17 Dec 2018: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. GS1 Related
HISTORY
1. Vijay Diwas
B. GS2 Related
HEALTH
1. Direct benefit transfer scheme for TB patients makes slow progress
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1. Information Fusion Centre (IFC)
C. GS3 Related
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
1. N-E varsity researchers patent process to treat industrial waste
2. GSAT-7A
ENVIRONMENT
1. Tiger Deaths
2. Markermeer
ECONOMY
1. Tourism Economy
D. GS4 Related
E. Editorials
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1. Restoration of political sanity
POLITY AND GOVERNANCE
1. The spectre of deportation (Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC))
F. Tidbits
G. Prelims Fact
1. Great Indian bustard
H. UPSC Prelims Practice Questions
I. UPSC Mains Practice Questions

Category: Vijay Diwas

• It is commemorated every year on the 16th of December in India.
• On this date in 1971, Pakistan’s General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi along with 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to the allied forces of Indian Army and Mukti Bahini led by General Jagjit Singh Aurora in Bangladesh.
• After winning the War of Liberation, East Pakistan became Bangladesh.

Details

• The backdrop to the War of 1971 was the state of politics in Pakistan where the Bengali Muslims of East Pakistan were clearly resistant to the idea of being subjugated by the dominant Punjabi and Mohajir influence.
• Besides language, it was the sharing of resources between East Pakistan and West Pakistan which created the cleavage.
• Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of the current prime minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina Wajed, was illegally denied his electoral victory in 1970 by Pakistan’s ruling military coterie greatly influenced by Zulfiqar Bhutto, the hugely anti-India ex-foreign minister under Ayub Khan.
• The crisis spilled into the streets of East Pakistan and became a point of no return in March 1971. The Pakistan army launched a reign of terror on the Bengalis, exacerbating the situation with an initial displacement of a million refugees who spilled across the border into India.
• In a path-breaking set of strategic decisions under advice from the iconic Field Marshal (then General) Sam Manekshaw, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi awaited the right moment, prepared the nation and the armed forces, cultivated international opinion and signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, before launching India into a show of arms instigated by Pakistan.
• In 14 days of conventional war fighting aided by the Mukti Bahini (the nationalist guerilla force of Bengali Muslims), Pakistan was roundly defeated resulting in the creation of Bangladesh as a free and independent nation.

Introspection

• Vijay Diwas should be more appropriately used to self-examination on the state of national security; at different levels and with diverse understanding of the term “security”.
• Professional military advice in national security and especially emergent situations is something a political leader can ignore only at the cost of the nation’s peril.
• If the armed forces have to deliver, then they need to be at optimum preparedness levels at all time, especially now, when wars can be triggered on the basis of public anger and pressure instigated by major acts of terror on Indian soil.

So alongside celebration there should be introspection about the state of preparedness, should we ever be threatened again.

Category: HEALTH

1. Direct benefit transfer scheme for TB patients makes slow progress

Category: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1. Information Fusion Centre (IFC)

Category: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

1. N-E varsity researchers patent process to treat industrial waste

2. GSAT-7A

Category: ENVIRONMENT

1. Tiger Deaths

2. Markermeer

Category: ECONOMY

1. Tourism Economy

 

Nothing here for today!!!

Category: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1. Restoration of political sanity

Note to Students:

The issue surrounding the constitutional crisis in Sri Lanka has been a topical issue for sometime now. We at BYJUs have recorded a video lecture on the issue which is available under the below link:

Context:

Why in the news?

• • Recently, Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and appointed Mahinda Rajapaksa, his erstwhile political rival, as the new Prime Minister.
  • Subsequently, on 14th December, 2018, Mahinda Rajapaksa decided to resign as Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.  

• Also, recently the Supreme Court ruled categorically that President Maithripala Sirisena’s dissolution of Parliament on November 9, 2018 was illegal and void.

• Experts believe that the crisis was an outcome of the uneasy coalition between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe which was formed with the main objective of defeating Rajapaksa in the previous elections.

At the heart of the constitutional dispute:

• A provision in the 1978 Sri Lankan Constitution provided for the dismissal of the Prime Minister by the President after one year of Parliamentary elections.
• However, this was removed through a constitutional amendment in 2015. The recent development has created a constitutional logjam with both sides claiming the validity of one over the other and it is likely to be hammered out through unconstitutional means which would be a big blow to democratic norms.
• There is a much bigger structural problem that underlies the ongoing crisis.
• Sri Lanka has had four different constitutions since Independence and Ranil Wickremesinghe was pushing for a fifth constitution.
• This multiplicity of constitutions and the long ethnic war has not allowed Sri Lanka to settle basic constitutional questions such as:

1. Executive Presidency vs Westminster Model,
2. Division of powers between the President and the Prime Minister,
3. Unitary vs Federal System etc.

• • The constitution of 1978 gave Sri Lanka a powerful President who shared powers with the Prime Minister and this was largely modelled on the French constitution.
  • This arrangement continued until the end of Rajapaksa’s regime in 2015, so much so that Rajapaksa’s government was accused of being an authoritarian government with complete disregard to human rights of Tamil minorities and fundamental rights of its citizens.
  • This was partially corrected by the coalition government of Sirisena and Wickremesinghe which was elected in 2015.
  • However, the structural problems continue to persist and can be rectified either by a court of law or through popular struggle. What compounds matters is the India vs China faceoff, where in both powers are eager to establish their strategic supremacy.

• It is also important to note that the constitutional provision which Mr. Sirisena has cited in the official letter to Mr. Wickremesinghe does not grant the President authority to remove a Prime Minister from office.

A Closer Look:

• It is important to note that Section 42(4) of the Sri Lankan Constitution merely enables the President to appoint a PM.

• • The President has taken the position that since he is the appointing authority, he also has the implicit power to sack the PM.

• Further, it is important to note that the PM is not a public servant who can be sacked by the appointing authority at his will. It is a constitutional office with protection from the executive. This is the crux of the constitutional dispute.

• Experts point out that the entire operation of altering the composition of the government seems to have been executed in a great hurry and in secrecy.
• Some experts have also labelled this a ‘constitutional coup’. What lends credence to this is the fact that there there is a lack of clarity as to whether Mr. Sirisena’s letter (removing Mr. Wickremesinghe) had actually reached him by the time Mr. Rajapaksa was sworn in.

19th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution:

• It is important to note that the 19th Amendment to Sri Lanka’s Constitution, was passed in 2015 under the joint political leadership of both Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe.
• The 19th Amendment restricted the powers of the President under the 1978 Constitution (the original) as well as the 18th Amendment passed in 2010.
• Among the presidential powers taken away by the 19th Amendment, which is valid, is the one pertaining to the President’s powers over the PM.
• The 19th Amendment created a dual executive.
• The 19th Amendment also made the PM’s position secure from the arbitrary actions of the President. Thus, the office of the PM falls vacant only under limited circumstances.

These limited circumstances include:

1. Death,
2. voluntary resignation,
3. loss of support in Parliament,
4. rejection by Parliament of the budget, and
5. ceasing to be an MP are these circumstances.

It is important to note that the sacking by the President is certainly not in this list.

• By this change, the 19th Amendment has also restored the Westminster framework of relationship between the head of state, the PM, and Parliament.

• • All these make the constitutionality as well as democratic legitimacy of the actions of Mr. Sirisena less than clear.
  • An argument put forward on behalf of the President is that when the United People’s Freedom Alliance, which was a partner in the so-called unity government, informed the Speaker that it was leaving the ruling coalition, the cabinet automatically stood dissolved, thereby creating a vacancy for the office of the PM.

• However, this is not an argument derived from any explicit provision of the Constitution. It is merely a political argument. What it does is no more than confirm that the composition of the coalition government was altered. It does not automatically lead to the loss of constitutional validity of the cabinet and the position of the person holding the office of the PM.

Conflicting Interpretations of the Constitution?

• Some lawyers even point to a discrepancy between the English and Sinhala texts of the Constitution and claim the President, as per the Sinhala version, still has the power to remove a Prime Minister.
• Other constitutional lawyers have argued that while there is a discrepancy in language and framing, the import and essence of the Sinhala text is consistent with that in English, especially when read along with the rest of the Constitution in Sinhala.
• On the dissolution of Parliament, the President does not have the powers to dissolve Parliament within four-and-a-half years of its convening, unless requested by two-thirds of its members, as per the 19th Amendment.
• The President’s side has invoked Article 33(2) C that lists the powers to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament, in addition to his existing powers.
• Nevertheless, critics have noted that while the Article is a general enumeration of his powers, it is the 19th Amendment’s specific provision that must prevail in such a situation.

Position taken by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka:

• It is important to note that the President’s credibility has taken yet another beating after the Supreme Court ruled categorically that his dissolution of Parliament on November 9, 2018 was illegal and void.

• The court has rejected the President’s claim that he had an unfettered right to dissolve Parliament at any time, notwithstanding provisions in the Constitution that barred such action for the first four and a half years of the legislature’s term. The court dismissed his camp’s attempt to stretch and twist the meaning of some constitutional provisions in order to justify his bizarre actions. Although Mr. Sirisena has been obstinately sticking to his position that he will not appoint Mr. Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister “even if all 225 members” were with him, there are indications he may be forced to alter his stand.
• In conclusion, experts opine that nothing short of respecting the current composition of Parliament and reinstating Mr. Wickremesinghe as Prime Minister will solve the current imbroglio.

Editorial Analysis:

• Experts have pointed out that new space has emerged for de-escalating Sri Lanka’s political crisis with the timely and judicious intervention by the Sri Lankan Supreme Court.
• Following the two rulings made by the top court in Sri Lanka in December 2018, Ranil Wickremesinghe — the Prime Minister who was sacked on October 26, 2018 by Maithripala Sirisena, Sri Lanka’s President — was again sworn in as the new Prime Minister. The new cabinet is now scheduled to be sworn-in on the 17th of December, 2018.
• It is important to note that with the Wickremesinghe-led United National Front (UNF) now back in power, the 50-day long tenure of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who replaced Mr. Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister, has also come to an abrupt end.
• Further, Mr. Rajapaksa, who was appointed on October 26, 2018, could not properly function as his appointment was legally challenged by the Wickremesinghe camp.
• Also, Mr. Sirisena’s order, on November 9, 2018 to dissolve Parliament was also legally challenged, leading to a situation where Sri Lanka was without an effective government for six weeks. Now, as a result of judicial intervention, Sri Lanka has a new government that enjoys constitutional validity.
• Thus almost seven weeks of unprecedented political turmoil and governance vacuum have come to an end, at least for the moment.

The Role of the Supreme Court

• Experts point out that the huge significance of the Supreme Court’s role in restoring constitutional governance for Sri Lanka’s democracy warrants no exaggeration.
• As a matter of fact, when Mr. Sirisena changed the government on October 26, 2018 and dissolved Parliament sometime after, there were serious doubts about the constitutionality of his shocking and sudden actions.
• It is important to note that under the reformed presidential system in Sri Lanka with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the President’s powers over the Prime Minister, the cabinet and Parliament are severely restricted.
• Further, due to conflicts that developed within the coalition government that was jointly led by Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe, Mr. Sirisena seemed to have disregarded the constitutional limits of his legitimate authority.
• Experts point out that it is his acts of constitutional transgression that the Supreme Court has now reversed and corrected.

Landmark Judgement by the Supreme Court:

• It is important to note that the most significant feature of the Supreme Court’s invalidation of three major political decisions made by Mr. Sirisena is the re-emergence of the judiciary with a clear sense of institutional autonomy and independence.
• This is all the more important given the thoroughly negative political consequences a judicial endorsement of the President’s actions would have carried.
• The highest court of the country asserted itself against the arbitrary exercise of constitutional authority by the head of the executive and refused to be submissive to the executive.
• It also protected the institutional autonomy of the legislature and ensured the constitutional protection to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
• In doing so, Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court ultimately proved itself to be a reliable arbiter of disputes that have the potential to endanger democracy and the freedom and rights of the country’s citizens.
• Experts believe that the two decisions by the Supreme Court taken in December 2018 are not only landmark judgments but are also future-defining judicial verdicts.
• It is believed that hereafter, Sri Lanka’s political leaders or their random legal advisers, both official and unofficial, cannot take for granted the limits of political power as set out in the Constitution.
• Thus, Mr. Sirisena’s loss is in fact a gain for Sri Lanka’s democracy and its freedom-loving citizen.

A citizens’ awakening

• • Experts believe that this happy end to the constitutional crisis — which is only one part of the larger crisis — also shows the resilience of Sri Lanka’s democracy, amid periodic setbacks.
  • Further, Mr. Sirisena’s act of stabbing democracy in the back has not only outraged many citizens, particularly young voters, but also led to a reactive regeneration and sudden burst of political activism, participation and resistance by citizens.

• Citizens committed to defending constitutional governance, democracy, and freedom found themselves spontaneously mobilised.

• This was also the time when political humour — its creation, enjoyment, and sharing of it on social media — emerged as the sharpest political weapon available to citizens. In brief, there was a republicanist surge of political consciousness, education, participation, and activism by citizens in defence of political freedom.
• It is also important to note that the opening of Sri Lanka’s democratic space, ironically under the leadership of the same President, Mr. Sirisena, in January 2015 seems to have had a lasting effect on the political commitment of citizens to defend democracy the moment they see it facing an imminent danger.
• Nearly seven weeks of continuous political resistance by a multiplicity of citizens’ groups, defying the government, probably set the example for the judiciary also to be courageous in performing its constitutional duty.
• Ironically again, these are all positive outcomes of the democratic revival of January 2015 that Mr. Sirisena co-authored and which, less than four years later, he decided to turn his back on.

Concluding Remarks:

• • In conclusion, although the constitutional dimension of the crisis seems to have, to some, ended peacefully, the larger conflict between two rival factions of the political class is far from over.
  • As a matter of fact, the risk is that the conflict will continue, expressing itself in new forms under new circumstances.
  • It is important to note that prevention of the re-eruption of this power struggle is the biggest challenge Sri Lanka faces immediately.
  • Experts opine that the first step in the direction of preventing its resurgence and a re-escalation is for Mr. Sirisena and Mr. Wickremesinghe to find a modus vivendi for at least a minimum level of peaceful cohabitation.
  • After their bitter separation on October 26, 2018, this will not be an easy proposition to put into practice.
  • The past few weeks have also seen how the poisoned personal relationship between the two leaders caused a major crisis in the government, with Mr. Sirisena even refusing to accept Mr. Wickremesinghe as the Prime Minister even if all MPs reposed their confidence in him.

• As President, Mr. Sirisena will also have some crucial powers in the government. He will not only be the head of state and the executive but also of the government and the cabinet. As the head of state and the cabinet, Mr. Sirisena might even want to be in charge of defence and national security.

• In Sri Lanka’s dual executive system, if the President and the Prime Minister resume the old habit of working on competing political agendas, eruption of another major crisis of governance is inevitable.

• A Look at the coming years:

• • It is also important to note that the next two years will be crucial for Sri Lanka’s politics of the future.
  • A new President will have to be elected before the end of 2019, followed by fresh parliamentary elections in early or mid-2020. Provincial Council elections are also on the cards.
  • Mr. Sirisena’s political future will depend on the nature of the political balance of forces by early to the middle of next year.
  • The Rajapaksa camp envisages a coalition between its newly formed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP, Sri Lanka People’s Front) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) led by Mr. Sirisena. Mr. Wickremesinghe’s party, the United National Party (UNP), is also in the process of forming a broad coalition for the next provincial, parliamentary and presidential elections
  • Thus, what can be expected in the run-up to the next round of elections is a crystallisation of existing fissures, divisions and groupings into two broad political camps — one led by Mr. Wickremesinghe and the UNP, and the other jointly by Mr. Rajapaksa and Mr. Sirisena with the SLPP and the SLFP as its key components.

• Finally, the resilience of the citizens of Sri Lanka in defending their democracy will once again be put to the test within months.

Category: POLITY AND GOVERNANCE

1. The spectre of deportation (Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC))

Question 1. With respect to the Puggie Community, consider the following statements:

Question 2. Which of the security groups is not correctly matched?

Question 3. Read the following statements carefully and choose the incorrect answer by using the 
codes given below: