12 Apr 2021: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

E. Editorials

Category: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1. Through a backchannel, steps forward

Context:

• Indications of backchannel talks taking place between India and Pakistan since 2020.

Background:

Strained relationship:

• India – Pakistan Bilateral relations witnessed a particularly recriminatory period following the 2019 Pulwama attack, the Balakot strikes and capture of an Indian pilot thereafter.
• Even prior to that, the Pathankot terror attack and the subsequent surgical operation by India had pushed the bilateral relationship to the limits.
• The periodic violation of the ceasefire agreement along the LoC had further strained the relationship between the two neighbours.

Thaw in relationship:

• The joint statement issued by the Director Generals of Military Operations employing terms like the resolution of “core issues” indicate a much-needed thaw in the relationship between the two neighbours.
• India-Pakistan border commanders have agreed to strictly observe all agreements between the two countries.
• There has been the scheduling of the much-delayed Indus Water Treaty talks, the granting of sports visas, and the salutary messages between the two leaders of the two countries.

Details:

• The recent developments seem to be indicative of backchannel talks between the two countries involving both coordination at a diplomatic level and high-level political approval.
  • Backchannels mostly involve officially sanctioned contacts between nominees from India and Pakistan to resolve any issue or existing concerns.
• There have been reports of talks being overseen by the National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval and Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Bajwa which have been taking place for months, in different neighbouring countries, facilitated by foreign governments including the United Arab Emirates.
• Notably, however, there has been an absence of official acceptance of a backchannel.

Significance of backchannel talks:

• Notably, there has been a history of back-channel talks between India and Pakistan over the years. At times they have involved diplomats, businessmen and other senior bureaucrats in the governments. They have operated in the worst of times, including wars, terror strikes and military action including during the Kargil war, Pathankot terror attack, Kulbushan Yadav arrest controversy.
• At times even when official channels have faltered, the backchannel talks have been activated to soothe the tensions between the two countries.
• The backchannel talks allow for a more open discussion on issues of concern/conflict between the two countries without the constraint imposed by media glare on the talks. The people involved in the talks can involve in a more open negotiation without the fear of domestic emotions.

Why a backchannel now?

Inevitability of engagement:

• While establishing friendship and trust between inimical neighbours with a bitter history, such as what India and Pakistan share, may seem an uphill task, engagement between the two countries is inevitable for peace and stability in the two countries and the region at large.

Domestic challenges:

• The domestic constraints and challenges on other fronts for the two countries have necessitated the need for a workable peace on the India-Pakistan front.

For Pakistan:

• Pakistan’s dire economic condition and the mounting pressure from the Financial Action Task Force to shut down all terrorist safe havens or face severe sanctions is one imperative for Islamabad’s willingness to engage via the backchannel.

For India:

• For India, the stand-off with the People’s Liberation Army at the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh has made the possibility of a two-front war more real, and thus needs to push to reduce tensions with Pakistan.

Common interests:

• The evolving situation in Afghanistan and the stakes that both India and Pakistan hold in the developments, necessitate both Delhi and Islamabad to defuse the situation along the LoC and avoid a conflagration at their boundaries, to let them focus their attention on Afghanistan.
• Co-operation and collaboration between the two neighbours on the economic front hold immense potential for the economic growth of the two countries, especially in the post-pandemic phase.

Conclusion:

• Terror and talks cannot go together but talks on terror can definitely go ahead.
• There is ample scope for improvement of the bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan provided that there is no terror attack in India traceable to Pakistan.

2. Enforcing claims

Context:

• The U.S.’s freedom of navigation operation in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone near Lakshadweep.

Background:

India-U.S. relationship:

• For several years now, the relationship of the U.S. and India has been marked by their sensitivity to each other’s concerns as they deepened cooperation on strategic issues, and aligned positions on multilateral issues.
• The Indo-Pacific policy under President Trump with increased emphasis on the relationship with India, the deepening of the Quad engagement, deepening defence relationship and the conclusion of India – US defence agreements all point to the evolving strategic relationship between the two countries

Details:

• The recent controversy surrounding the U.S.’s FONOP threatens to adversely impact the bilateral relationship between the two countries.

This issue has been discussed previously in the following article:

CNA dated April 11, 2021.

• The Indian government is said to have expressed its “concerns” to the U.S. government through diplomatic channels. In addition, India contested the U.S. claim about international law, saying that UNCLOS did not authorise military manoeuvres on the continental shelf or EEZ, as the 7th fleet had carried out, without prior consent.
• While the matter has been disposed of diplomatically for the moment, it is clear that India must prepare to grapple with the issue with the U.S. in the long term.

Way forward for India:

• India will have to deal with the open challenge the U.S. has posed to its maritime claims in the following ways.

Clarifying India’s claim:

• India must clearly explain its own position, making it clear to all partners how the Indian law governing maritime claims is in line with international law.

Understanding U.S. motivations:

• India must analyse the U.S.’s motivations for this move, and chart out a course accordingly. The U.S. naval actions may be a message to China, whose maritime claims are increasingly coming into conflict with those of the U.S. and its allies.

Leveraging India’s position in the Indian Ocean:

• India must try to leverage the U.S.’s push for Quad partnership, especially in its attempts to contain China and question the U.S. on how the proposed collaboration on the Quad platform for keeping a “free and open Indo-Pacific”, can co-exist with the open challenge the U.S. Navy has posed to India’s maritime claims.

Category: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

1. Why the Personal Data Protection Bill matters

Context:

• The scrutiny of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
  • The Joint Parliamentary Committee has proposed 86 amendments and one new clause to the Bill. The Committee is expected to submit its final report in the Monsoon Session of Parliament in 2021.

Background:

Rising threat of data breach:

• While the number of people participating in the digital economy has increased exponentially over the years, there has also been a proportionate increase in the number of personal data breaches from major digital service providers.
  • The recent alleged data breach at MobiKwik could stand to be India’s biggest breach with the data of 9.9 crore users at risk.
• Robust data protection regimes are necessary to prevent such events and protect users’ interests.

Lacunae in existing data protection regime:

• How different entities collect and process users’ personal data in India is mainly governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000, and various other sectoral regulations.
• However, this data protection regime falls short of providing effective protection to users and their personal data based on the following aspects.

Avenue for over-riding of protection provisions:

• Under the current system, entities could override the protections in the regime by taking users’ consent to process personal data under broad terms and conditions. This is liable to misuse by the entities, given that users might not understand the terms and conditions or the implications of giving consent.

Data security over data privacy:

• The existing framework emphasises data security but does not place enough emphasis on data privacy. This results in entities only focussing on employing technical measures to protect personal data and results in weaker obligations on the entities with regard to respecting users’ preferences in how their personal data can be processed. This could allow the entities to use the data for purposes different to those that the user consented to.

Exclusion of government agencies:

• The data protection provisions under the IT Act do not apply to government agencies. This creates a large vacuum for data protection when governments are collecting and processing large amounts of personal data.

Emerging risks:

• The existing regime seems to have become antiquated and inadequate in addressing risks emerging from new developments in data processing technology.

Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019:

Evolution of the bill:

K.S. Puttaswamy case:

• The need for a more robust data protection legislation came to the fore in 2017 post the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, that established the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
• In the judgment, the Court called for a data protection law that can effectively protect users’ privacy over their personal data.

B.N. Srikrishna committee:

• Consequently, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology formed a Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd) B.N. Srikrishna to suggest a draft data protection law.
• The Bill, in its current form, is a revised version of the draft legislative document proposed by the Committee.

Significance:

• The proposed regime under the Bill would be different from the existing regime in the following ways.

All-encompassing regime:

• The Bill seeks to apply the data protection regime to both government and private entities across all sectors.

Equal emphasis on both data security and privacy:

• The Bill seeks to emphasise both data security and data privacy. This will require the entities to not only maintain security safeguards to protect personal data, but will also require them to fulfill a set of data protection obligations and transparency and accountability measures that govern how entities can process personal data to uphold users’ privacy and interests.

Rights of the users:

• The Bill seeks to give users a set of rights over their personal data and means to exercise those rights. The bill will empower the user to obtain information about the different kinds of personal data that an entity has about them and how the entity is processing that data.

Data Protection Authority:

• The Bill seeks to create an independent and powerful regulator known as the Data Protection Authority (DPA).
• The DPA will monitor and regulate data processing activities to ensure their compliance with the regime. Also the DPA will give users a channel to seek redress when entities do not comply with their obligations under the regime.

Concerns:

• Some provisions in the Bill create cause for concern about the regime’s effectiveness.

Wide exemptions to government agencies:

• The Bill provides wide exemptions to government agencies.
• Under clause 35, the Central government can exempt any government agency from complying with the Bill. Government agencies will then be able to process personal data without following any safeguard under the Bill, thus diluting user protection safeguards. This could create severe privacy risks for users.

Constraints on withdrawal of consent:

• The Bill threatens legal consequences for users who withdraw their consent for a data processing activity. This could discourage users from withdrawing consent for processing activities they want to opt out of.
• This would become an impediment in enforcing the rights of the users as envisaged in the bill.

Conclusion:

• India needs to have a robust data protection regime.
• The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 could play a big role in providing robust protections to users and their personal data.
• However, there is the need to make some changes in the Bill targeted towards addressing various concerns in it to ensure a stronger and more effective data protection regime.