Current Affairs 26/08/2015

Contents

• Religious Communities, Census 2011
• The concept of Good terrorists and Bad terrorists
• Nasik Kumbh Mela
• Weak environmental regulations
• Hollow promise of ‘special status’ (must prepare for Mains 2015)

Religious Communities, Census 2011

• The Registrar-General and Census Commissioner released the data on Population by Religious Communities of Census 2011.

Hindus	966.3 million	79.8 per cent
Muslims	172.2 million	14.23 per cent
Christians	27.83 million	2.3 per cent
Sikhs	26.13 million	2.16 per cent.

• Hindu population grew by 16.76 per cent and that of Muslims by 24.6 per cent.
• The population of both communities grew faster during the previous decade, at 19.92 per cent and 29.52 per cent, respectively.
• As a long-term trend, say demographers, the communities’ growth rates are converging.

Muslim sex ratio improves further

• The sex ratio among Muslims now stands at 951 females for every 1,000 males, substantially better than 936 in 2001, while among Hindus, it is 939 females for every 1,000 males, a slight improvement over the 2001 value of 931.
• Assam remains the State with the largest Muslim population as a proportion (34.22 per cent) and saw the largest increase in the Muslim proportion between 2001 and 2011, followed by Uttarakhand and Kerala.
• As has been the case since Independence, the rate of increase of the Muslim population is higher than that of the Hindu population as a result of higher Muslim fertility, higher child mortality among Hindus and a greater life expectancy among Muslims, demographers say.
• In India we see communal stereotypes which spread like wildfire. So its important that people are made aware of the facts.
• Some points related to communal stereotypes will be helpful in answering questions related to “Communalism” in GS 1.

Which of the following observations are true according to census 2011?

1. Sex ratio in Muslims is lesser than in Hindus.
2. Population growth rate between Hindus and Muslims is diverging.
3. Polpulation of Christians in India is greater than that of Sikhs.
4. Maharashtra remains the State with the largest Muslim population as a proportion.
5. Assam is the state with highest muslim population.
6. Sex ratio in both the communities improved.

Options

a) 3 and 6 only

b) 1,3 and 6 only
c) 3,4, and 6 only
d) All

The concept of Good terrorists and Bad terrorists

• Mumbai attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed-led Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Afghanistan-based dreaded Haqqani network are not banned in Pakistan, according to an official list of 60 proscribed outfits.
• However, the government has put the JuD on the list of groups being closely watched by the officials, which means that it can be banned if found guilty of promoting militancy.
• JuD is listed as a terror outfit by the UN and its chief Hafiz Saeed has a $10 million U.S. government bounty against him, but he moves freely across Pakistan.
• The al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani network, blamed for several deadly attacks against Western and Indian interests in Afghanistan including the 2008 bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul, is also not on the list.

GS 2: India and Neighbours

• Recently PM Modi made a statement saying “there are no good or bad terrorists but only terrorists”.
• This is an indirect advice to Pakistan which feeds proxies that create tensions along the border all well as within the interiors of India.
• Good terrorists: Friendly terrorists. [Those terrorists that are ‘Good’ for Pak are ‘Bad’ fo India and vice versa. There are no direct evidences to prove links between India and terror groups, but there are few allegations. So I am discussing from a neutral perspective]
• One day those good terrorists will turn into bad terrorists and will lead to more pain than gain.

Good terrorists

• The ones that are supported by Pak army and Govt to create problems to India – especially in J&K.

Example

• Lashkar-e-Taiba (most wanted members Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi  and Hafiz Saeed – Responsible for Mumbai attacks)
• Jamaat-ud-Dawa – Off-Shoot of LeT – A major anti-India propaganda machine – Led by Hafiz Saeed.
• Haqqani network: Based in Afghan-Pak border; allied with Taliban. A problem to Indian interests in Afghanistan (blamed for several deadly attacks against Western and Indian interests in Afghanistan including the 2008 bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul); most wanted by America.
• These terror groups are supported by Pak Govt and Army (Hafiz Saeed-led Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Afghanistan-based dreaded Haqqani network are not banned in Pakistan)
• Jaish-e-Mohammed: Islamist militant group in Kashmi; The group's primary motive is to separate Kashmir from Indi

Internal utility for Pak

• LeT doesn’t support attacks on Pakistan, it provides intelligence about the other militant groups, it has been used to attack other groups such as the TTP [Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan]

External utility for Pak

• LeT and other ‘good terrorists’ are used by Pak to destabilize J&K and carry on militant attacks in India.

Bad terrorists

Examples

• Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan: Based in the northwestern Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border in Pakistan. The TTP is not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban
• The Afghan Taliban, with the alleged support of Pakistani Taliban, operate against international coalition and Afghan security forces in Afghanistan but are strictly opposed to targeting the Pakistani state. The TTP in contrast has almost exclusively targeted elements of the Pakistani state.
• Lashkar-e-Jhangvi: The group has been involved in several attacks on Shia Muslims. The group has been labelled by intelligence officials in Pakistan as a major security threat (this makes it a bad terrorist for Pakistan).

Alleged Indian involvement with ‘bad terrorists’

• The Pakistani military and civilian leadership have repeatedly alleged that the Indian intelligence agency RAW has been funding and training TTP members.
• In December 2014, after the Peshawar school attack in which 132 children were killed, the Pakistani authorities again alleged that there were significant proofs of Indian support of TTP to destabilize Pakistan.

Nasik Kumbh Mela

GS 1: Culture

• Nasik Kumbh Mela – 14^th July to 25^th September, 2015
• Nasik Kumbh Mela is celebrated when Jupiter and the sun falls on the zodiac sign, Leo.
• According to the scholars, it is believed that when Gods and demons were having fight over the nectar then Lord Vishnu flew away with the pot of nectar spilling drops of nectar at four different places; where we celebrate Kumbh melas, those places were Hardwar, Nasik, Ujjain and Prayag. (Nectar and Lord Vishnu are not important but you have to remember the four places.)

Weak environmental regulations

GS 3: Pollution; EIA

• The people responsible for Bhopal disaster (1985) was never brought to book. No reasonable compensation and rehabilitation.
• Similar case with Kodaikanal mercury pollution case (Unilever thermometers factory which was responsible was closed in 2001. The company is criticized for poor environmental remediation of contaminated sites or rehabilitation of affected people).
• Neither the central government nor any State government has done anything towards putting in place a policy for environmental remediation of contaminated sites or rehabilitation of affected people.
• On the contrary, the authorities have actively colluded with the polluters.
• Every time a factory pollutes a neighbourhood or exposes people to poisons, people have to fight a hostile system.
• Arrayed against those affected by pollution stands a veritable army of scientific institutions, State and Central Pollution Control Boards, the Environment Ministry and the wealthy polluters with huge budgets to hire lawyers, and buy science and media space.
• Toxic hotspots and affected people can be found across the country alongside polluting factories — be it the cancer corridor between Vapi and Bharuch in Gujarat, Jeedimetla in Andhra Pradesh, Udyogamandal near Kochi, the industrial estates in Mettur, Thoothukudi or Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu, or Singrauli and Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh.

Hollow promise of ‘special status’

GS 2: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

Very Very Very Important.

Most probable question in Mains 2015

I have not removed even a line form the editorial 

• Given that economic benefits under the ‘Special Category’ status are minimal and have been diluted over the years, States would be better off seeking a special package
• Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) had increased the tax devolution to States from 32 per cent to 42 per cent of the divisible pool of central taxes obviating the need for specific categorising.
• Under the ‘D.R. Gadgil formula’ for the distribution of central plan assistance, which became operational during the fourth Five Year Plan, the requirements of Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland were to be met first and the balance of central assistance distributed to the remaining States based on certain criteria.
• At the time of the formulation of the fifth Five Year Plan, it was decided to include Himachal Pradesh, other Northeastern States and Sikkim in the above category. For the first time, these 10 States were categorised as ‘Special Category States’ to distinguish them from others. Later on, Uttarakhand was accorded the ‘Special Category’.

Traits for categorisation

• ‘Special Category’ status had been granted in the past by the Union government to States having certain characteristics based on the recommendations of the National Development Council. These included i) hilly terrain; ii) low population density and/or sizeable share of tribal population; iii) strategic location along borders with neighbouring countries; iv) economic and infrastructure backwardness; and v) non-viable nature of State finances.
• Under the revised Gadgil-Mukherjee formula, which was in operation till 2014-15, 30 per cent of the normal central assistance was earmarked for ‘Special Category States’ and the remaining 70 per cent to General Category States. ‘Special Category States’ were entitled to get such assistance in the grant-loan ratio of 90:10 as compared with 30:70 ratio for other States.
• In addition to their earmarked share in normal central assistance, special plan assistance for projects (90 per cent grant) and untied special central assistance (100 per cent grant) were being given only to ‘Special Category States’. Other benefits to ‘Special Category States’ include assistance for externally-aided projects in the grant-loan ratio of 90:10, whereas such assistance to other States is on back-to-back basis.
• Under the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP), ‘Special Category States’ get 90 per cent of the project cost as grant as compared with 25 per cent grant for others. The matching contribution in respect of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) is usually lower for ‘Special Category States’, more particularly, for those in the Northeastern region.
• Though all the ‘Special Category States’ are provided with central incentives for the promotion of industries, there is no explicit linkage between the incentives and the special status. The package of incentives is different for the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand and the States located in the Northeastern region. These packages have more to do with their backwardness than the status. 

Progressive dilution

• Several changes over the years, more particularly those introduced in the Union Budget 2015-16, have resulted in considerable dilution of benefits to the ‘Special Category States’. The loan component of normal plan assistance was dispensed with in 2005-06 and since then such assistance is being given only in the form of grants to all States, including those in the general category. Following this, the share of ‘Special Category States’ in total normal central assistance has been around 56 per cent from 2005-06 onwards. But the share of normal central assistance in total plan assistance, which was the predominant channel of central plan assistance to States, had come down to about 15 per cent with the proliferation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), with resultant dilution of the benefit of untied grants to States. Following the increase in tax devolution to States from 32 to 42 per cent of divisible pool of central taxes, the Centre has dispensed with normal plan assistance, special central assistance and special plan assistance from 2015-16 onwards.
• There are very few externally aided projects in the ‘Special Category States’. The Union Budget 2015-16 has drastically reduced the allocations under AIBP from Rs.8,992 crore in 2014-15 to just Rs.1,000 crore. AIBP is now included in the list of schemes to be run with higher matching contribution by States. 
• The ‘Special Category’ status is not so special anymore following the above changes . The only attraction that remains is the benefit of assistance for externally aided projects (90 per cent grant). But even this will be of limited benefit if any new state is accorded special category for a limited period of five years or so as disbursal of external assistance cannot be substantial in such a limited period. The benefit of lower matching contribution for ‘Special Category States’ for CSS is unlikely to be substantial with the reduction of assistance to State plans by over 40 per cent to Rs.1,96,743 crore in 2015-16.

New criteria

• Following the demand for Special Status by Bihar, a committee was appointed under Dr. Raghuram Rajan in 2013. This committee suggested that States classified as ‘Special Category States’ and those seeking inclusion in that category, would find that their need for funds and special attention more than adequately met by a basic allocation to each State and the categorisation of some as ‘least developed’.
• Furthermore, it is not politically feasible to consider special status to any new State as any such decision will result in demands from other States and dilute the benefits further. It is also not economically beneficial for States to seek special status as the benefits under the current dispensation are minimal. States facing special problems will be better off seeking a special package.

About Unknown

PMF IAS. Helping aspirant