UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis Feb04 2019

Context: the Kerala Agriculture Department is earmarking farm space in more districts for growing nutrient-rich millets with ‘superfood’ and ‘eat smart’ strategies forming the main ingredients of the latest dietary mantras.

The Kerala government moves to expand the Millet Village scheme.

The Millet Village scheme

• Kerala government formulated a special scheme to promote the cultivation of cereals such as millet, ragi, bajra and maize by setting up a millet village at Attappady.
• The project aimed at protecting seeds of traditional varieties of millets and ensures food security and livelihood for tribals.

Why millets?

• Millets are naturally rich in nutrients such as iron, zinc and calcium, among others.
• Till recently, these grains were addressed as coarse cereals, now, they have been renamed as nutri-cereals.
• It requires minimum inputs and is an economically viable option if marketing avenues are created. 
• Millets can grow in poor soil conditions with less water, fertiliser and pesticides.
• They can withstand higher temperatures, making them the perfect choice as ‘climate-smart’ cereals.
• As against the requirement of 5,000 litres of water to grow one kilogram of rice, millets need hardly 250-300 litres.
• Millets are being seen as a solution to lifestyle disorders.
• As urban consumers cope with a range of lifestyle-related disorders, these grains are gradually gaining in popularity.

Benefits:

• Small millets such as kodo and kutki, among others, have a cultivation history of 3,000-5,000 years and were major food crops once upon a time.
• They might prove to be a potential new tool for the government to fight socio-economic issues such as malnutrition and rural poverty while addressing sustainability concerns.
• Millets are grown in about 21 States. There is a major impetus in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana.
• The government has been trying to push millets in Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland, because it is a major staple diet for the tribes in that region.

The National Millet Mission

• The Millet Mission, under the National Food Security Mission, is expected to be rolled out in April 2019, for the next few years.
• To achieve nutritional security the Centre has been promoting millets on a ‘mission mode’.
• The Centre’s Millet Mission will focus on developing farm gate processing and empowering farmers through collectives, while focusing on value-addition and aggregation of the produce.
• To ensure that farmers have access to better quality seeds, the mission proposes to create seed hubs across the country and focus on crop improvement.
• In 2016-17, the area under millets stood at 14.72 million hectares, down from 37 million ha in 1965-66, prior to the pre-Green Revolution era.
• This decline was largely due to change in dietary habits (induced by a cultural bias against millets post-Green Revolution), low-yield of millets, and conversion of irrigated area towards rice and wheat.

Context: The CBI is ready to move the Supreme Court against the West Bengal government and its police for impeding an ongoing court-ordered investigation into multi-crore chit fund cases, including the Saradha scam.

Background:

• The CBI has been investigating the Saradha scam after the Supreme Court transferred the case to it in the Subrata Chattoraj versus Union of India judgment on May 9, 2014. However, the state of West Bengal has already withdrawn “general consent” for the CBI investigation.
• Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal withdrew the general consent to the CBI to exercise jurisdiction within its territory.
• The CBI has accused the West Bengal government and police of harassment and detention of its officers.
• The State government has also been accused of violating the rule of law and an apex court judgment of May 9, 2014.
• The probe into the Saradha chit fund cases to the CBI was transferred by the Supreme Court in 2014 which directed the State Police to provide every kind of assistance to the agency.
• According to a Supreme Court Bench of Justices (both retired) T.S. Thakur and C.S. Nagappan “Needless to say that the State police agencies currently investigating the cases shall provide the fullest cooperation to the CBI, including assistance in terms of men and material to enable the latter to conduct and complete the investigation expeditiously”.

Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs CBI case:

• The Supreme Court in the Major E.G. Barsay judgment of 1961 held that “no member of the Establishment (CBI) can exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State without the consent of the government of that State”
• However, in Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs CBI, a reported decision of 1994, the Supreme Court clarified the position of law
• The court reasoned that the State government’s withdrawal should not be allowed to stall a pending case.
• The withdrawal of general consent means CBI officers lose police powers under the Criminal Procedure Code in the State concerned and for registering a case.
• According to the Supreme Court in Dorji case “The case should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion… notwithstanding the withdrawal of consent during pendency of investigation”.
• The Dorji case had dealt with a notification issued by the Sikkim government withdrawing consent to the CBI to probe a corruption case against the then Chief Minister.
• Following the basic structure of the constitution, the act of withdrawal of consent can be judicially reviewed.
• Besides, withdrawal of consent is no bar for a court to order a CBI probe.

Context: The U.S recently pulled out from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.

C. GS3 Related

Context: Integrated Tribal Development Authority (ITDA) of Andhra Pradesh is planning to enforce a prohibition on the sale of plastic water sachets at tourist spots.

According to officials, water sachets amount to around 40%-50% of the total plastic waste dumped at the tourist destinations.

These sachets are inadvertently consumed by stray cattle, putting their lives at risk, apart from environment pollution.

Harmful effects of Plastic on:

Environment:

• The surfaces of tiny fragments of plastic may carry disease-causing organisms and act as a vector for diseases in the environment. Microplastics can also interact with soil fauna, affecting their health and soil functions.
• For example, earthworms, make their burrows differently when microplastics are present in the soil, which affects the earthworm’s fitness and the soil condition.
• Chlorinated plastic can release harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil, which can then seep into groundwater or other surrounding water sources, and also the ecosystem.
• This causes a range of potentially harmful effects on the species that drink the water.
• With the breakdown of plastic particles, they gain new physical and chemical properties, increasing the risk that they will have a toxic effect on organisms.
• Also it is observed that the larger the number of potentially affected species and ecological functions, the more likely it is that toxic effects will occur.

Health:

• Additives such as phthalates and Bisphenol A (widely known as BPA) leach out of plastic particles.
• These additives are known for their hormonal effects and can disrupt the hormone system of vertebrates and invertebrates alike. In addition, nano-sized particles may cause inflammation, traverse cellular barriers, and even cross highly selective membranes such as the blood-brain barrier or the placenta.
• Within the cell, they can trigger changes in gene expression and biochemical reactions.
• It has already been shown that when passing the blood-brain barrier nanoplastics have a behaviour-changing effect in fish.

Way forward

• It is imperative to ensure alternative drinking water facilities for tourists in tourist spots keeping a check that there is no harm to health and environment.
• Also creating awareness about the environmental hazards associated with plastic is a must.

Context: A ‘pink revolution’ is quietly taking shape in Maharashtra with an objective to breed imported pigs to address the problem of protein deficiency in a sizeable section of the population that has been deprived of access to affordable meat besides providing livelihood to farmers.

Concerns:

Many consumers stay away from consuming pork as local pigs are mostly bred under unhygienic conditions.

Highlights:

• There is a plan to address this concern through supply of hygienic pork produced from imported breeds in clean environment and by launching an education campaign.
• An ecosystem for supply of high quality pork is being created by a Mumbai based company supported by the Maharashtra government’s policy.
• The company is planning to partner with farmers by supplying them pigs imported from Canada.
• They would be bred under hygienic conditions for production of high quality meat.
• The company plans to build a fully-equipped international-standard piggery which would support animal husbandry, food and medical industry.

Benefits:

• While it would create a comprehensive value chain for pork production, it would also supply high quality animals for medical and research industry (organ transplant and insulin).
• Commercial pig farming in India for meat production is one of the best and profitable business ideas. 

Challenges:

• Indian pig breeds are not suitable for high quality pork production.
• Indian pork is sold at about Rs.250 per kg compared with international quality processed pork which is sold at Rs.1, 200- 3,000 per kg.

Pink Revolution:

• The Pink Revolution initiative is scheduled to start off in the second quarter of 2019.
• The ‘pink revolution’ targets to produce five lakh high quality pigs over a period of 5-6 years.
• ‘Pink revolution’ plans to offer ‘farm to market’ solution.

Way Forward:

The need of the hour is to enhance the farmer’s potential genetically superior quality animals and meeting consumers’ demand for safe and healthy meat and health industry’s requirement for quality animals. It is an industry with huge potential.

D. GS4 Related

E. Editorials

Context:

National Statistical Commission’s (NSC) acting chief PC Mohanan and member JV Meenakshi – he two non-official members have resigned over “disagreements” with the government over the release of a jobs survey.

National Statistical Commission:

• The Government of India ordered setting up National Statistical Commission on 1 June 2005 on the recommendation of Rangarajan commission.
• It is an autonomous body formed in July 2005.
• A key role of the NSC, is to verify whether data being put in the public domain are reliable and adequate.
• The objective of its constitution is to reduce the problems faced by statistical agencies in the country in relation to collection of data.
• Statistical agencies like the Central Statistical Office (CSO) and the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) face numerous problems in collecting data from State and Central government departments, but an autonomous body like the NSC is thought to be more able to coordinate things as a statutory status would lend it teeth.
• Information has been collected and disseminated by successive governments under laid-down schedules, earning Indian data greater global trust than most other emerging market peers, especially China.

Issue:

• The commission is mandated to have seven members. Three posts had been vacant before the resignations.
• With the two members quitting, the NSC now has only two members — Chief Statistician Pravin Srivastava and NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant. 
• The latest exits underline the controversies that the centre has faced amid opposition allegations of gaming of data, for example, on joblessness and GDP.
• The resignations could also be related to unease about the recently unveiled back-series data on the economy, which recorded slower growth during the UPA-led government’s rule, and were released by the NITI Aayog bypassing convention and the commission’s views.

Details:

• Reports suggest that the findings of the new Periodic Labour Force Survey, for July 2017-December 2018, are not too flattering, with unemployment registering a five-decade high.
• On the question of job-creation for the youth, credible data are missing.
• The National Sample Survey Organisation’s quinquennial employment surveys were to be conducted in 2016-17. The year was switched to 2017-18 as the new Labour Force Survey was being prepared to replace it.
• Separately, a quarterly survey of select employment-intensive sectors initiated by the Labour Bureau after the 2008 global financial crisis, that provided some clarity on ground realities, was inexplicably discarded. Instead, proxy data from enrolments into social security schemes for formal sector employees are being touted as a sign of job-creation: economists have rightly called them out as inaccurate.
• The Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy has pegged job losses in 2018 at 11 million based on its regular employment surveys.
• The government’s approach to jobs-related data may be due to its disastrous demonetisation gambit which hurt supply chains and informal jobs in the economy and whose effects have lingered.
• In contrast, the NSSO surveys of 2009-10 that revealed little good news on household incomes and job-creation. The previous government didn’t hesitate from releasing the data, took criticism on its chin, explained it was an exceptional situation (after-effects of the global financial crisis) and commissioned another set of surveys in 2011-12 to correct for the timing.

Conclusion:

Delay in releasing key employment data has undermined the credibility of data officialdom. The government should ensure that the data must not be withheld and India’s statistical integrity must not be invalidated.

Context:

There have been protests over the rule’s legitimacy in certain quarters in response to challenges made to the recently introduced 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provides for reservations based on economic criteria in government jobs and education. The Act amends Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, by adding a clause which allows states to make “special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens.

Background:

Basic Structure of the Constitution:

• The basic structuredoctrine is an Indian judicial principle that the Constitution of India has certain basic features that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by the parliament.
• However, the word “Basic Structure” is not mentioned in the constitutionof India.
• In 1967, the Supreme in Golaknath v. State of Punjab held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the Constitution are given a “transcendental position” and are beyond the reach of Parliament. It also pronounced any amendment that abridges a Fundamental Right as unconstitutional.
• By 1973, the basic structure doctrine triumphed in Justice Hans Raj Khanna’s judgment in the landmark decision of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. Previously, the Supreme Court had held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was unfettered. However, in this landmark ruling, the Court adjudicated that while Parliament has “wide” powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution.
• The basic structure doctrine has since gained widespread acceptance and legitimacy due to subsequent cases and judgments. 
• Some of the features of the Constitution termed as “basic” are listed below:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution
2. Rule of law
3. The principle of Separation of Powers
4. The objectives specified in the Preamble to the Constitution
5. Judicial Review
6. Independence of Judiciary
7. The “essence” of Fundamental Rights in Part III etc..

Editorial Analysis:

It has now been more than 45 years since the Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited, that the Constitution’s basic structure was inviolable. But as entrenched as this doctrine might now be, it remains, to some, a source of endless aversion.

• The common criticism is that the doctrine has no basis in the Constitution’s language.
• The phrase “basic structure”, it’s argued, finds no mention anywhere in the Constitution.
• What’s more, beyond its textual illegitimacy, its detractors also believe the doctrine accords the judiciary a power to impose its philosophy over a democratically formed government, resulting in something akin to what Union Minister Arun Jaitley once termed as a “tyranny of the unelected”.
• Unquestionably, some of this censure is a result of the Supreme Court’s occasionally muddled interpretation of what the Constitution’s basic structure might be. But to reject the doctrine altogether because the judiciary sometimes botches is not the right approach. For not only is the basic structure canon legally legitimate, in that it is deeply rooted in the Constitution’s text and history, but it also possesses substantial moral value, in that it strengthens democracy by limiting the power of a majoritarian government to undermine the Constitution’s central ideals.
• Ever since the Constitution was first amended in 1951, the true extent of Parliament’s power to amend the document has been acutely contested.

Interpreting ‘amendment’:

• If Parliament’s powers are considered infinite, the parliamentary executive can be removed, fundamental rights can be abrogated, and, in effect, what is a sovereign democratic republic can be converted into a totalitarian regime.
• In Kesavananda Bharati, it was this formulation that shaped Justice H.R. Khanna’s legendary, controlling opinion. The judge said: “Any amending body organized within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its Constitutional authority.”
• According to him, what could emerge out of an amendment was only an altered form of the existing Constitution and not an altogether new and radical Constitution.
• This interpretation, as Sudhir Krishnaswamy has shown, in some depth, in his book, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India, is compelling for at least two reasons. First, it represents a careful reading of the text of Article 368, and, second, it delivers an attractive understanding of the moral principles that anchor the Constitution.
• Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, making it clear that on the exercise of that power “the Constitution shall stand amended”. Therefore, if what has to remain after an amendment is “the Constitution”, naturally a change made under Article 368 cannot create a new constitution.
• Such an interpretation is also supported by the literal meaning of the word “amendment”, which is defined as “a minor change or addition designed to improve a text”. Hence, for an amendment to be valid, the constitution that remains standing after such a change must be the Constitution of India; it must continue to possess, in its essence, those features that were foundational to it even at its conception.

Questions to ponder:

Were an amendment to be introduced relinquishing control over India to a foreign power, would it not result in the creation of a constitution that is no longer the Constitution of India? Would not such an amendment strike at the root of the Constitution’s Preamble, which, in its original form, established India as a sovereign democratic republic?

 On any reasonable analysis it ought to, therefore, be clear that the basic structure doctrine is not only grounded in the Constitution’s text and history, but that it also performs an important democratic role in ensuring that majoritarian governments do not destroy the Constitution’s essential character.

• It must be remembered that constitutions are not like ordinary laws. Interpreting one is always likely to be an exercise fraught with controversy.
• But such is the nature of our political design that the court, as an independent body, is tasked with the role of acting as the Constitution’s final interpreter, with a view to translating abstract principles into “concrete constitutional commands” as Justice Robert H. Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote.
• It may well be the case that the basic structure doctrine is derived from the abstract. But that scarcely means it doesn’t exist within the Constitution.

Conclusion:

The basic structure doctrine has been applied by the judges every now and then. It has till date proved to be a very effective tool in deciding the validity of the constitutional amendments. The doctrine, however, had not yet been defined in any of the judgements adequately and sufficiently. There are many things which are basic to the constitution and they cannot be decided beforehand. While the idea that there is such a thing as a basic structure to the Constitution is well established its contents cannot be completely determined with any measure of finality until a judgement of the Supreme Court spells it out. Nevertheless the sovereign, democratic and secular character of the polity, rule of law, independence of the judiciary, fundamental rights of citizens etc. are some of the essential features of the Constitution that have appeared time and again in the apex court’s pronouncements.

Category: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

1. Hawkish move – On USA’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty

Question 1. Consider the following statements for Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi 
(PM-KISAN) Scheme:

Question 2. Consider the following statements about millets:

Question 3. Consider the following statements:

Question 4. Consider the following statements about Perovskite solar cells:

Question 5. Consider the following statements: