 1954 proclamation.
30
20. Article 370:
 Under Article 370, the State of Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution and laws passed by
Parliament were applicable to the State only with the State government‟s concurrence.
 The President was empowered to decide which provisions of the Indian Constitution would be
applicable with States assent.
 These special measures could only be altered on the recommendation of the Sadar-i-Riyasat (on
the advice of the Ministers Council) or by the „Constituent Assembly‟.
 To drastically alter Article 370, a few clauses were added to Article 367 on August 5, 2019 which
contains “interpretations”: the reference to the „Constituent Assembly‟ was amended to read
„Legislative Assembly of the State‟. All references to the „Sadar-i-Riyasat‟ will be construed as
references to the Governor.
 President Ram Nath Kovind declared that all provisions of the Indian Constitution shall now
apply to the State.
 The President‟s declaration as passed by both Houses of Parliament that “all clauses of Article
370 shall cease to be operative in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was notified in the Gazette of
India.
 The President‟s declaration came into effect from August 6, 2019.
21. The Jammu and Kashmir Re-organisation Bill, 2019:
 The Jammu and Kashmir Re-organisation Bill, 2019 was passed in the Rajya Sabha 125-61 on
August 5, 2019.
 The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha 351-72 on August 6, 2019.
 The Bill splits the State into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir (with Legislative
Assembly) and Ladakh (without Legislative Assembly).
 Both Union Territories will have Lieutenant-governors.
 Four sitting Rajya Sabha members of the State will become Members of Parliament of the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
 Five Lok Sabha seats will be allotted to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
 The Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir will have 107 seats to be
chosen through direct election.
 The 24 seats in PoK will be vacant.
 The Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir would legislate on items
in the State List, except public order and police, as is the case for other Union Territories.
 Land ownership and employment will be open to all citizens of India.
 The Union Territory of Ladakh will be allotted one Lok Sabha seat.
22. India Briefed Members of the UN Security Council and Envoys on the Decision to End the
Special Status to Jammu and Kashmir:
 The Ministry of External Affairs reached out to the member-states of the UN Security Council and
briefed envoys on the decision to end the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
31
 The outreach was carried out on the basis of a request from members of the diplomatic
community.
 Diplomats were informed that the Indian parliamentary move was aimed at ensuring “good
governance, promoting social justice and ensuring economic development” in Jammu and
Kashmir.
23. Implications of the Decision to End the Special Status of Jammu and Kashmir:
A. Positive Aspects:
 Prime Minister Narendra Modi termed the passage of the Resolution abrogating special status to
Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution and the Jammu and Kashmir
Re-organisation Bill 2019 “a momentous occasion in our Parliamentary democracy”.
 Kashmiri Pandits who were displaced from the Valley in the 1990s, hailed the amendment of
Article 370 of the Constitution as a “historic event”, and hoped it would pave the way for their
return to the homeland with honour and dignity.
 Jammu and Kashmir will now have no separate flag or constitution. The tenure of the Legislative
Assembly will be five years and not six and Indian Penal Code would replace Ranbir Penal Code.
 People from other States in India will be eligible to purchase land and properties in Jammu and
Kashmir. Non-permanent residents can now permanently settle in Jammu and Kashmir.
 People from other States can now get government jobs and employment in companies and will
also be eligible for scholarships in state-run educational institutions.
 The Right to Information (RTI) Act will now be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir.
 The Central Government believes that the change in Jammu and Kashmir‟s status would
encourage private sector investment in the new Union Territory.
 Up till now the provisions of Articles 370 and 35A prevented business houses from purchasing
land and hiring skilled manpower, according to officials.
 The change in administrative status would have a positive impact on the ease of doing business
as it would give industry ownership of establishments and would encourage hiring, according to
officials.
 “These decisions will allow any individual or business that operates as per the laws of Union of
India, to freely operate, under the same rules of business, in the UTs of J&K and Ladakh,”
government officials said.
B. International Context:
 Analysts point out that the government‟s decision to end the special status to Jammu and Kashmir
also has implications in the international context with geo-strategic shifts likely in South Asia
over the next few months.
 The US-Taliban talks in Doha, Qatar had yielded “great progress”, according to the US Special
Representative Zalmay Khalilzad who visited India on August 7, 2019 to create greater
consensus in favour of peace in Afghanistan.
 Analysts feel that the implications of this peace agreement between the US and the Taliban will
have repercussions across South Asia and West Asia.
 Pakistan looks at the Taliban as its strategic asset and would try to use it in Kashmir as was the
case in the late 1980s when insurgency peaked, according to analysts.
32
 The outcome of the US-Taliban peace agreement would be the US disinterest in South Asia,
according to analysts.
 In this context it will be important for India to keep a firm grip on Kashmir, according to analysts.
C. Criticism and Concerns:
 Opposition parties in the Lok Sabha questioned the Centre‟s right to alter the status quo in
Jammu and Kashmir without consulting stakeholders.
 On August 6, 2019, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) said that the provision of Article 370
that accorded special powers to Jammu and Kashmir should have been “honoured” till it was
amended constitutionally after due consultation.
 The Centre‟s decision to abrogate Article 370 triggered concerns in the North-Eastern States
having similar constitutional safeguards.
 The Constitution bestows special provisions under Article 371A for Nagaland, Article 371B for
Assam, Article 371C for Manipur, Article 371F for Sikkim and Article 371G for Mizoram.
24. Highlights of Prime Minister Narendra Modi‟s Address to the Nation (August 8, 2019):
 It was a historic move and a new beginning for Jammu and Kashmir as well as Ladakh.
 The Union Territory status for Jammu and Kashmir, from being a full State, was a “temporary”
measure and at some point, Statehood would be restored. Ladakh would remain a Union
Territory.
 “You will choose your representative who will emerge from among you. I have full faith that under
this new arrangement, we will destroy terrorism and free Jammu and Kashmir.”
 “Article 370 and Article 35A had only given terrorism, separatism, nepotism and massive
corruption to Jammu and Kashmir. These articles have been used as a weapon by Pakistan.”
 Disturbances over the last 30 years had ended up killing 42,000 innocent people.
 While the country took justifiable pride in its democratic process of law-making, many of these
laws, including the Right to Education, the Minimum Wages Act and Acts to prevent atrocities on
Dalits, were not applicable in the State in the past.
 Those who had settled in Jammu and Kashmir after Partition could only vote in the Lok Sabha
elections and not in the Assembly or local bodies elections. With the reading down of Articles
370 and 35A, this was now over.
25. Pakistan‟s Reaction:

 “No unilateral step by the Government of India can change this disputed status, as enshrined in
the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Nor will this ever be acceptable to the people of
Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan. As a party to this international dispute, Pakistan will exercise
all possible options to counter the illegal steps,” the spokesperson of Pakistan‟s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs said.
 On August 7, 2019, Pakistan expelled the Indian High Commissioner and suspended bilateral
trade in response to India‟s decision to end the special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
 “The Government of India has been told to withdraw its High Commissioner to Pakistan. The
Indian government has also been informed that Pakistan will not be sending its High
Commissioner-designate to India,” the Foreign Office said.
 The decisions were taken at a National Security Committee (NSC) meeting chaired by Prime
Minister Imran Khan.
33
 The NSC also decided to review bilateral arrangements and take the Kashmir issue to the UN,
including the Security Council, according to Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.
 Pakistan‟s Independence Day on August 14 would be observed in solidarity with Kashmiris.
 A joint parliamentary session of Pakistan‟s National Assembly also passed a resolution

condemning India‟s “unilateral move” on Kashmir.
 Analysts point out that the moves by Pakistan seem to be intended for domestic consumption
including anti-India terror groups, which have been assured of Pakistan‟s support for the
Kashmir cause.
 The moves by Pakistan could also be intended to create a spectre of an imminent military
escalation to cause concern in the US administration to pressure India to start negotiations over
Jammu and Kashmir with the US as a mediator, according to analysts.
26. India‟s Response:
 “The Government of India regrets the steps announced by Pakistan yesterday [on August 7] and
would urge that country to review them so that normal channels of communication are
preserved,” India‟s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said in a statement.
 The statement said that Pakistan‟s actions were aimed at presenting an “alarmist picture to the
world”.
 The ending of the special status to Jammu and Kashmir was an internal matter of India, aimed at
bringing development opportunities to the people there, Pakistan exploited the lack of
development to generate disaffection and “to justify its cross-border terrorism”, the statement
said.
27. China‟s Reaction:
 “The recent unilateral revision of domestic laws by the Indian side continues to undermine
China‟s territorial sovereignty, which is unacceptable and will not have any effect,” China‟s
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said.
 “The Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019, introduced by the government in Parliament on
5 August, which proposes the formation of a new Union Territory of Ladakh, is an internal matter
concerning the territory of India,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Raveesh Kumar
said.
 “India does not comment on the internal affairs of other countries and similarly expects other
countries to do likewise,” Mr. Kumar said.
 “So far as the India-China boundary question is concerned, the two sides have agreed to a fair,
reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement of the boundary question on the basis of the
Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of India-China Boundary
Question. Pending such a settlement, both sides have agreed to maintain peace and tranquillity
in the border areas on the basis of the relevant agreements,” the MEA spokesperson said.
 China claims parts of Ladakh – the Aksai Chin plateau – India and China have been negotiating
over the Line of Actual Control along Ladakh.
 In 1963, Pakistan ceded around 6,000 sq.km from Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) to China.
This will now fall within the Union Territory of Ladakh.
34
II. Current Situation:

1. UN Related Moves on Jammu and Kashmir:
A. UNSC “Closed Consultation” Meeting on Kashmir:
 On August 16, 2019, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held a “closed
consultation” meeting on the situation in Kashmir.
 After India ended the special status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under
Article 370 and Article 35A, Pakistan wrote to the UNSC and China sought a
meeting of the UNSC to discuss the developments in Kashmir.
B. India‟s Stand:
 India‟s Ambassador to the UN Syed Akbaruddin accused Pakistan and China of
attempting to impart greater significance to the UNSC “closed consultation” than
was warranted.
 “After the end of the Security Council‟s closed consultations, we noted that two
states who made national statements tried to pass them off as the will of the
international community,” Mr. Akbaruddin said.
 “The Security Council is very deliberative…institution. It works in a very
considered manner. Its outcomes are provided to all of us through the [UNSC]
President. So if national statements try to masquerade as the will of the
international community, I thought I will come across to you too and explain our
national position,” the Indian Ambassador to the UN said.
 India and Pakistan were not part of the UNSC closed consultations, which are
informal meetings that do not have a formal outcome.
 The abrogation of Article 370 was done to enhance good governance and
socio-economic development in Jammu and Kashmir and the UNSC
consultations had taken note of this, according to Mr. Akbaruddin.
 “The Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir announced a
whole set of measures that the government is undertaking to move towards
normalcy. We are gratified that the Security Council in its closed consultations
appreciated these efforts, acknowledged them and indicated that this was the
direction in which they would like the international community to move,” the
Indian Ambassador to the UN said.
 Mr. Akbaruddin said that India was committed to all agreements it had signed on
the issue and said India would sit down to talk with Pakistan when the latter‟s
support for terror ceased. “Stop terror to start talks,” the Indian Ambassador to the
UN said.
C. India Rejected UN Secretary-General‟s Mediation Offer on the Kashmir

Issue:
 On February 2, 2020, India rejected the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, stressing that
it would only discuss the matter bilaterally.
35
 “The issue of [Jammu and Kashmir] that needs to be addressed is that of

vacation of the territories illegally and forcibly occupied by Pakistan. Further
issues, if any, would be discussed bilaterally. There is no role or scope for third
party mediation,” the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.
 Mr. Kumar said that India hopes the UN Secretary General would “emphasise on
the imperative for Pakistan to take credible, sustained and irreversible action to
put an end to cross-border terrorism against India.”
D. Jammu & Kashmir Integral Part, India tells the UN Human Rights
Council (February 26, 2020):
 On February 26, 2020, Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, Vikas Swarup,
speaking at the 43rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, highlighted India‟s
heritage of non-violence, and claimed that India believed in inclusive
development.
 “Jammu and Kashmir was, is and shall forever remain an integral part of India.
The transformative changes wrought by our Parliament last August were meant
to strengthen the integration of the State, including to give the fullest play to
representative government from the grassroots level upward,” Mr. Swarup said.
 The MEA Secretary also pointed out that cross-border terrorism from Pakistan
poses a grave challenge to India.
 “As a nation that has suffered for decades from cross-border terrorism, India
calls for decisive action against those who direct, control, fund, abet or shelter
terrorists,” Mr. Swarup said.
2. Restoring Normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir:
A. Normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir – Army Chief (September 25, 2019):

 On September 25, 2019, the Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat said that
there was normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir and people were moving around on
their work.
 “Normal life in Jammu and Kashmir has not been affected. People are doing their
necessary work, a clear sign that work has not been stopped and people are
freely moving around. Those who feel that life has been affected are the ones
whose survival depends on terrorism,” General Rawat said.
 The Army released videos taken from drones showing apples being harvested
and trucks moving them.
 As steps towards normalcy restrictions under Section 144 had been removed in
89% of the police stations in Kashmir division, 100% in Jammu and Ladakh
divisions, as per the Centre‟s report to the Supreme Court submitted in
mid-September.
 Three months of stocks of essential items had been ensured, according to the
Centre‟s report.
36
 Primary, middle and high schools were functioning normally in Jammu and
Ladakh divisions (100%), while in Kashmir 97% of all schools were functioning,
according to the Centre‟s report.
 On September 16, 2019, the Supreme Court said the government‟s statistics of
thousands of instances of death, terror and violence in Jammu and Kashmir
from 1990 were “formidable reasons” for the August 5, 2019, lockdown after the
withdrawal of the special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
 On October 14, 2019, mobile services were restored for 40 lakh postpaid
numbers.
 On January 18, 2020, all prepaid connections and 2G mobile services were
restored Jammu and Kashmir.
B. Legislative Council Abolished in Jammu and Kashmir (October 17,

2019):
 On October 17, 2019, the Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Council, the upper house
of the Assembly was abolished as per Section 57 of the J&K Reorganisation Bill,
2019, which reduced the State to the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh.
C. New Lieutenant Governors took Charge of the New Union Territories of

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (October 31, 2019):
 On October 31, 2019, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh became the new Union
Territories of India.
 The Indian Union currently has 28 States and nine Union Territories (UTs).
 Former IAS officer Girish Chander Murmu was sworn in as the first Lieutenant
Governor of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
 Former civil servant R.K. Mathur was sworn in as the first Lieutenant Governor of
Ladakh.
3. Action Against Terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir:
A. Article 370 Revoked to Eradicate Terrorism from J&K and Protect

Kashmir – Union Home Minister Amit Shah:
 “To eradicate terrorism from J&K and protect Kashmir, the Prime Minister has
taken a huge step by revoking Article 370. We will be able to restore long-term
peace in Kashmir,” Union Home Minister Amit Shah said while addressing the
National Security Guard (NSG) commandos on October 15, 2019.
 After the revocation of Article 370, the country had entered a decisive phase to
eliminate cross-border terrorism sponsored by the western neighbour and NSG
commandos and other commandos trained by it in States have formed an
impregnable shield around the country.
37
B. Army Destroyed Three PoK Terror Camps (October 20, 2019):

 On October 20, 2019, the Army Chief General Bipin Rawat said that the Army had
taken retaliatory action against four terror camps along the Line of Control (LoC)
in Jammu and Kashmir, destroying at least three terror camps.
 Gen. Rawat said that six to 10 Pakistani soldiers and an equal number of
terrorists had been killed, as per information “currently available”.
 The Army said that Pakistan had resorted to unprovoked ceasefire violation,
targeting civilians, in which two soldiers and a civilian had been killed.
 The Army Chief said there had been a series of infiltration attempts from Gurez,
Tangdhar, Uri and Macchil sectors and in areas south of Pir Panjal recently.
 “But before they could attempt infiltration, it was decided that we target the
terrorist camps across. We had definitive information. We had the coordinates of
where these camps have emerged. In the retaliatory action, we have caused
severe damage to terrorist infrastructure across,” Gen. Rawat said.
 Indian Army spokesperson said the Army had hit terrorist launch pads and Pakistan
Army positions with heavy artillery in retaliatory firing. “As a result, calibrated
escalation of area weapons was undertaken by the Indian side in which terrorist
launch pads, Pakistan Army posts giving incidental protection to these launch
pads, and certain gun positions were hit.”
 The launch pads were located south of Zura in PoK.
C. Terror Incidents have come down to almost Nil in Jammu & Kashmir –
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh:
 On November 27, 2019, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said in Lok Sabha, “Terror
incidents have been taking place in Jammu and Kashmir for the past 30-35 years.
But I must compliment the forces. Terror incidents have now come down to
almost nil.”
D. Three Militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen Killed in Tral, Pulwama

(February 19, 2020):
 On February 19, 2020, three militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen were killed in a
gunfight at Sherabad in Tral, Pulwama.
 The Director-General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, Dilbagh Singh, said that the
police, the CRPF and the Army had conducted a joint operation.
 The DGP said 23 militants had been killed this year and nearly 40 overground
workers were arrested.
 Mr. Singh said Pakistan was continuing its attempts to misguide the youth.
“Pakistan continues to use VPNs [virtual private networks], and even terrorists
killed in the Nagrota operation used a VPN to send across pictures from the
encounter site.”
38
4. Union Ministers Visited Kashmir to Attend Outreach Camps in Jammu &

Kashmir:
 On January 18, 2020, 36 Union Ministers started a six-day tour to attend outreach
camps in Jammu and Kashmir.
 The public interface programme was launched on directions of Prime Minister
Narendra Modi.
 Of the 36 Union Ministers, 21 toured Jammu and five visited Kashmir valley up to
January 24, 2020.
 The Ministers inaugurated various developmental projects and addressed
gatherings in Srinagar, Budgam and Ganderbal districts.
 Union Ministers, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Nitya Nand Rai, GVK Reddy and Mukhtar
Abbas Naqvi met people at different places and emphasised that the Kashmir
Valley should shun all negativity of the past and look forward to a new morning
and new sunrise under Narendra Modi government that would bring happiness
to all residents here.
5. World Rejected Pakistan‟s Bid to Politicise Jammu and Kashmir Issue:

 On September 12, 2019, India said that Pakistan‟s campaign on the situation in
Jammu and Kashmir was based on lies and that its attempts to polarise and
politicise the Kashmir issue had been rejected.
 “It is quite audacious on the part of Pakistan that the country which is
harbouring terrorists, which is the epicentre of terrorism, is pretending to speak
on behalf of the global community on human rights,” the Ministry of External Affairs
(MEA) spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.
 “Pakistan‟s attempts to polarise and politicise the Kashmir issue at the UNHRC
have been rejected,” Mr. Kumar said.
 On September 10, 2019, the MEA Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said, “We reject the
reference to Jammu and Kashmir in the joint statement issued by China and
Pakistan after the recent visit of Chinese Foreign Minister. J&K is an integral part
of India. India has consistently expressed concerns to both China and Pakistan
on the projects in so-called China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is on the
territory of India that has been illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947.”
 “India is resolutely opposed to any actions by other countries to change the
status quo in PoK. We call on the parties concerned to cease such actions,” Mr.
Kumar said.
6. Centre Allows Foreign Delegates to Visit Jammu and Kashmir:

 On October 28, 2019, the Union Government allowed a delegation comprising of
27 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from Italy, France, Germany,
Britain, Czech Republic and Poland to travel to Srinagar to see the situation
there.
39
 The European Union (EU) Embassy in Delhi clarified that the MEPs were in India
in their “personal capacity”.
 MEPs delegation said “terrorism is a severe problem in Kashmir” and named
Pakistan as its source. They said that India‟s decision to revoke provisions of
Article 370 was an internal issue. “It should not be used [against India],” they
said.
 On January 9, 2020, a 15-member foreign envoy delegation including US
Ambassador to India Kenneth Juster and Norwegian Ambassador visited Jammu
and Kashmir for a two-day visit. They were seeking feedback on the ground
situation post revocation of the special status of J&K.
 On February 12, 2020, twenty five Ambassadors visited Jammu and Kashmir for
a two-day visit to assess the situation there. They sought inputs from locals,
including selected politicians, elected grass-roots representatives, editors,
traders and members of the civil society, on the measures required to move
ahead.
 The Army apprised the envoys at a meeting in Srinagar of Pakistan‟s attempts to
foment trouble and push in militants, officials said.
 The envoys also met Chief Justice Gita Mital at the Jammu and Kashmir High
Court and discussed the prevailing situation. They were also briefed by
Lieutenant Governor Girish Chander Murmu, Chief Secretary B.V.R.
Subrahmanyam and J&K Police Chief Dilbagh Singh.
 “The visit confirmed that the Government of India has taken positive steps to
restore normalcy….The visit presented a welcome opportunity to see the
situation on the ground and to interact with local interlocutors,” the EU
spokesperson said.
SUMMARY
I. Current Situation:
1. UN Related Moves on Jammu and Kashmir:
A. UNSC “Closed Consultation” Meeting on Kashmir:
 On August 16, 2019, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held a “closed consultation”
meeting on the situation in Kashmir.
 After India ended the special status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 and
Article 35A, Pakistan wrote to the UNSC and China sought a meeting of the UNSC to discuss the
developments in Kashmir.
B. India‟s Stand:
 India‟s Ambassador to the UN Syed Akbaruddin accused Pakistan and China of attempting to
impart greater significance to the UNSC “closed consultation” than was warranted.
 “After the end of the Security Council‟s closed consultations, we noted that two states who made
national statements tried to pass them off as the will of the international community,”
 “The Security Council is very deliberative…institution. It works in a very considered manner. Its
outcomes are provided to all of us through the [UNSC] President. So if national statements try to
masquerade as the will of the international community, I thought I will come across to you too
and explain our national position,”
40
 India and Pakistan were not part of the UNSC closed consultations, which are informal meetings
that do not have a formal outcome.
 The abrogation of Article 370 was done to enhance good governance and socio-economic
development in Jammu and Kashmir and the UNSC consultations had taken note of this
 “The Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir announced a whole set of
measures that the government is undertaking to move towards normalcy. We are gratified that
the Security Council in its closed consultations appreciated these efforts, acknowledged them
and indicated that this was the direction in which they would like the international community to
move,”
 Mr. Akbaruddin said that India was committed to all agreements it had signed on the issue and
said India would sit down to talk with Pakistan when the latter‟s support for terror ceased. “Stop
terror to start talks,”
C. India Rejected UN Secretary-General‟s Mediation Offer on the Kashmir Issue
D. Jammu & Kashmir Integral Part, India tells the UN Human Rights Council (February 26,
2020):
 “Jammu and Kashmir was, is and shall forever remain an integral part of India. The
transformative changes wrought by our Parliament last August were meant to strengthen the
integration of the State, including to give the fullest play to representative government from the
grassroots level upward,”
 Cross-border terrorism from Pakistan poses a grave challenge to India.
 “As a nation that has suffered for decades from cross-border terrorism, India calls for decisive
action against those who direct, control, fund, abet or shelter terrorists,”
2. Restoring Normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir:
A. Normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir – Army Chief (September 25, 2019):
 On September 25, 2019, the Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat said that there was
normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir and people were moving around on their work.
 The Army released videos taken from drones showing apples being harvested and trucks moving
them.
 As steps towards normalcy restrictions under Section 144 had been removed in 89% of the police
stations in Kashmir division, 100% in Jammu and Ladakh divisions, as per the Centre‟s report to
the Supreme Court submitted in mid-September.
 On September 16, 2019, the Supreme Court said the government‟s statistics of thousands of
instances of death, terror and violence in Jammu and Kashmir from 1990 were “formidable
reasons” for the August 5, 2019, lockdown after the withdrawal of the special status to Jammu
and Kashmir.
 On October 14, 2019, mobile services were restored for 40 lakh postpaid numbers.
 On January 18, 2020, all prepaid connections and 2G mobile services were restored Jammu and
Kashmir.
B. Legislative Council Abolished in Jammu and Kashmir (October 17, 2019)
C. New Lieutenant Governors took Charge of the New Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir
and Ladakh (October 31, 2019):
 On October 31, 2019, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh became the new Union Territories of India.
 The Indian Union currently has 28 States and nine Union Territories (UTs).
41
 Former IAS officer Girish Chander Murmu was sworn in as the first Lieutenant Governor of the
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
 Former civil servant R.K. Mathur was sworn in as the first Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh.
3. Action Against Terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir:
A. Article 370 Revoked to Eradicate Terrorism from J&K and Protect Kashmir – Union Home
Minister Amit Shah
B. Army Destroyed Three PoK Terror Camps (October 20, 2019):
C. Terror Incidents have come down to almost Nil in Jammu & Kashmir – Defence Minister
Rajnath Singh
D. Three Militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen Killed in Tral, Pulwama (February 19, 2020)
4. Union Ministers Visited Kashmir to Attend Outreach Camps in Jammu & Kashmir:
 On January 18, 2020, 36 Union Ministers started a six-day tour to attend outreach camps in
Jammu and Kashmir.
 The public interface programme was launched on directions of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
 Of the 36 Union Ministers, 21 toured Jammu and five visited Kashmir valley up to January 24,
2020.
 The Ministers inaugurated various developmental projects and addressed gatherings in

Srinagar, Budgam and Ganderbal districts.
 Union Ministers, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Nitya Nand Rai, GVK Reddy and Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi met
people at different places and emphasised that the Kashmir Valley should shun all negativity of
the past and look forward to a new morning and new sunrise under Narendra Modi government
that would bring happiness to all residents here.
5. World Rejected Pakistan‟s Bid to Politicise Jammu and Kashmir Issue:

 On September 12, 2019, India said that Pakistan‟s campaign on the situation in Jammu and
Kashmir was based on lies and that its attempts to polarise and politicise the Kashmir issue had
been rejected.
 “It is quite audacious on the part of Pakistan that the country which is harbouring terrorists,
which is the epicentre of terrorism, is pretending to speak on behalf of the global community on
human rights,”
 “Pakistan‟s attempts to polarise and politicise the Kashmir issue at the UNHRC have been
rejected,”
 “We reject the reference to Jammu and Kashmir in the joint statement issued by China and
Pakistan after the recent visit of Chinese Foreign Minister. J&K is an integral part of India. India
has consistently expressed concerns to both China and Pakistan on the projects in so-called
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is on the territory of India that has been illegally
occupied by Pakistan since 1947.”
 “India is resolutely opposed to any actions by other countries to change the status quo in PoK.
We call on the parties concerned to cease such actions,” Mr. Kumar said.
6. Centre Allows Foreign Delegates to Visit Jammu and Kashmir:
 On October 28, 2019, the Union Government allowed a delegation comprising of 27 Members of
the European Parliament (MEPs) from Italy, France, Germany, Britain, Czech Republic and
Poland to travel to Srinagar to see the situation there.
42
 The European Union (EU) Embassy in Delhi clarified that the MEPs were in India in their
“personal capacity”.
 MEPs delegation said “terrorism is a severe problem in Kashmir” and named Pakistan as its
source. They said that India‟s decision to revoke provisions of Article 370 was an internal issue.
“It should not be used [against India],”
 On January 9, 2020, a 15-member foreign envoy delegation including US Ambassador to India

Kenneth Juster and Norwegian Ambassador visited Jammu and Kashmir for a two-day visit. They
were seeking feedback on the ground situation post revocation of the special status of J&K.
 On February 12, 2020, twenty five Ambassadors visited Jammu and Kashmir for a two-day visit to
assess the situation there. They sought inputs from locals, including selected politicians, elected
grass-roots representatives, editors, traders and members of the civil society, on the measures
required to move ahead.
 The Army apprised the envoys at a meeting in Srinagar of Pakistan‟s attempts to foment trouble
and push in militants
 The envoys also met Chief Justice Gita Mital at the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and
discussed the prevailing situation. They were also briefed by Lieutenant Governor Girish
Chander Murmu, Chief Secretary B.V.R. Subrahmanyam and J&K Police Chief Dilbagh Singh.
 “The visit confirmed that the Government of India has taken positive steps to restore
normalcy….The visit presented a welcome opportunity to see the situation on the ground and to
interact with local interlocutors,”
43

UAI - I (National) 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UAI - I (National) 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PART-I-CONTENTS UAI‟s STUDY MATERIAL 2020

4. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)---13

5. National Population Register (NPR)---18

7. Bodo Peace Accord---22

8. Jammu & Kashmir---27

II. INDIAN ECONOMY

3. RBI‟s Monetary Policy---52

4. State of Indian Economy---56

6. Union Budget 2020-21---63

7. 15th Finance Commission---76

III. WORLD ECONOMY

6. Sharang – Upgraded 15mm Artillery Gun---109

8. Him Vijay Exercise---113

10. Thal Sena Bhawan---116

11. Permanent Commission for Women Officers in the Army---117

13. US Space Force---127

7. Indo-Sri Lankan Relations---207

8. India-Saudi Arabia Relations---219

10. India-Bahrain Relations---233

11. Indo-French Relations---235

12. Indo-German Relations---242

13. India-South Korea Relations---246

14. India-Brazil Relations---250

VI. INTERNATIONAL CURRENT EVENTS

7. Myanmar – Rohingya Problem---300

10. Saudi-Iran Confrontation---321

11. Israeli-Palestine Problem---323

14. Hong Kong---342

17. United Kingdom – Parliamentary Elections---362

18. Impeachment of the US President---365

VII. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

3. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)---391

4. Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)---399

5. ASEAN, Indo-ASEAN Relations---402

VIII. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

2. IndiGen – Genome India Project---419

3. India‟s Space Programmes---424

2. Water – Jal Jeevan Mission---437

4. UNFCCC – Climate Summit---453

5. UN Climate Action Summit---466

I. NATIONAL CURRENT EVENTS

2. Need for the Right to Information:

3. Drawbacks of the Freedom of Information Act 2002:

 Lacked the concept of penalties.

 The Act gave full exemption to security and intelligence agencies.

 There was no independent system of implementation.

5. Salient Features of the Right to Information Act:

 Information Commissions: to be set up at Central and State levels.

6. Procedure of Appeal if Information is Denied:

 First appeal to superior of public information officer.

 Second appeal to information Commission.

 Third appeal to High Court.

7. Merits of the Right to Information Bill:

8. Shortcomings of the RTI Bill:

10. Problems in the Implementation of the RTI Act:

II. Highlights of the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 Passed by

 The Supreme Court observed that “transparency and accountability should go

 “Right to information should not be allowed to be used a tool of surveillance,”

V. Significance of the Supreme Court Ruling:

I.2. AYODHYA DISPUTE

 1853 - British erected barricades to separate worshippers after incidents of violence.

II. Supreme Court Permitted the Construction of a Temple at the Disputed

III. Prime Minister Narendra Modi Announced the Formation of a