Weakening the watchdog

Appointing MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries has been usual in the past. Along with Delhi government, several other states have been following this. However, with President of India recently declining assent to Delhi govt’s bill on appointment of parliamentary secretaries, the issue has come to the fore once again.

Background:

The Delhi government had in March last year appointed 21 of its MLAs as parliamentary secretaries in various ministries to speed up public work.

• Following criticism by members of the opposition, who called it unconstitutional, the government passed a bill was which intended to provide security cover for those legislators appointed as parliamentary secretaries.
• Through the bill, the Delhi government had sought an amendment to the Delhi Members of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) Act, 1997. The bill aims to exclude the post of parliamentary secretary from the office of profit and exempt the post from disqualification provisions.
• The bill was forwarded by lieutenant governor Najeeb Jung to the centre, which in turn was sent to the President with its comments.

What’s the issue now?

At the time of their appointment, the government had said that parliamentary secretaries will not receive any remuneration or perks from the government. But later on, they were allowed use of government transport for official purposes and space in minister’s office. Hence, few people criticized this move and called it unconstitutional.

Who is a parliamentary secretary?

A Parliament Secretary is similar to a Minister of State who assists a Minister in his or her duties.

Why President did not give his assent to the Bill?

The President takes note of Section 15 of the government of NCT of Delhi Act, 1991. It says a person shall not remain an MLA if he or she holds any office of profit under the Centre or government of a state or UT. Also, according to the president, parliamentary secretaries come under the purview of `office of profit’ criteria. Besides, the Lt Governor had said the office of parliamentary secretary is defined as an “office of profit if one looks at the statutes of Delhi” and that as per the GNCT Act, the city can haveonly one parliamentary secretary attached to the office of the Chief Minister.

Constitutional provisions:

Experts argue that the post of parliamentary secretary is in contradiction to Article 164 (1A) of the Constitution which provides for limiting the number of Ministers in the State Cabinets to 15% of the total number of members of the State Legislative Assembly. But, the number ofCabinet Ministers in Delhi cannot exceed 10% of the total 70 seats — that is seven — as perArticle 239AA of Constitution.

Why appointing MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries is not a good move?

• The idea of modern republics is that no particular organ of state should have a concentration of powers. Different institutions act as a check on the actions of others. However, this move weakens the power of legislative bodies by governments, and thus weakens the principle of separation powers.
• The idea is that every legislator should be able to carry out legislative duties without any obligation to the government of the day. The latest move is in contradiction with this principle.
• This move raises questions over the ability of the Assembly to exercise its oversight role over the government. An argument has been made that these parliamentary secretaries will be able to aid the government in being more responsive to citizens’ needs. That argument, however, misses the point of separation of powers. The role of legislators is not to help the government do its job better, but to ensure that it functions in a proper manner. That is, the legislator exercises the role of a watchdog over the government on behalf of citizens and not as an agent of the government.

How Delhi government defends its move?

The Delhi government has based its defence on exemptions. The Constitution specifies that state Legislative Assemblies have the power to enact laws and keep certain offices out of the preview of Office of Profit. The Delhi government argues that as Parliamentary Secretaries are not eligible for any remuneration or perks from the government the post should be exempt from the office of profit.

How is ‘Office of Profit’ defined?

The concept of office of profit finds place in Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which state that an MP or MLA will be disqualified if he or she occupies such an office. The Constitution also recognises that there may be other cases where exceptions may be required and allows Parliament and State legislatures to make exemptions by passing a law. In several cases, courts have examined this issue and concluded that the key question is whether occupation of such office will make a legislator beholden to the executive.

In general, a person is considered to hold an office of profit if four conditions are met:

1. He holds an office.
2. The office is one of profit, that is, it carries some benefits.
3. The office is under the control of the Central or the State government.
4. The office is not that of a Minister or exempted by an Act of Parliament or State legislature.

Can MLAs be disqualified even if they haven’t received remuneration?

In the Jaya Bachchan vs Union Of India case, the Supreme Court in May 2006 had dismissed actress-turned-politician Jaya Bachchan’s petition challenging her disqualification as Rajya Sabha MP by President A P J Abdul Kalam on the recommendation of the Election Commission for holding an office of profit.

It said that the law on this issue is settled since 1954 and what is material is not whether the person actually received any remuneration or pecuniary gains, but whether the office he or she holds is itself of profit.

Similar cases:

Because a Parliament Secretary often holds the rank of Minister of State, the Calcutta High Court, in June 2015, quashed the appointment of 24 Parliamentary Secretaries in West Bengal dubbing it unconstitutional.

• Similar action was taken by the Bombay High Court in 2009 for the appointment of two Parliamentary Secretaries in Goa and by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2005 for the appointment of eight Chief Parliamentary Secretaries and four Parliamentary Secretaries in the State.
• In May 2015, the Hyderabad High Court stayed the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries in Telangana. The matter is sub judice in Punjab and Haryana.

What happens if this bill is not approved?

The President’s decision is a major setback to the Kejriwal government and leaves the AAP MLAs a few steps from possible disqualification. In the event of disqualification of the AAP MLAs, by-election to nearly one–third of the seats currently held by the ruling party will be necessitated. Such a development will follow only after the EC completes its proceedings on a petition seeking the disqualification of the MLAs.

What can be done now?

The legislator can escape disqualification only if the office is declared -by law made by Parliament, state legislature or UT -as a post that does not attract loss of membership. The fate of the MLAs will now be decided by the Election Commission that is considering a petition seeking their disqualification.

Conclusion:

The role of legislators is critical in a democracy. They are elected by citizens, and have the task of ensuring that the government is acting in the best interests of the public. In this, they are expected to exercise their independent judgements on what constitutes public and national interest. They act as a bulwark against autocratic actions of the executive. Therefore, it is imperative that their independence is protected. Actions that impinge on such independence, such as excessive appointments to executive positions, the anti-defection law and MPLADS, should be reversed. Otherwise, there is a risk of a slow erosion of the institution of legislatures, which could put at risk the very existence of our republic. Our Supreme Court has recognised separation of powers as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and can therefore strike down even amendments to the Constitution that infringe upon this principle.

( Related Article Link )

Staying power of the pass-fail system

Once again, it is that time of the year when the examination results season may be just ending and the admissions season is in progress, and marked by a cacophony of two contradictory voices — often from the same people — that rose to deafening levels from April to May when the results of various school boards were declared. The first voice celebrated those who succeeded and did wondrously well. Newspaper articles were published on which sections of students did better than the other. Did girls do better than the boys? Did school system ‘X’ do better than school system ‘Y’? Pictures of individual students who topped the examinations were published and their parents, teachers and schools eulogised. Once the general ‘results fever’ subsided, this shrill voice was echoed by private schools which claimed to have taught some of the toppers, with their posters appearing in every possible place, from roadside electric poles to walls.

In general, this celebration of success in an examination goes on for the whole year, till the next results season when the old faces are replaced with new ones to valorise.

Pressure of expectations

More importantly, the second voice is one of lamentation as many students, wilting under stress and pressure, burn out and even commit suicide in this season, simply because they could not fulfil their parents’ expectations.

The loss of these young, and often bright, people must make us ponder. They have moved up all the way from nursery class to high school to fulfil their parents’ ambitions of seeing them grow into engineers, doctors or managers graduating from the so-called top-level institutions in the country. These children must have seen themselves only as exam-cracking “achievers” in order to make their parents happy. They lost out on their childhood play and free time; no pranks with their friends and no experience of the simple joy of just being a carefree child. This loss would have led to a narrow vision of human life guided by the all-important value of “success”; which is just defined as getting a top job. Period. These children, deprived of social development and trapped in an artificially developed world, choose death over struggle when that world suffers a rude shock with exam results that are less than expected.

There is very little recognition that the first voice I talked about creates a powerful environment wherein the trait of parents imposing their ambitions on the children becomes dominant. When they do not turn out to be as successful as their parents want them to, they fade away. This problem has two sides to it: the first is the examination-oriented Indian education system, and the second is competitive and cruel parents.

The ‘crushing weight of exams’

About 80 years ago, the Zakir Hussain report on National Basic Education noted that the “system of examinations prevailing in our country has proved a curse to education”. It pinpointed the malady by saying that a bad system is made worse by awarding examinations a place much beyond their utility. The problem, however, is much older than stated in the Zakir Hussain report.

For this, one has to go back as early as 1904 to the Indian Educational Policy issued by the then Governor General. This colonial document had a section titled “The abuse of examinations” and noted that “[e]xaminations, as now understood, are believed to have been unknown as an instrument of general education in ancient India”. It also claimed that examinations did not have a prominent place even in the Despatch of 1854, commonly known as Wood’s Despatch. The Hunter Commission report of 1882-83, which left examinations and promotions to the next class up to standard eight entirely to the schools, did not recommend any province-level or board exemptions. Still, the educational policy of 1904 noted that examinations had “grown to extravagant dimensions, and their influence has been allowed to dominate the whole system of education in India, with the result that instruction is confined within the rigid framework of prescribed courses, that all forms of training which do not admit of being tested by written examinations are liable to be neglected”. It further noted that the system was adopted on the precedence of English education which itself has “finally condemned” it; however, in India, it was proving to be “disastrous in its influence” on education. The policy recommended reforms that included abandoning public examination at the primary level, “more equitable tests of efficiency”, and “to relieve the schools and scholars from the heavy burden of recurring mechanical tests”.

The Indian Educational Policy of 1913 declared victory and stated that “the formerly crushing weight of examinations has been appreciably lightened”. It further declared that the “principal objects of the school final examination are adaptability to the course of study and avoidance of cram”.

All this shows that the devastating effects of this “curse to education” have been known quite well for over 100 years. There is no commission or committee report after Independence which does not acknowledge the burden of rote learning and the examination system on its students and its futility in assessing their real abilities. They all recommend examination reforms. The recent attempts, after Right to Education (RTE) stipulation, of no pass-fail and no board examinations till completion of elementary education in favour of a continuous and comprehensive evaluation (CCE) are well known.

However, the public education system has completely failed to implement these reforms and the private schools have never paid much attention to them. We have now reached a stage where no one in the country knows how the CCE can be implemented, and how we can measure progress of the child without pass-fail systems. Therefore, there has been a concerted effort to discard this half-hearted foraging into unknown territory as soon as the present government came to power at the Centre. The result is that many States have gone back to their familiar pass-fail system and board examinations at the end of eighth standard if not earlier.

Nexus of forces

The question that stares us in the face is, how is it that we haven’t cleansed our education system of a curse that has been well known for over a hundred years? There is never a single factor behind the persistence of such problems; it always has to be a nexus of forces. Some of the factors that lie within the education system are often mentioned. The lack of seriousness, of resources, teachers untrained in new methods, etc. form the routine list. One reason rarely mentioned is the inconsistency between the prevailing grade-wise curriculum and school structure on the one hand and the idea of progress on the learning continuum inherent in the CCE on the other. The CCE does not suit our authoritarian school organisation, administration and syllabus organisation.

But it seems that the biggest force behind the persistence of this curse and useless examination system is a social one which is grossly under-examined. We are a caste-based and strictly hierarchical society. In earlier times, this hierarchy had the iron-clad stability of the caste system. That determined the place, function, work and life of an Indian even before his/her birth. There are attempts now, which range from constitutional rights to political struggle, to break that mould. It may not have been dismantled yet, but is under tremendous pressure ever since the freedom movement began.

But social hierarchies involve privileges, prestige and goods of life that are cherished by all. None is ready to let go of the privileges one has. As a result, the attempts to maintain the old hierarchy as well as the ways to challenge it look toward education. Education, therefore, becomes a means of fierce competition either to remain in one’s position of privilege or to rise in the hierarchy. It completely stops being a self-motivated way of forming an authentic self and gaining an understanding of the world, and is reduced to a means to beat/best the neighbour. A more open and thoughtful system of education will challenge the hierarchies which are so dear to a caste-minded Indian. The result is that the authoritarian system of pass-fail stays.

The stand of intellectuals

One wonders why the intellectuals in Indian society, and who understand the ills of this education system and the implied curse of examinations, don’t make a beginning to dismantle it. The answer perhaps lies in the often noticed phenomenon of the very people who write scathing papers and offer opinion on the ills of the current examination system, hold seminars and give keynote addresses on it in conferences, taking leave and cancelling all their engagements to be at hand when their own children are to appear in the standard 10 and 12 board examinations. Interpreting this contradiction as a simple lack of commitment to ideals is a superficial understanding even if it has an element of truth. The malady is deeper. In spite of being convinced of the “truth” of their analysis of the education system and the ills of examinations, they see the possibility of privileges their children will get through success in these very examinations; and the dangers of losing the positions achieved by themselves.

To face this situation one requires courage of conviction which scholar Alberuni noted a thousand years ago, albeit in the context of religion, that Indians don’t have. In the context of theology Alberuni notes: “at the utmost, they [Indians ] fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property in religious controversies”. Not putting at stake their soul, body and property in religious disputes may be considered a welcome openness; but it seems this tendency is applicable to all ideas that might bring change. Indians don’t stake their property and position on ideas that may collide with the existing system. Unfortunately, no change in the system is possible without there being a critical number of people in society who are ready to pay the price to make a beginning. We don’t seem to have that critical number yet. And till we reach that number, our children will continue to commit suicide and their parents will continue to disown the responsibility to push them to do it. And we will all continue to blame the rigid system without noticing that its roots are in our own souls.

Rohit Dhankar is Professor and Director Academic Development, Azim Premji University, Bangalore and Academic Adviser, Digantar, Jaipur.

India’s only double coconut tree artificially pollinated

                           The palm species bears largest seed known to science

Scientists at the Indian Botanical Garden in West Bengal’s Howrah district have carried out artificial pollination of the only double coconut tree in India, which bears the largest seed known to science.

One of the rare and globally threatened species of palm, the double coconut (Lodoicea maldivica) tree was planted at the botanical garden in 1894 and the artificial pollination is a result of decades of work by scientists of the Botanical Survey of India (BSI).

“The tree took almost a hundred years to mature and when it started flowering, we started looking for this particular palm species in this part of world. We collected some pollen from palms from Sri Lanka but could not successfully pollinate it. Finally, with the help of pollen from another tree in Thailand, the pollination process was successful,” BSI Director Paramjit Singh told The Hindu.

Longest surviving palm

The Double Coconut tree not only bears the largest seed known to science — weighing around 25 kg — but this unique species is also the longest surviving palm which can live for as long as 1,000 years, he says. The palm tree also bears the largest leaf among palms and one leaf can thatch a small hut.

“Successful pollination means that we can have another Lodoicea maldivica in the country. In fact we have two fruits and it might take them another couple of years to mature,” said S.S. Hameed, BSI scientist who has been working on the pollination project since 2006.

This species of palm is diecious (where male and female flowers are borne on different plants). “Fortunately at the Botanical Garden, we had the female plant which can fruit and produce seeds,” Mr. Hameed said. The Indian Botanical Garden which serves as the repository 12,000 trees from 1,400 different species is careful in nurturing the palm.

The palm tree is located in the large palm house of the Botanical Garden which has the largest collection of palms in South East Asia with around 110 palm species.

This rare tree can be found in only two of the 115 Seychelles islands and is also called Coco de Mer (coconut of the sea), says Mr. Hameed

Legend

Legend bestows the seed with the power to bring good fortune to its owners. “There has also been a tradition of making kamandals [drinking vessels] from the double coconut by bisecting the shell. It was believed that those who consume water from these kamandals will be protected from poisoning,” Mr. Hameed said. Subsequently, sadhus started using Kamandals and it got its place in religious rituals.

CBIT

Transparency forms the bedrock of climate change actions, CBIT (Capacity building initiative for transparency fund) is an outcome of the UNFCCC's Paris agreement in 2015 and expected to address the issue of transparency

Objectives:

# To help developing countries monitor and report the progress on their climate actions
# Strengthening of national institutions of participating members in transparency related activities with respect to the Nationally Determined Contributions

Design:

# The fund will be set up by the GEF, with financial support from the developed nations like US, UK, Canada etc
# World Bank has been requested to act as the trustee for the fund, who was also a trustee in the initial hand holding of GEF

Significance:

# Many developing countries lack the necessary capacity to monitor and report their progress on the front of INDCs
# This fund helps developed countries to take on board the developing countries in developing their domestic capacities leading to transparent mechanisms in reporting the progress

Choosing Speed over Diligence

Prakash Javadekar, Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, is a man in a hurry. He is fond of boasting about his ministry’s achievements. In the two years that he has headed this important ministry, it is the speed with which projects have been cleared that Javadekar claims as his principal achievement. He was recently reported saying that his ministry had cleared over 2,000 projects in two years, including 349 mining proposals. He said that the waiting period for a project to be cleared had been reduced from 600 days to 190 days and that he aimed to reduce this further to 100 days. Calling this a “revolution,” he went on to boast that this would result in the creation of millions of jobs and spur India’s economic growth.

Apart from the fact that many of such claims made by the Modi government after two years in office have been shown to be short on credible facts and high on bombast, Javadekar’s boasts are reason for alarm, not applause. Either he has forgotten, or has chosen to forget, that the idea behind environmental clearances was to protect the environment, not make way for its destruction. Even under existing rules, most environmental clearances are suspect. They rely on data provided by project proponents, there are direct conflicts of interest, the prerequisite public hearing is often stage-managed, and the process is opaque. This was one of the important observations of the Supreme Court-appointed expert committee on hydroelectric projects in Uttarakhand after the June 2013 devastating floods. The committee emphasised that hydro projects in ecologically-fragile areas like the Himalayas could not be viewed individually; they had to be assessed in terms of their cumulative impact on the region. It also noted that the environmental impact assessments (EIAs) of the hydro projects it had reviewed, were unreliable and that many of them had been done on the basis of false information provided by project proponents. It urged that future EIAs ought to be done by an independent agency.

There are other instances of existing environmental norms being diluted. For instance, under Javadekar’s watch, the norm for setting up a mining or an industry project near a protected area or a forested area has been changed—from a distance of 10 km to 5 km. The moratorium on new industries in critically-polluted industrial areas such as Ghaziabad, Indore, Ludhiana, Panipat, Patancheru, Singrauli, Vapi and two other locations has been lifted. The loosening of central controls is evident in the decision to allow state governments to clear projects occupying less than 10,000 hectares without an EIA. Also, mandatory public hearings for establishment of private coal mines with a capacity less than 16 million tonnes per annum have been set aside. These are just a few of several such decisions that suggest that the ministry is anxious to ease environmental clearances rather than make them more rigorous.

The latest information indicating the ministry’s policy direction are the new rules issued regarding wetlands—the Draft Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules 2016. These will supersede the existing 2010 rules once approved. The 2010 rules were formulated after extensive consultations with experts and environmental groups. They acknowledged the importance of preserving wetlands which cover only 4.7% of India’s land area but play a crucial role in moderating the impact of floods and cyclones, in storing and purifying water and in recharging groundwater. The wetlands are also repositories of precious and endangered biodiversity and act as carbon sinks. The 2010 rules laid down specific prohibitions on the use of wetlands to ensure that these fragile ecospheres are not further endangered. The new draft rules have no prohibitions, only criteria for what is permitted. Further, the Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority will be dismantled and instead states will be free to independently decide how projects near wetlands are to be established. The specious argument forwarded by the ministry is that since land and water are state subjects, wetlands ought to come under the jurisdiction of state governments. But wetlands are not just land and water; these include forests and endangered fauna and much more. By removing central control, the government is literally allowing state governments to do as they wish with wetlands. We have seen the consequences of such a policy. In the 2015 floods in Chennai and Srinagar, wetlands that had been filled up failed to act as buffers.

The ministry under Javadekar has also tried to dilute the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 or the Forest Rights Act (FRA) by arguing that gram sabhas should not have the right to veto important mining projects in forested land. So far it has not succeeded in doing this. Nor has its attempt to trim the powers of the National Green Tribunal been successful. But its record so far, and its choice of speed over diligence in clearing projects, indicates the future direction of environmental policy under this government, one that spells doom for India’s fragile environmental resources.

- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/23/editorials/choosing-speed-over-diligence.html#sthash.IMAlqdnu.dpuf

India’s World – Brexit and its consequences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlzpC2qFnws

Summary:

UK is all set to hold a referendum to decide whether Britain should leave or remain in the European Union. This is as per the promise made by the British PM Cameron. He had promised to hold a referendum over the Brexit issue. Britain wants to leave the group as it had not had a say since 1975, when it voted to stay in the EU in a referendum. However, experts have warned that a vote by the UK to leave the EU would pose a serious threat to global growth. It would reverse the trend of increased global trade, investment and job creation.

What is happening?

A referendum will be held on 23 June to decide whether Britain should leave or remain in the European Union.

What is a referendum?

A referendum is basically a vote in which everyone of voting age can take part, normally giving a “Yes” or “No” answer to a question. Whichever side gets more than half of all votes cast is considered to have won.

What is the European Union?

The European Union – often known as the EU – is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries. It began after World War Two to foster economic co-operation, with the idea that countries which trade together are more likely to avoid going to war with each other. It has since grown to become a “single market” allowing goods and people to move around, basically as if the member states were one country. It has its own currency, the euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries, its own parliament and it now sets rules in a wide range of areas – including on the environment, transport, consumer rights and even things like mobile phone charges.

What does Brexit mean?

It is a word that has become used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU – merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit, in a same way as a Greek exit from the EU was dubbed Grexit in the past.

Why does UK want to leave the EU?

Many in the United Kingdom are of the opinion that the EU has transformed a lot over the years. They think that since several countries have joined the union, the EU’s hold over everyday aspects of these countries has increased. Many think that Britain is better off without the EU as it is being constrained by it. Some of the constraints involve imposing many rules on Britain’s business and shelling out billions of pounds in the form of EU fees without much gain in return.

Would it affect the global economic growth?

No, say few experts. In fact, economics is not the real issue here. Politics is a bigger issue here. As far as the UK is concerned, roughly about 40% of the trade of UK is with EU and largely two countries-Holand and Germany. Hence, this would not make any big difference.

Why Britain should not leave EU?

• •Britain avoids exporter tariffs and red tape, important as 45% of British exports go to the EU. As a member, Britain can obtain better trade terms because of EU’s size.
• •By staying with EU, Britain can fight for better regulations.
• •Leaving doesn’t mean reduced immigration. Countries that trade with the EU from outside have higher rated of immigration, including from EU countries.
• •At international summits, Britain is represented twice- by the foreign secretary and the EU high representatives.

Why Britain should exit?

• •It will be able to secure trade deals important countries such as China, India and America.
• •It saves money which could be used for scientific researches and for building new industries.
• •Leaving will return control over areas like employment, law, health and safety.
• •Currently, Britain has little influence within the EU. By leaving EU, it can have a stronger influence for free trade and cooperation.

Impact on India:

This would affect the flow of FDI. The impact on Indian FDI to the UK could potentially be over two time periods: the short-medium term and the long term. The short-medium term covers the interim period before the referendum, and is likely to see FDI decrease temporarily, the deterrents being the potential financial instability and a legal regime overhaul. If the UK votes to leave the EU, FDI may fall in the long-term as well.

Also, India, unlike the British, sees the EU primarily as an economic and trading bloc, not a political organization, and Indian businesses are acutely aware of the potential of instability that a Brexit. There are over 800 Indian companies in the UK, the top 10-15 of whom contribute $4 billion to the British economy. Indian companies see the UK as the springboard to Europe. The language and legal system give Indians a comfort level. Many Indian information technology companies based in the UK with large work forces and offer services to Europe will be hit too. 

http://www.insightsonindia.com/2016/06/09/indias-world-brexit-consequences/

The ministry of women and child development wants a shift in focus from female sterilization to male sterilization.

The Ministry of Women and Child development wants to shift the focus of family planning from female to male sterilization,in order to correct the patriarchal discourse present in society while also adopting the medical best practices.
The reasons for the move :
1) Men of a household push their wives for tubectomy as they think vasectomy will hurt their pride and masculinity.
2)Medically Vasectomy is preferable to Tubectomy as it is more safer and comparatively easier process. Their are no side effects and lesser chances of post operation complications like bladder problems.
3) Vasectomy is cheaper then Tubectomy
4)Tubectomy is more invasive then Vasectomy and recovery period is longer

India needs a combination of both surgical intervention as well as contraceptive interception to control population
1)Only a push for sterilization can get controversial as consent may not be there (like the 80's imbroglio),also threat of botched operations is there because of presence of targets by Ministry. And to add to it is the risk of quackery.
2)Incentivising the usages of contraceptives like condoms,copper-t ,mass awareness campaigns in rural areas,urban slums and even schools is required 
Both along with focus on women empowerment and gender sensitization can help in family planning. 

Quest for another holy grail

India’s 30-year-old effort to secure a permanent seat on the UN Security Council has been characterised as the pursuit of a diplomatic holy grail. The chance of success in that pursuit has been receding like a mirage, though there have been tantalising signs of progress. A similar, but less intense effort is on to seek admission to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a body which should have included India in the first place. Here again, there is no sign of India being invited, even as the 10-year moratorium on new membership has expired. India has now embarked on another quest, this time to seek membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The Prime Minister himself has travelled to Switzerland to seek support and he will also go to Mexico for the same purpose. It is surprising that India is investing much diplomatic effort on this issue when there is little chance of India being invited to the group.

An American initiative

India seeking membership of the NSG is like Russia seeking membership of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: the NSG was invented to prevent Indian advance towards possession of nuclear weapons after the technology demonstration test of 1974. If India joins it, the very nature of the NSG will change and dilute its fundamental position that all members should be signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Though the U.S. has stated repeatedly that it would like to see India in the NSG, it cannot be expected to be a party to the fundamental alteration of the NPT regime.

Interestingly, it was a U.S. think tank which brought up the topic in a Track II discussion with some of us in 2007. The suggestion was not that India should be given membership of the NSG, but that India should join all multilateral export control regimes like the NSG, Missile Technology Control Regime (which it is set to join later this year), the Wassenaar Arrangement for control of conventional weapons and the Australia Group for control of chemicals that could contribute to chemical and biological weapons. It appeared then that the whole proposal was to drag us into Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group by presenting them as a package. We had refrained from joining both, though they were open for us from the beginning, for our own reasons. Our response to the U.S. proposal was guarded as we did not want a bargain on all the groups together. We did, however, emphasise that India’s membership of the NSG would be helpful as it had received an exemption from the NSG guidelines. As a member of the group, we could contribute to the discussion if it sought to amend the guidelines in any manner. In other words, it was not an Indian initiative to press for admission to the NSG.

U.S. President Barack Obama formalised the proposal in 2010, as though it was a concession to India, in his bid to win various contracts, including nuclear supplies. Perhaps, he was aware that a decision on the NSG was not in his hands, but promised to take up the matter with the others just to win some goodwill in the process. As was expected, the fundamental requirement that every member should be a signatory to the NPT was brought up not only by China but several others. There was similar opposition in the case of the exemption from NSG guidelines at the time of the nuclear deal also, but our bilateral efforts and heavy lifting by the U.S., including a final phone call from the U.S. President to his Chinese counterpart, resulted in the exemption. The strength of the argument was that this would be a one-time exemption with no strings attached.

No great gains in the offing

Interestingly, the NSG is an informal grouping, which is referred to in the International Atomic Energy Agency documents only as “certain states”, and there is no precise procedure for seeking admission. But since the group takes all its decisions by consensus, it follows that new members should also be by consensus. For those outside the group, there is an outreach programme which is being pursued vigorously. The outreach programme is meant merely for conveying information and not for consultation. New Delhi hosted an outreach meeting a few years ago, but it was found that the exercise was not of much use in influencing the guidelines.

The pursuit of membership of the NSG by India at the highest level has aroused suspicion that India is aiming to be in the group to deny entry to Pakistan. Such an interpretation is the result of lack of any clarity as to the benefits that will accrue to India by joining the NSG. In fact, membership of the group will not immediately open up nuclear trade as India has already pledged not to transfer nuclear know-how to other countries. If we attempt to dilute the guidelines to liberalise supply, it will be resisted by the others. Membership of the NSG will only mean greater pressure on us to sign the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and commit in advance to a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, which would impose restrictions on existing stockpiles of fissile material.

China has given scant attention to the NSG guidelines and has violated them in the case of Pakistan by claiming to act under an agreement reached before China joined the NSG. Unlike India, Pakistan has not even sought an exemption from the NSG. To say, therefore, that India and Pakistan should be equated on nuclear matters is unreasonable, to say the least. But the NSG did not even challenge the supply of two new reactors to Pakistan by China. The NSG’s ineffectiveness in countering proliferation makes it even less attractive as a group India should join.

The green signal for India to join the MTCR came when Mr. Modi was in Washington purely by coincidence, as the last date for filing objections happened to be that day. Italy had held up its approval on account of the Italian marines issue, but did not file a formal objection because of the decision to let the marines go home. Membership of the MTCR, which restricts the weight and range of missiles, is being projected as clearing the way for NSG. This is not likely because of China except that we can now threaten to veto China if it applies for membership of the MTCR.

When India is not anywhere near the permanent membership of the Security Council and even APEC membership remains elusive, the high-level pursuit of NSG membership may give the impression that India is unrealistic in its expectations from the international community. Support from Switzerland and Mexico will not make any difference as there will not be a vote on the issue. The U.S. may reiterate its support, but the objection will come from China and even some others. It will be better for India to concentrate on one or two fundamental objectives rather than fritter away our diplomatic resources on matters of marginal interest.

T.P. Sreenivasan is a former Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and followed the Nuclear Suppliers Group in Vienna.

मजदूर / देवराज दिनेश

देवराज दिनेश की ये कविता 'रामधारी सिंह 'दिनकर' के नाम से लोग कई जगह पोस्ट कर रहे हैं. बचपन में मेरी ये पसंदीदा कविता थी. दिनेश जी का जीवन परिचय उपलब्ध नहीं है.अक्सर ही कवियों के परिचय ही क्या होते हैं! फ़िलहाल कविता पढ़िए और 'दिनकर' को नहीं 'देवराज दिनेश को' क्रेडिट दीजिये.