To Download PDF , Click Here
Jan 27, 2015
[Ed] A better law for the jungle?
The Subramanian panel report on environment regulation should not be accepted in a hurry
Environmental governance in India is becoming increasingly contentious. Environmental quality is declining sharply on indicators such as air, water and forest cover. At the same time, there are calls for regulatory flexibility to enable pursuit of a “development agenda”.
One of the underlying reasons for the failure of environmental regulation has been the adhocism of the State; the persistent search for quick fixes to complicated problems and difficult trade-offs.
It is in this context that the initiative of the NDA government in August 2014 to set up a high-level committee to revisit environmental regulation in India, assumes significance.
The committee, chaired by former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, was asked to “review various Acts administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change” and suggest amendments “to bring them in line with their objectives”. The six laws under review were: the Indian Forest Act 1927, the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Forest Conservation Act 1980, and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The review was expected to be completed within two months (extended to three). The committee submitted its report on November 18, 2014.
Key concerns
Many commentators have raised concerns about the setting up of the committee and the selection of its members, its terms of reference and manner of functioning (including the public consultation process), and finally, the substantive recommendations.
The final report accurately identifies some of the major concerns in Indian environmental governance, such as the declining quality of the environment; piecemeal legislation and ad hoc decision-making; “rent-seeking propensity” of the government; lack of faith in the executive and, consequently, the dominant role played by the judiciary; and the complete failure of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms under the various environmental laws.
The committee has recommended demarcation of certain forests (with canopy density of more than 70 per cent) as no-go areas; an increase in the amount payable for compensatory afforestation and as net present value during diversion of forest land; and an environment information system with enhanced capacity. It has also made recommendations to speed up the forest clearance process.
For the improved protection of wildlife, the committee has recommended review of the existing schedules to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (the nature of protection is different for the species listed in the various schedules); mandatory preparation of wildlife management plans along with a statutory basis for these plans; and demarcation of eco-sensitive zones or buffer zones around protected areas.
Clearance revamp
One of the significant recommendations has been to revamp the environmental clearance process under the EIA Notification 2006. New institutions — the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and the State Environment Management Authorities (SEMA) — have been proposed as full-time technical organisations with the capacity to process all environmental clearance applications in a time-bound manner. Eventually, these agencies are expected to subsume the Central and State Pollution Control Boards (PCBs).
NEMA and SEMAs would be set up under a new law — the Environmental Laws (Management) Act (ELMA). ELMA will also provide a statutory basis for the principle of “utmost good faith”.
According to this principle, project proponents have to disclose all information about the project, and certify that the facts stated are true. If it is later found that complete and accurate information has not been submitted, penalties in the form of fines, imprisonment, and/or revocation of clearance will be imposed.
The ELMA also suggests setting up special environment courts in every district to decide cases expeditiously. Considering the government’s inertia in empowering the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the likelihood of such environmental courts being set up in every district is slim.
An additional forum of appeal has been recommended for parties aggrieved by any decision regarding an environmental clearance application. This is viewed by many as a significant dilution of the NGT’s current jurisdiction.
The worrying bits
Several aspects of this report are indeed worrying: the dilution of public consultation processes and the near-free ticket to projects of “strategic” and “national” importance — both vague terms; the periodic stress on speeding up approval processes (but not necessarily improving the quality of decision-making); and the lack of substantive discussion on why existing regulatory institutions have failed to protect the environment.
Interestingly, the committee does not engage substantively with issues relating to water and air quality, which form the core of two of the laws under review. In fact, other than the environmental clearance process under the Environment (Protection) Act, the committee does not comment much on the several other regulatory processes under the EPA.
The report is now being scrutinised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee of science and technology, and environment and forests, and it is hoped that the government will engage in extensive public debate before initiating reform measures.
While many of its recommendations are unpalatable, the committee’s diagnosis of what ails Indian environmental governance is accurate and can serve as a starting point to rethink environmental regulation.
For instance, one issue highlighted is the complete failure of current monitoring mechanisms.
With capacity and resource constraints, as well as corruption and lack of political will, monitoring agencies like the PCBs are not in a position to consistently and accurately monitor regulatory compliance.
Unsuccessful current model
The current model of regulation with criminal sanctions has failed, and it appears unlikely that the government can facilitate conditions necessary for such a model to work well.
The concept of a regulatory tool box with a mix of instruments has been mooted in other contexts as a preferable alternative to a scenario where the regulator can only take extreme measures (like shutting down a power/water supply or revoking a licence) which may be politically, socially, economically, or legally undesirable. The ELMA proposes a graded penalty system.
Meaningful environmental regulatory requires a greater engagement with all stakeholders than has been the case so far. The government must steer clear of ill-considered acceptance of the committee’s recommendations.
The writer is an environmental lawyer with the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. This article is by special arrangement with the Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania
Environmental governance in India is becoming increasingly contentious. Environmental quality is declining sharply on indicators such as air, water and forest cover. At the same time, there are calls for regulatory flexibility to enable pursuit of a “development agenda”.
One of the underlying reasons for the failure of environmental regulation has been the adhocism of the State; the persistent search for quick fixes to complicated problems and difficult trade-offs.
It is in this context that the initiative of the NDA government in August 2014 to set up a high-level committee to revisit environmental regulation in India, assumes significance.
The committee, chaired by former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, was asked to “review various Acts administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change” and suggest amendments “to bring them in line with their objectives”. The six laws under review were: the Indian Forest Act 1927, the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, the Forest Conservation Act 1980, and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The review was expected to be completed within two months (extended to three). The committee submitted its report on November 18, 2014.
Key concerns
Many commentators have raised concerns about the setting up of the committee and the selection of its members, its terms of reference and manner of functioning (including the public consultation process), and finally, the substantive recommendations.
The final report accurately identifies some of the major concerns in Indian environmental governance, such as the declining quality of the environment; piecemeal legislation and ad hoc decision-making; “rent-seeking propensity” of the government; lack of faith in the executive and, consequently, the dominant role played by the judiciary; and the complete failure of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms under the various environmental laws.
The committee has recommended demarcation of certain forests (with canopy density of more than 70 per cent) as no-go areas; an increase in the amount payable for compensatory afforestation and as net present value during diversion of forest land; and an environment information system with enhanced capacity. It has also made recommendations to speed up the forest clearance process.
For the improved protection of wildlife, the committee has recommended review of the existing schedules to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (the nature of protection is different for the species listed in the various schedules); mandatory preparation of wildlife management plans along with a statutory basis for these plans; and demarcation of eco-sensitive zones or buffer zones around protected areas.
Clearance revamp
One of the significant recommendations has been to revamp the environmental clearance process under the EIA Notification 2006. New institutions — the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and the State Environment Management Authorities (SEMA) — have been proposed as full-time technical organisations with the capacity to process all environmental clearance applications in a time-bound manner. Eventually, these agencies are expected to subsume the Central and State Pollution Control Boards (PCBs).
NEMA and SEMAs would be set up under a new law — the Environmental Laws (Management) Act (ELMA). ELMA will also provide a statutory basis for the principle of “utmost good faith”.
According to this principle, project proponents have to disclose all information about the project, and certify that the facts stated are true. If it is later found that complete and accurate information has not been submitted, penalties in the form of fines, imprisonment, and/or revocation of clearance will be imposed.
The ELMA also suggests setting up special environment courts in every district to decide cases expeditiously. Considering the government’s inertia in empowering the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the likelihood of such environmental courts being set up in every district is slim.
An additional forum of appeal has been recommended for parties aggrieved by any decision regarding an environmental clearance application. This is viewed by many as a significant dilution of the NGT’s current jurisdiction.
The worrying bits
Several aspects of this report are indeed worrying: the dilution of public consultation processes and the near-free ticket to projects of “strategic” and “national” importance — both vague terms; the periodic stress on speeding up approval processes (but not necessarily improving the quality of decision-making); and the lack of substantive discussion on why existing regulatory institutions have failed to protect the environment.
Interestingly, the committee does not engage substantively with issues relating to water and air quality, which form the core of two of the laws under review. In fact, other than the environmental clearance process under the Environment (Protection) Act, the committee does not comment much on the several other regulatory processes under the EPA.
The report is now being scrutinised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee of science and technology, and environment and forests, and it is hoped that the government will engage in extensive public debate before initiating reform measures.
While many of its recommendations are unpalatable, the committee’s diagnosis of what ails Indian environmental governance is accurate and can serve as a starting point to rethink environmental regulation.
For instance, one issue highlighted is the complete failure of current monitoring mechanisms.
With capacity and resource constraints, as well as corruption and lack of political will, monitoring agencies like the PCBs are not in a position to consistently and accurately monitor regulatory compliance.
Unsuccessful current model
The current model of regulation with criminal sanctions has failed, and it appears unlikely that the government can facilitate conditions necessary for such a model to work well.
The concept of a regulatory tool box with a mix of instruments has been mooted in other contexts as a preferable alternative to a scenario where the regulator can only take extreme measures (like shutting down a power/water supply or revoking a licence) which may be politically, socially, economically, or legally undesirable. The ELMA proposes a graded penalty system.
Meaningful environmental regulatory requires a greater engagement with all stakeholders than has been the case so far. The government must steer clear of ill-considered acceptance of the committee’s recommendations.
The writer is an environmental lawyer with the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. This article is by special arrangement with the Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania
Source - Business Line
All you wanted to know about: Grexit
Old fears have come back to haunt Greece again. Talks of ‘Grexit’ are doing the rounds. And with the radical left Syriza party set to form the government in Greece, these fears seem more real than imaginary. The party has promised to roll back the tough austerity measures imposed on Greece since 2010 and wants to negotiate a debt write-down with international creditors. But are these promises easy to keep? Not very. Hence the fear that the new Greek government will be at logger-heads with Eurozone countries, ultimately forcing a ‘grexit’.
What is it?
‘Grexit’, a term coined by Citi economists Willem Buiter and Ebrahim Rahbari, simply refers to the possibility of Greece exiting the Eurozone and giving up the euro as its currency. If that happens, Greece would no longer be bound by the austerity measures — massive cuts in public spending — imposed on it by the European Central Bank and the IMF in the aftermath of the Greek debt crisis of 2010. How the Greece government will fund larger public spending, once it defies creditors, is however a moot point.
If Grexit materialises, Greece would go back to using the drachma, its own independent currency, as it did before it joined the Eurozone. But given the mess Greece is in, the drachma, once revived, may depreciate. This would make Greek goods cheaper and could help boost the country’s exports. But it’s not all as simple as it sounds.
Why is it important?
A Grexit will trigger other far reaching consequences, not just for Greece, but for the rest of Europe too. Already, the fears of a looming Grexit have spooked markets.
One of the biggest fears for Europe from a Grexit, if it happens is that it could unravel the idea of the European Union. Other troubled Eurozone economies such as Portugal, Spain and Italy too may be tempted to follow suit.
For Greece, the very process of transitioning to the drachma may not be easy. How international investors or creditors will view the currency without the backing of the Eurozone is a worry. It is being suggested that Grexit be planned secretly and announced on a public holiday to avoid a run on banks! Once the announcement is made, Greece may also have to slap capital controls to prevent flight of foreign investors. A rapidly depreciating currency would make imports costlier for the Greeks, fuelling inflation. It will also have to deal with loss of business confidence with grave consequences for the economy.
For international creditors including Germany, Grexit would mean having to take a haircut on Greek bonds they hold. The debt they hold would get converted from euros to the devalued drachma. Even worse, the debt may not even be serviced by Greece.
Why should I care?
If you’re an investor in stock markets, a weakening euro should have you worrying about all those Indian companies that have a European exposure. Indian software giants with euro revenues have already seen a few percentage points shaved off their sales and profits in this quarter, due to the shaky Euro. But as a layman, if you’ve been dying to holiday in Greece, you might just be able to do that at lower costs than before.
The bottomline
Grexit could be a Greek tragedy for financial markets, but those who are planning a trip to Greece may have reason to cheer.
What is it?
‘Grexit’, a term coined by Citi economists Willem Buiter and Ebrahim Rahbari, simply refers to the possibility of Greece exiting the Eurozone and giving up the euro as its currency. If that happens, Greece would no longer be bound by the austerity measures — massive cuts in public spending — imposed on it by the European Central Bank and the IMF in the aftermath of the Greek debt crisis of 2010. How the Greece government will fund larger public spending, once it defies creditors, is however a moot point.
If Grexit materialises, Greece would go back to using the drachma, its own independent currency, as it did before it joined the Eurozone. But given the mess Greece is in, the drachma, once revived, may depreciate. This would make Greek goods cheaper and could help boost the country’s exports. But it’s not all as simple as it sounds.
Why is it important?
A Grexit will trigger other far reaching consequences, not just for Greece, but for the rest of Europe too. Already, the fears of a looming Grexit have spooked markets.
One of the biggest fears for Europe from a Grexit, if it happens is that it could unravel the idea of the European Union. Other troubled Eurozone economies such as Portugal, Spain and Italy too may be tempted to follow suit.
For Greece, the very process of transitioning to the drachma may not be easy. How international investors or creditors will view the currency without the backing of the Eurozone is a worry. It is being suggested that Grexit be planned secretly and announced on a public holiday to avoid a run on banks! Once the announcement is made, Greece may also have to slap capital controls to prevent flight of foreign investors. A rapidly depreciating currency would make imports costlier for the Greeks, fuelling inflation. It will also have to deal with loss of business confidence with grave consequences for the economy.
For international creditors including Germany, Grexit would mean having to take a haircut on Greek bonds they hold. The debt they hold would get converted from euros to the devalued drachma. Even worse, the debt may not even be serviced by Greece.
Why should I care?
If you’re an investor in stock markets, a weakening euro should have you worrying about all those Indian companies that have a European exposure. Indian software giants with euro revenues have already seen a few percentage points shaved off their sales and profits in this quarter, due to the shaky Euro. But as a layman, if you’ve been dying to holiday in Greece, you might just be able to do that at lower costs than before.
The bottomline
Grexit could be a Greek tragedy for financial markets, but those who are planning a trip to Greece may have reason to cheer.
Source - Business Line
Colombia’s Paulina is Miss Universe
Colombia’s Paulina Vega was crowned Miss Universe on Sunday, beating out contenders from the United States, Ukraine, Jamaica and the Netherlands among the top-five at the world’s top beauty pageant in Florida.
The 22-year-old model and business student triumphed over 87 other women from around the world, becoming only the second beauty queen from her nation to take home the prize.
The last time Colombia won the crown was in 1958, when Luz Marina Zuluaga took the title.
A beaming and tearful Vega, wearing a long silver-sequinned gown, accepted her sash and crown from the reigning Miss Universe, Gabriela Isler, from Venezuela.
She hugged first runner-up, Nia Sanchez, from the United States as the win was announced.
London-born Vega dedicated her title to Colombia and to all her supporters.
“We are proud, this is a triumph, not only personal but for all those 47 million Colombians who were dreaming with me and were part of this whole process,” she told presspersons after the win.
She said the title was “more important than the World Cup,” and said beauty queens were respected around the world. For Vega, the win was a point of national pride and she hoped it would put her country on the map..
Miss Ukraine’s appeal
Though Sunday’s programme remained mostly apolitical, Miss Ukraine spoke about the ongoing turmoil in her nation.
“We have a very difficult situation in our country direct all of our energies to support our Army and our people we have to restore schools, we have to restore kindergartens and orphanages,” Diana Harkusha said.
The 63rd edition of the Miss Universe pageant was held at Florida International University before a full house of enthusiastic fans.
The 22-year-old model and business student triumphed over 87 other women from around the world, becoming only the second beauty queen from her nation to take home the prize.
The last time Colombia won the crown was in 1958, when Luz Marina Zuluaga took the title.
A beaming and tearful Vega, wearing a long silver-sequinned gown, accepted her sash and crown from the reigning Miss Universe, Gabriela Isler, from Venezuela.
She hugged first runner-up, Nia Sanchez, from the United States as the win was announced.
London-born Vega dedicated her title to Colombia and to all her supporters.
“We are proud, this is a triumph, not only personal but for all those 47 million Colombians who were dreaming with me and were part of this whole process,” she told presspersons after the win.
She said the title was “more important than the World Cup,” and said beauty queens were respected around the world. For Vega, the win was a point of national pride and she hoped it would put her country on the map..
Miss Ukraine’s appeal
Though Sunday’s programme remained mostly apolitical, Miss Ukraine spoke about the ongoing turmoil in her nation.
“We have a very difficult situation in our country direct all of our energies to support our Army and our people we have to restore schools, we have to restore kindergartens and orphanages,” Diana Harkusha said.
The 63rd edition of the Miss Universe pageant was held at Florida International University before a full house of enthusiastic fans.
Source - The Hindu
Strategy is to pit India against China
The article published in the Global Times and People’s Daily cautioned New Delhi that the U.S. strategy is mainly devised to counter China’s rise. It pointed to the West’s “ulterior motives’’ to frame the “Chinese dragon” and the “Indian elephant” as natural rivals.
“The West is egging India on to be fully prepared for “threats” posed by its large neighbour. Considering the fact that both sides still have territorial disputes and will probably have wider engagement at many levels, this so-called rivalry between India and China will not stop making headlines in Western media.”
However, it cautioned India that it was facing a carefully positioned “trap.” “Although craftily set, it will be revealed eventually.”
The article advised both countries to put aside their “debates over specific issues,” and ensure that “their relations cannot take a life-or-death struggle as a foothold.”
“The common interests they share are way larger than any differences. As both are emerging powers, which have the huge potential of being important forces in the international community, China and India should see more space for cooperation instead of contention. This agreement is fundamental to bilateral relations.”
The article counselled Beijing and New Delhi to “come to terms with a bottom line of interactions, making sure the big picture remains intact, although both sides still have disagreements on some specific matters,” and steer clear of a zero-sum game, that India, under western influence was “sliding into.”
Diplomatic sources told The Hindu that India’s diplomacy is pursuing a “multi-vectored approach” that is geared to promote New Delhi’s core interests, through simultaneous engagement, in carefully defined areas, with several countries, which may have problems with each other.
“The West is egging India on to be fully prepared for “threats” posed by its large neighbour. Considering the fact that both sides still have territorial disputes and will probably have wider engagement at many levels, this so-called rivalry between India and China will not stop making headlines in Western media.”
However, it cautioned India that it was facing a carefully positioned “trap.” “Although craftily set, it will be revealed eventually.”
The article advised both countries to put aside their “debates over specific issues,” and ensure that “their relations cannot take a life-or-death struggle as a foothold.”
“The common interests they share are way larger than any differences. As both are emerging powers, which have the huge potential of being important forces in the international community, China and India should see more space for cooperation instead of contention. This agreement is fundamental to bilateral relations.”
The article counselled Beijing and New Delhi to “come to terms with a bottom line of interactions, making sure the big picture remains intact, although both sides still have disagreements on some specific matters,” and steer clear of a zero-sum game, that India, under western influence was “sliding into.”
Diplomatic sources told The Hindu that India’s diplomacy is pursuing a “multi-vectored approach” that is geared to promote New Delhi’s core interests, through simultaneous engagement, in carefully defined areas, with several countries, which may have problems with each other.
Source - The Hindu
Warm ocean melting East Antarctica’s largest glacier
The largest glacier in East Antarctica containing ice equivalent to a six-metre (20-foot) rise in global sea levels is melting due to warm ocean water, Australian scientists said Monday.
The 120-kilometre long Totten Glacier, which is more than 30 kilometres wide, had been thought to be in an area untouched by warmer currents. But a just-returned voyage to the frozen region found the waters around the glacier warmer than expected.
“We knew that the glacier was thinning from the satellite data, and we didn’t know why,” the voyage’s chief scientist Steve Rintoul said.
He said until recently, the East Antarctica ice sheet had been thought of as being surrounded by cold waters and therefore very stable.
But the voyage found that waters around the glacier were some 1.5ยบ Celsius warmer than other areas visited on the same trip during the southern hemisphere summer.
“The fact that warm water can reach this glacier is a sign that East Antarctica is potentially more vulnerable to changes in the ocean driven by climate change than we used to think,” he said. — AFP
The 120-kilometre long Totten Glacier, which is more than 30 kilometres wide, had been thought to be in an area untouched by warmer currents. But a just-returned voyage to the frozen region found the waters around the glacier warmer than expected.
“We knew that the glacier was thinning from the satellite data, and we didn’t know why,” the voyage’s chief scientist Steve Rintoul said.
He said until recently, the East Antarctica ice sheet had been thought of as being surrounded by cold waters and therefore very stable.
But the voyage found that waters around the glacier were some 1.5ยบ Celsius warmer than other areas visited on the same trip during the southern hemisphere summer.
“The fact that warm water can reach this glacier is a sign that East Antarctica is potentially more vulnerable to changes in the ocean driven by climate change than we used to think,” he said. — AFP
Source - The Hindu
[Ed] Concern over climate, compromise on nature
While technological solutions like renewable energy are being aggressively pursued for combating climate change, little value appears to be placed on keeping natural systems intact
On his visit to India, U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have announced a landmark civil nuclear deal, which will give India access to generating nuclear power. This follows on the heels of several announcements made by Mr. Modi on making India a hub for producing clean or non-conventional energy, posited as a measure to tackle climate change. Simultaneously, decades after environmental laws were first conceived, a review of environmental laws in India has just been undertaken by a High-Level Committee. The report of this committee is in turn being considered by a Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. The ostensible conclusion is that the government is serious about appraising existing policy and legislation at the highest levels, to strengthen environmental protection in India and tackle climate change.
A peculiar quandary
However, a peculiar quandary appears in the discourse on environmental protection in India today: on the one hand, technological solutions like renewable energy are being aggressively pursued for combating climate change; on the other, nearly no value appears to be placed on keeping natural systems intact. Consider this: in the High-Level Committee report, the only mention of ‘climate change’ is in the newly extended name of the Environment Ministry itself — from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Ministry is now called the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. While the report asks if we will see more climate disasters such as the “Kedarnath or Srinagar valley disasters” in India, points out that governance of environmental clearances has been “flabby,” the “legal framework has not delivered,” and says environment should be considered as a “whole,” it has not addressed ways to combat climate change through environmental acts, future legislation, or state-led policy. Gaping questions remain on the protection of natural ecology and climate action. The recommendations moot creating several new institutions: a new law, the Environmental Management Act; new and quicker environmental clearances processes; and a new Environmental Service cadre. But the question of which direction this proposed overhaul will take us in needs to be raised — and answered.
Among India’s environmental laws are the Environment Protection Act, the Forest Conservation Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, Air and Water Acts, which were all drafted decades ago. Since then, much has changed. Species have become extinct, forests have shrunk, protected areas have been created and coastlines and rivers have been altered. We have witnessed droughts, floods, cyclones and cloudbursts; these have caused dams to burst, deaths and many forms of displacement. India has not been silent on the issue of climate action, and is likely to announce a few more national missions under climate change, with a focus on clean energy production. The stress on a diverse energy mix is a welcome step, but this appears to be confounded by an emphasis on altering natural ecologies through ‘quick clearances’ and a willingness to re-engineer natural systems in haste.
At one level, the government’s approach seems to suggest that it is okay to quickly deal with impending projects to clear forests or natural areas, as stressed by the High-Level Committee report; this will subsequently lead to a release of emissions. At another level, the government will facilitate creating green energy to mitigate carbon emissions. While both scenarios will occur, the two do not, in fact, cancel each other out. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points out in its latest (2014) report, resilient ecosystems offer effective adaptation to climate change. Resilience, as per the IPCC, is the ability of an ecosystem to bounce back to a previously undisturbed state without losing its fundamental character, even when disturbed. For instance, soil studies say soil with a range of biodiversity does not become barren easily; forests with natural diversity re-emerge afresh from forest fires, clean rivers filter their own water — all products of undisturbed or biodiverse ecosystems which are in turn resilient, a living carbon sequestering sink. For human beings the impacts are better ecosystem services, the stuff a lot of people living with nature have understood as ‘prakriti ke karishme’ (miracles of nature).
Why does this not have more currency in combating climate change? Perhaps because there are no ribbons to be cut and no foundation stones to be laid for forests, mangroves, rivers, et al, and no budgets to be sanctioned for their development. But on the cusp of becoming a major manufacturing power, and in the middle of an environmental act review, it would be short-sighted to only focus on engineering solutions such as clean power. We also need to focus with our commitment on protecting our natural infrastructure — a veritable carbon sink, and a major tool towards climate adaptation — which we currently possess.
Perhaps the simplest example of systematic failure towards this carbon sink is in the current ‘compensatory afforestation’ system. Forests get diverted for projects; money for their destruction is paid to a compensatory fund. But often there is no land left for replantation. The money remains untouched, or gets used for making forest department buildings. These are ‘virtual forests’ floating about in governmental files. Then, there is always the issue of the ‘new’ forests, if created, being cut again.
A starting point therefore would be to look at the issue of diversion of natural areas on a landscape scale, and not on a piecemeal basis. We need to consider, through field observations and modelling, how much disturbance a forest or a river can take before it loses its integral character and degrades; we also need to consider that replacing these systems is not only expensive but sometimes also nearly impossible. In all this enters the even more problematic question of climate hazard. While forests, mangroves and wetlands form the basis of nature, they are no longer just trees, grasses and water, but also systems that protect us, at least in moderate amounts, from extreme events — not just during the event, but also after.
It is up to Parliament to decide whether we need separate and new legislation on climate change, but there are at least two things to be addressed. One, our existing laws need to now address the issue of climate change through environmental mapping and measuring impacts of projects at ecosystem or landscape levels; and two, the approach has to include setting thresholds for avoiding irreparable degradation of natural ecosystems.
The High-Level Committee report notes that there is “need to rationalise and amalgamate many of the existing Acts,” noting the holistic nature of ‘environment.’ This observation is challenged by the report in the very next line, which suggests single-window environmental clearances; this suggestion is made without a reflection on how this “one” environment will respond, or is responding, to many sorts of unconnected pressures. Whatever system we set in place for project clearances, whether managed by a reformed ministry, a new law, or new acronyms, must take into account a serious understanding of natural systems — and how far the systems can bend. Our laws can no longer be blind to this.
(Neha Sinha is with the Bombay Natural History Society. The views expressed are personal.)
On his visit to India, U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have announced a landmark civil nuclear deal, which will give India access to generating nuclear power. This follows on the heels of several announcements made by Mr. Modi on making India a hub for producing clean or non-conventional energy, posited as a measure to tackle climate change. Simultaneously, decades after environmental laws were first conceived, a review of environmental laws in India has just been undertaken by a High-Level Committee. The report of this committee is in turn being considered by a Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. The ostensible conclusion is that the government is serious about appraising existing policy and legislation at the highest levels, to strengthen environmental protection in India and tackle climate change.
A peculiar quandary
However, a peculiar quandary appears in the discourse on environmental protection in India today: on the one hand, technological solutions like renewable energy are being aggressively pursued for combating climate change; on the other, nearly no value appears to be placed on keeping natural systems intact. Consider this: in the High-Level Committee report, the only mention of ‘climate change’ is in the newly extended name of the Environment Ministry itself — from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Ministry is now called the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. While the report asks if we will see more climate disasters such as the “Kedarnath or Srinagar valley disasters” in India, points out that governance of environmental clearances has been “flabby,” the “legal framework has not delivered,” and says environment should be considered as a “whole,” it has not addressed ways to combat climate change through environmental acts, future legislation, or state-led policy. Gaping questions remain on the protection of natural ecology and climate action. The recommendations moot creating several new institutions: a new law, the Environmental Management Act; new and quicker environmental clearances processes; and a new Environmental Service cadre. But the question of which direction this proposed overhaul will take us in needs to be raised — and answered.
Among India’s environmental laws are the Environment Protection Act, the Forest Conservation Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, Air and Water Acts, which were all drafted decades ago. Since then, much has changed. Species have become extinct, forests have shrunk, protected areas have been created and coastlines and rivers have been altered. We have witnessed droughts, floods, cyclones and cloudbursts; these have caused dams to burst, deaths and many forms of displacement. India has not been silent on the issue of climate action, and is likely to announce a few more national missions under climate change, with a focus on clean energy production. The stress on a diverse energy mix is a welcome step, but this appears to be confounded by an emphasis on altering natural ecologies through ‘quick clearances’ and a willingness to re-engineer natural systems in haste.
At one level, the government’s approach seems to suggest that it is okay to quickly deal with impending projects to clear forests or natural areas, as stressed by the High-Level Committee report; this will subsequently lead to a release of emissions. At another level, the government will facilitate creating green energy to mitigate carbon emissions. While both scenarios will occur, the two do not, in fact, cancel each other out. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) points out in its latest (2014) report, resilient ecosystems offer effective adaptation to climate change. Resilience, as per the IPCC, is the ability of an ecosystem to bounce back to a previously undisturbed state without losing its fundamental character, even when disturbed. For instance, soil studies say soil with a range of biodiversity does not become barren easily; forests with natural diversity re-emerge afresh from forest fires, clean rivers filter their own water — all products of undisturbed or biodiverse ecosystems which are in turn resilient, a living carbon sequestering sink. For human beings the impacts are better ecosystem services, the stuff a lot of people living with nature have understood as ‘prakriti ke karishme’ (miracles of nature).
Why does this not have more currency in combating climate change? Perhaps because there are no ribbons to be cut and no foundation stones to be laid for forests, mangroves, rivers, et al, and no budgets to be sanctioned for their development. But on the cusp of becoming a major manufacturing power, and in the middle of an environmental act review, it would be short-sighted to only focus on engineering solutions such as clean power. We also need to focus with our commitment on protecting our natural infrastructure — a veritable carbon sink, and a major tool towards climate adaptation — which we currently possess.
Perhaps the simplest example of systematic failure towards this carbon sink is in the current ‘compensatory afforestation’ system. Forests get diverted for projects; money for their destruction is paid to a compensatory fund. But often there is no land left for replantation. The money remains untouched, or gets used for making forest department buildings. These are ‘virtual forests’ floating about in governmental files. Then, there is always the issue of the ‘new’ forests, if created, being cut again.
A starting point therefore would be to look at the issue of diversion of natural areas on a landscape scale, and not on a piecemeal basis. We need to consider, through field observations and modelling, how much disturbance a forest or a river can take before it loses its integral character and degrades; we also need to consider that replacing these systems is not only expensive but sometimes also nearly impossible. In all this enters the even more problematic question of climate hazard. While forests, mangroves and wetlands form the basis of nature, they are no longer just trees, grasses and water, but also systems that protect us, at least in moderate amounts, from extreme events — not just during the event, but also after.
It is up to Parliament to decide whether we need separate and new legislation on climate change, but there are at least two things to be addressed. One, our existing laws need to now address the issue of climate change through environmental mapping and measuring impacts of projects at ecosystem or landscape levels; and two, the approach has to include setting thresholds for avoiding irreparable degradation of natural ecosystems.
The High-Level Committee report notes that there is “need to rationalise and amalgamate many of the existing Acts,” noting the holistic nature of ‘environment.’ This observation is challenged by the report in the very next line, which suggests single-window environmental clearances; this suggestion is made without a reflection on how this “one” environment will respond, or is responding, to many sorts of unconnected pressures. Whatever system we set in place for project clearances, whether managed by a reformed ministry, a new law, or new acronyms, must take into account a serious understanding of natural systems — and how far the systems can bend. Our laws can no longer be blind to this.
(Neha Sinha is with the Bombay Natural History Society. The views expressed are personal.)
Source- The Hindu
[Ed] A visit and outcomes in superlatives
Everybody was confident that U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit would be a good and successful one. There was enough in terms of symbolism to ensure that the following would have ensured a “good visit” — the first U.S. President to be the chief guest at the Republic Day; the first U.S. President to visit India twice during his tenure; the ceremony of the Republic Day parade notwithstanding the inclement weather; the excitement about the menu at the banquet the previous day; the buzz surrounding First Lady Michelle Obama’s outfits. The question was whether it would be a great visit, and a historic visit. Clearly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wanted it that way and he has successfully put his imprint on India-U.S. relations.
The fact that he has done so in less than a year of his becoming Prime Minister provides us an insight into his thinking. His pragmatism was evident when he put the decade-long “visa ban” issue behind him and readily accepted Mr. Obama’s invitation to visit Washington in September last year. The U.S. too was signalling that the India-U.S. file had regained importance after the general election and that it was departing from the norm that bilateral visits did not normally take place when leaders were visiting New York for the U.N. General Assembly. It was evident that the two leaders connected. Mr. Modi was able to convince Mr. Obama about his vision for India and his belief that it needed a strong partnership with the U.S. which he could deliver on.
Developing a partnership
Mr. Obama had visited India early in his tenure and was upbeat when he talked about India and the U.S. developing “a defining partnership for the 21st century” but there has been little to show for it since. The ambiguities of India’s Nuclear Liability Act, the Defence Minister of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), A.K. Antony’s ability to stonewall proposals for closer ties, the retroactive tax policy announcements and the economic slowdown in India, coupled with Mr. Obama’s other growing preoccupations, both domestic and foreign, meant that the partnership was languishing. Looking around for legacy issues in the foreign policy area, Mr. Obama knew that India enjoyed the advantage of bipartisan support in Washington which was not the case with Cuba and Iran. Mr. Modi had understood this and rightly concluded that for India-U.S. ties, Mr. Obama’s lame-duck standing of being in his last stretch in the White House was inconsequential. The show at the Madison Square Garden in New York had shown the American people Mr. Modi’s power in galvanising the Indian-American diaspora, three million strong and emerging as a significant fund raiser for the 2016 American election. But before 2016, India had to be brought back into U.S. reckoning. This needed a political pitch, between leaders who had won elections against all odds, and Mr. Modi was willing to make that pitch.
Leadership and backup
Transformative moments in relationships between major powers need a strong commitment from the top leadership and effective backup in terms of staff work to get the bureaucracy to translate the vision into reality. It also implies an element of political risk taking. This is particularly evident in India-U.S. relations in recent years. Between 1998-2000, the empathy between Strobe Talbott and Jaswant Singh built up over more than a dozen rounds of talks in less than two years, created the backdrop against which Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee changed the idiom of India-U.S. relations from “estranged democracies” to “natural allies,” a politically bold but also a risky move at a time when India was under sanctions after the May 1998 nuclear tests. Brajesh Mishra, Mr. Vajpayee’s Principal Secretary and National Security Advisor, effectively established benchmarks for the bureaucracy in terms of giving content to the vision. Once most of the sanctions were lifted and President Clinton undertook a successful visit to India in March 2000, the two countries started working on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership. This was carried forward with the Bush administration, though top level commitment between Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Bush was missing, because, as famously said, he found it difficult to understand Mr. Vajpayee’s long pauses.
“The question was whether it would be a great visit, and a historic visit. Clearly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wanted it that way and he has successfully put his imprint on India-U.S. relations.”
The unlikely pair to hit it off and impart a renewed commitment to the relationship was the exuberant President Bush and the considerably older, academically inclined Manmohan Singh. Dr. Singh and Mr. Bush created the nuclear breakthrough in 2005 and continued to shepherd it through difficult domestic politics for three years, till the deal was finally inked in October 2008, just a month before Mr. Obama was elected to the White House. President Bush had faced a hostile Congress especially after 2006, which actively took up the agenda of the non-proliferation lobby in Washington while Dr. Singh, who did not receive the full backing of either his party or of his coalition partners, even threatened to quit, putting his political legacy at stake. It is interesting that this unlikely risk taker later recalled the India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement as the memorable achievement of his 10-year tenure. Though the UPA came back with a stronger mandate in 2009, Dr. Singh was no longer “Singh is King” and gradually became a weaker Prime Minister, yielding often to “coalition dharma.” He developed a good equation with Mr. Obama who referred to him as a “wise guru” but Dr. Singh’s commitment to the bilateral relationship could no longer be translated into benchmarks, on account of a lack of adequate staff work and fractured authority. India-U.S. relations were put on the back burner, surfacing on the front pages only when a controversy like that of diplomat Devyani Khobragade erupted.
Notwithstanding that the think tanks bemoan that India does not know what it wants from the U.S., Mr. Modi knew clearly what he wanted from Mr. Obama. India-U.S. relations had to be brought back to the White House and as a risk taker, he was prepared to inject the element of personal chemistry into the relationship. Whatever the differences between Mr. Modi and Mr. Obama, both leaders know how to electrify a crowd and understand the concept of political charisma instinctively.
The element of personal chemistry, reflected in Mr. Modi’s departure from protocol to receive his “friend” Barack at the Delhi airport, the image of the two leaders engaged in an animated conversation as they seemingly ironed out the last minute hitches in the nuclear deal on the lawns of Hyderabad House, the chai pe charcha, exchanges on how much sleep each got, was the equivalent of high fives. In fact Mr. Modi referred to the personal chemistry that he shares with Mr. Obama during their joint press conference and this has become the necessary catalyst to sustain the momentum in the relationship over the next two years. This has enabled Mr. Modi to convert the Obama visit into a great and historic event.
The nuclear deal
The centrepiece of the visit has been the “nuclear deal” though few details have emerged. There were two sticking points — administrative tracking which implies keeping track of all U.S.-supplied nuclear equipment and materials at all times and a U.S. requirement which India was reluctant to accept as it went beyond the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections that India had voluntarily agreed to, and certain aspects of India’s nuclear liability law which U.S. suppliers (and other foreign and domestic suppliers too) found ambiguous and open-ended. It now appears that the U.S. has moderated its demand and will be satisfied with IAEA safeguards. In turn, the Indian side has explained its plans to set up an insurance pool amounting to Rs.1,500 crore (a ceiling under Indian law), half of which will be contributed by the suppliers and the operator (in this case, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.) and the balance, by the General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) and four other insurance companies. The premium costs, at between 0.1 per cent, would amount to less than Rs.1 crore per reactor and can be easily factored into the overall costs. The Indian side has also made an assurance to provide a legal memorandum that suppliers will not be liable to general tort law claims and, accordingly, multiple, concurrent liability claims will not be entertained. In other words, recourse from suppliers in case of nuclear damage can only be under the Liability Act, which is now limited in amount. Presumably, the government is confident that this assurance will be able to withstand a legal challenge.
In any event, the visit has been dubbed a historic one. In place of two documents that emerged after Mr. Modi’s visit to Washington last year, there are now three — a 59 paragraph Joint Statement which moves from ‘chalein saath saath’ to ‘sanjha prayas sabka vikas’, a Delhi Declaration of Friendship which provides for more frequent high level exchanges and the establishment of hotlines, and a Joint Strategic Vision for Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean Region which links the two regions and establishes India’s central role.
The leaders have spelt out the vision. Now begins the hard work of identifying benchmarks in different areas of civil nuclear and defence cooperation, counter-terrorism and cyber security, clean energy, trade and intellectual property rights, the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) and ‘Make in India’, smart cities and urban infrastructure planning, digital India, visa issues and Totalisation Agreement, etc and pursuing these in a time bound fashion. This requires efficient staff work, diligent application and effective coordination and monitoring so that each of these individual transactions can become milestones in the long road ahead.
(Rakesh Sood, a former Ambassador, was the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation till May 2014 and was closely involved with Indo-U.S. strategic dialogues from 1992 to 2004. E-mail: rakeshsood2001@yahoo.com)
Source - The Hindu
[Ed] Momentous vote in Greece
The momentous victory of the radical left-wing Syriza party in Greece is certain to send shock waves through Brussels, already trying to contend with the rising popularity of forces lined up against the European Union. The impact will be felt most notably in Spain and Britain, where elections are due in weeks. But the outcome of Sunday’s poll would have surprised few in Greece, whose macroeconomic indicators must cause near-disbelief considering that the country is clubbed with the states of the developed world. Nearly a third of the population is below the poverty line and about a quarter of the workforce is jobless. The hundreds of health clinics, social kitchens, education centres and legal aid hubs that sprang up in recent months testify to the collapse of Greece’s welfare state under the weight of half a decade of austerity. It is this Solidarity for All movement that constitutes the backbone of Syriza’s political programme that swung its fortunes: from being the principal Opposition in the outgoing government it has become the largest party in the new Parliament.
The coalition government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s Syriza and the right-wing Independent Greeks party has a common objective: of giving citizens a swift respite from the painful austerity of the recent past. To what extent the left extreme factions within Syriza would countenance this pragmatic arrangement remains to be seen. Equally crucial will be the ability of the ruling combine to rise above the ideological divide. The new coalition’s first — and arguably the biggest — challenge in office will be to renegotiate the terms of the international bailout that is to run out at the end of February, and to secure a write-down of Greek debt by half, as it had promised. That will also be the moment to watch for the EU’s broader response to the threat from protesting parties in different countries of the 28-member bloc. The Finnish Prime Minister’s recent conciliatory tone at Davos on renegotiating the Greek debt burden is significant considering Helsinki’s previous unwillingness to relax the terms. As the largest creditor-nation, the domestic fallout in Germany to the EU’s economic rescue programmes has been enormous. Berlin will look to such accommodation from fellow eurozone members. Syriza’s triumph must also renew hope within the European Left that has largely remained politically divided and electorally decimated since the end of the Cold War. Its critical role in forging strategic alliances with the political centre to counter the forces of the far-right could not be overstated. Mr. Tsipras himself attributed the rise of the extreme right as a reaction to the failure of austerity. The Greeks have voted for change; their hopes should not be belied.
The coalition government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s Syriza and the right-wing Independent Greeks party has a common objective: of giving citizens a swift respite from the painful austerity of the recent past. To what extent the left extreme factions within Syriza would countenance this pragmatic arrangement remains to be seen. Equally crucial will be the ability of the ruling combine to rise above the ideological divide. The new coalition’s first — and arguably the biggest — challenge in office will be to renegotiate the terms of the international bailout that is to run out at the end of February, and to secure a write-down of Greek debt by half, as it had promised. That will also be the moment to watch for the EU’s broader response to the threat from protesting parties in different countries of the 28-member bloc. The Finnish Prime Minister’s recent conciliatory tone at Davos on renegotiating the Greek debt burden is significant considering Helsinki’s previous unwillingness to relax the terms. As the largest creditor-nation, the domestic fallout in Germany to the EU’s economic rescue programmes has been enormous. Berlin will look to such accommodation from fellow eurozone members. Syriza’s triumph must also renew hope within the European Left that has largely remained politically divided and electorally decimated since the end of the Cold War. Its critical role in forging strategic alliances with the political centre to counter the forces of the far-right could not be overstated. Mr. Tsipras himself attributed the rise of the extreme right as a reaction to the failure of austerity. The Greeks have voted for change; their hopes should not be belied.
Source - The Hindu
Permanent commission for women hanging fire
As women officers made history by leading contingents of the three services at the 66th Republic Day parade along Rajpath on Monday, an appeal filed by the government against giving permanent commission to them in the Army lies pending and half-forgotten in the Supreme Court.
For almost five years, this appeal on behalf of the Army against a Delhi High Court judgment of March 12, 2010 has travelled through various Benches of the apex court without reaching finality.
Filed in the Supreme Court on July 6, 2010, the appeal sought a stay of the High Court decision which observed that women officers “deserve better from the government.”
The High Court had rejected the government’s contention that permanent commission could only be allowed prospectively. “If male officers can be granted permanent commission, there is no reason why equally capable women officers can’t,” the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.C. Garg had reasoned.
Women are inducted into the Army as officers under Short Service Commission for a maximum period of 14 years, whereas their male counterparts are eligible to receive permanent commission after five years.
The judgment came on a batch of petitions filed in 2003 by advocate Babita Puniya and several women officers to stop “discrimination against women Army officers, who are given only Short Service Commission for periods extendable up to 10 years.”
Due to their limited service span, the women officers are not eligible for pension, which requires a minimum 20 years of service. “Their release comes at a juncture when they are still in their mid-thirties and not trained for any other job,” the PIL pleas had argued.
In the Supreme Court, the Army’s affidavit in September 2012 said women officers might not live up to the role models that jawans, mostly from rustic backgrounds, want their officers to be in combat situations. “War has no runners-up, hence the need for an efficient war machine that will ensure victory,” it said. “The interface between the leader and the led must be without any reserve or preconceived notions, especially in battle conditions where jawans repose full faith in decisions/orders of the leader who is their role model and are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty,” the affidavit said.
The possibility of becoming prisoners of war, frontline trauma and combat hazards were cited in the affidavit. “The combat role of woman officers must be excluded not only for the present but as a matter of policy for all times,” the affidavit said.
Besides, it said: “There is an ever growing demand for spouse/choice postings, which is adversely impacting the management of officers to the detriment of male officers.” The women officers hit back in a counter affidavit, saying there was no separate Charter of Duties for women officers. It said the Army’s claim that “beyond 14 years there is a probability of women officers being exposed to the hostile environment where there is a grave danger of them coming in contact with the enemy smacks of gender discrimination.”
“The case is still pending in the Supreme Court,” said advocate Harish Pandey, who represents the women officers in the Supreme Court.
For almost five years, this appeal on behalf of the Army against a Delhi High Court judgment of March 12, 2010 has travelled through various Benches of the apex court without reaching finality.
Filed in the Supreme Court on July 6, 2010, the appeal sought a stay of the High Court decision which observed that women officers “deserve better from the government.”
The High Court had rejected the government’s contention that permanent commission could only be allowed prospectively. “If male officers can be granted permanent commission, there is no reason why equally capable women officers can’t,” the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.C. Garg had reasoned.
Women are inducted into the Army as officers under Short Service Commission for a maximum period of 14 years, whereas their male counterparts are eligible to receive permanent commission after five years.
The judgment came on a batch of petitions filed in 2003 by advocate Babita Puniya and several women officers to stop “discrimination against women Army officers, who are given only Short Service Commission for periods extendable up to 10 years.”
Due to their limited service span, the women officers are not eligible for pension, which requires a minimum 20 years of service. “Their release comes at a juncture when they are still in their mid-thirties and not trained for any other job,” the PIL pleas had argued.
In the Supreme Court, the Army’s affidavit in September 2012 said women officers might not live up to the role models that jawans, mostly from rustic backgrounds, want their officers to be in combat situations. “War has no runners-up, hence the need for an efficient war machine that will ensure victory,” it said. “The interface between the leader and the led must be without any reserve or preconceived notions, especially in battle conditions where jawans repose full faith in decisions/orders of the leader who is their role model and are prepared to make the supreme sacrifice in the line of duty,” the affidavit said.
The possibility of becoming prisoners of war, frontline trauma and combat hazards were cited in the affidavit. “The combat role of woman officers must be excluded not only for the present but as a matter of policy for all times,” the affidavit said.
Besides, it said: “There is an ever growing demand for spouse/choice postings, which is adversely impacting the management of officers to the detriment of male officers.” The women officers hit back in a counter affidavit, saying there was no separate Charter of Duties for women officers. It said the Army’s claim that “beyond 14 years there is a probability of women officers being exposed to the hostile environment where there is a grave danger of them coming in contact with the enemy smacks of gender discrimination.”
“The case is still pending in the Supreme Court,” said advocate Harish Pandey, who represents the women officers in the Supreme Court.
Source - The Hindu
Radical left wins Greece polls
A radical left-wing party vowing to end Greece’s painful austerity programme won a historic victory in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, setting up a showdown with the country’s international creditors that could shake the eurozone.
Alexis Tsipras, leader of the communist-rooted Syriza party, immediately promised to end the “five years of humiliation and pain” that Greece has endured since an international bailout saved it from bankruptcy in 2010.
“The verdict of the Greek people ends, beyond any doubt, the vicious circle of austerity in our country,” Mr. Tsipras told a crowd of rapturous supporters. — AP
Alexis Tsipras, leader of the communist-rooted Syriza party, immediately promised to end the “five years of humiliation and pain” that Greece has endured since an international bailout saved it from bankruptcy in 2010.
“The verdict of the Greek people ends, beyond any doubt, the vicious circle of austerity in our country,” Mr. Tsipras told a crowd of rapturous supporters. — AP
Source- The Hindu
‘Common Man’ creator no more
Mr. Laxman, battling a severe urinary tract infection and kidney failure, was put back on ventilator support on Sunday evening. His health had deteriorated after a series of strokes in 2004 and 2010, which severely impeded his speech and left him bedridden.
“Unfortunately, his condition started rapidly deteriorating in the last 24 hours and he failed to respond to the therapies to improve his multi-organ dysfunction,” said Sameer Jog, doctor who had been treating Mr. Laxman in the hospital since January 17. Mr. Laxman, under close observation in the hospital, was taken off the ventilator last week after his health improved a little.
“The last few days have been unnerving for us,” said Mr. Laxman’s son, journalist Srinivas Laxman. Mr. Laxman’s wife, 89-year-old Kamala Laxman, had “borne the news stoically,” he said. Tributes flowed in soon after the news of the death spread. “India will miss you R.K. Laxman. We are grateful to you for adding the much-needed humour in our lives and always bringing smiles on our faces,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted. “We have lost a truly uncommon cartoonist who gave a new dimension to caricaturing in India,” Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said.
Mr. Laxman, born in the then Mysore on October 24, 1921, was the youngest of six sons of a school headmaster and became famous as his brother, writer R.K. Narayan. Growing up in the city’s idyllic environs, Mr. Laxman was influenced by the caricatures of the New Zealand-born Sir David Low, then the pre-eminent caricaturist of the Western world.
Sir David’s acerbic caricatures of the momentous events of the early 20th century, especially of the great reactionaries, fascists and authoritarians who shaped Europe and the world’s destiny, made a lasting impression on the young Laxman. Famously denied admission to the J.J. School of Art, Bombay, after his drawings “failed” to meet the standards, Mr. Laxman went on to caricature the passion and folly of India’s human comedy.
Source - The Hindu
Modi’s reforms enthuse Obama
Turning the spotlight on bilateral economic ties, U.S. President Barack Obama announced a slew of initiatives on Monday that included $4 billion in loans from U.S. banks, $2 billion in financing for renewable energy projects in India and $1 billion from the Exim Bank of the U.S. for project financing.
Executive action to help Indian techies who currently have to undergo a painful and agonising process of obtaining H-1B visas, to get legal permanent status (LPR), was also on the cards, Mr. Obama indicated to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told visiting U.S. reporters.
Addressing the Summit attended by 500 business leaders from the two countries, Mr. Modi assured U.S. investors of a transparent and predictable business environment and tax regime, protection for their intellectual property and a commitment that he would personally monitor progress of large projects.
“My visit to India is one of great symbolism but it is also of tremendous substance,” Mr. Obama said.
He said that India and the U.S. were moving in the right direction and there was untapped potential to be realised. Bilateral trade between the two countries had increased 60 per cent in the past couple of years to a record $100 billion, but India’s exports to the U.S. were still less than 2 per cent of all American imports, he said welcoming the Modi government’s reforms agenda for making it easier to do business in India.
“There is great interest on the part of U.S. companies to find consistency, clarity, greater simplicity in regulatory and tax environment in India … If that occurs, I think we are going to see lot more business in India … That is consistent with many of the reforms Prime Minister Modi has articulated,” Mr. Obama said.
He, however, said the “absence of an effective IP protection” in India was affecting business as U.S. companies tend to operate at the higher ends of the global value chain.
Addressing apprehensions being raised about his “Make in India” initiative being protectionist or anti-trade, Mr. Modi said the plan was to improve the ease of doing business in India so as to enable the creation of jobs.
Source- The Hindu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)