GS Analyst: Daily Current Affairs

Context:

On August 23, with Chandrayaan-3’s lander module making a soft landing on the moon, India became only the fourth country after the erstwhile Soviet Union, the U.S., and China to accomplish this achievement. It is a testament to the remarkable ingenuity of Indian scientists that this feat was carried out at a relatively low cost.

The Race to Moon

• Resource Not Sole Factor: USSR and China achieved significant space feats despite smaller economies, suggesting resources alone aren't limiting.
• Human Resources Impact: Nations like China, India, and Russia prioritized science, reaping space exploration successes from invested scientists and engineers.
• Population and Technology: Populous countries' focus on science, technology led to innovation and achievements despite economic disparities with developed nations.

Debate around Moon’s exploration

• UAE's Space Success: UAE's space achievements challenge population-driven assumptions, highlighting state role and collaboration in accomplishing ambitious objectives.
• Government and Collaboration: State's active involvement, combined with private sector and academic collaboration, overcomes financial constraints and propels space endeavors.
• Resource Diversion Debate: Developing economies' space programs questioned for resource allocation, similar concerns exist in developed nations. Yet space missions contribute to knowledge and progress.

Factors responsible for successful mission

• Redefining State's Role: Global crises reveal private sector's limitations; state-market partnership needed for innovation. Successful space missions exemplify state competence.
• State Intervention: Dichotomy of passive state and market no longer applies. Active state intervention fosters innovation, addressing social and environmental challenges.
• Mazzucatto's Perspective: Economist Mazzucatto's research on Apollo missions shows state coordination drives success. Similar approach could address climate change, hunger, fostering inclusive development.

Context:

Recently, a ?ve­ month ­old infant born to a Rohingya refugee died in a detention centre in Jammu, which is a question on the refugee policy and conserving their Rights.

Refugee policy in India

• No domestic law- India does not have a domestic law or consistent policy on refugees and asylum seekers.
• Not a signatory to conventions and protocol- India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
• Foreigners Act, 1946- Refugees are seen as illegal immigrants and lumped with other foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Conventions on the Rights of the Child

• Fundamental Right- The right to life and personal liberty is enshrined in the Constitution of India and is for all persons, whether citizens or foreigners.
• UN Convention- Article 6 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that every child has an inherent right to life, survival and development.
• India signatory to CRC- India ratified the CRC in December 1992; hence, holding children in detention facilities, denying them the freedom to access education or any other liberty is an absolute violation of this.

Way Forward

• Rohingya children should be released - It is imperative that all Rohingya children and their primary caregivers are released immediately from detention.
• Follow the Government of India’s internal guidelines- For all the other Rohingya, the authorities should follow the Government of India’s internal guidelines (2011) on the detention and treatment of refugees
• Appoint an ombudsman - India should work with the O?ce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to appoint an ombudsman whose sole responsibility should be to investigate refugee detention centres in India.

Context:

In response to recurring financial defaults in India, the government implemented robust legal measures to empower lenders in holding defaulting companies accountable, despite challenges posed by democratic principles and limited effective legal avenues.

Challenges in Legal Procedures

• In current laws: SARFAESI Act, DRTs, BIFR, and SICA faced time delays, rigid criteria, and overlapping laws, hindering effective debt recovery.
• Winding-up Effectiveness: Companies Act 1956's winding up process, though slow, yielded more logical conclusions through liquidation or negotiation.
• Limited Recovery Success: SARFAESI offered debt restructuring, but till 2016, poor statistics indicated inadequate results for banks' recovery efforts.

Need for Insolvency and Bankruptcy code (IBC)

• RDDBFI and SARFAESI Shortcomings: Recovery efforts through RDDBFI and SARFAESI led to increasing bad debts for banks. SARFAESI's recovery declined due to reduced effectiveness.
• Post-Liberalization Scenario: After 1991's liberalization, foreign companies' entry and unchecked lending led to growth, but lack of adherence to parameters and due diligence caused loans to turn bad.
• Lending Challenges: Loans for expansion turned non-performing, banks faced multiple restructuring proposals, trapping lenders deeper, leading to a point of no return for Indian businesses.

Debate over IBC

• Challenges in Execution Proceedings: Execution proceedings were lengthy, making winding up unattractive. BIFR sheltered defaulting companies, deviating from rehabilitation intent.
• Inception of IBC: The Indian banking sector faced mounting issues due to non-merit loans, necessitating exceptional measures. IBC, introduced in 2016, aimed at recovery and reformation.
• Debate over IBC: IBC, a significant law, garnered support from banks but raised concerns for operational creditors and promoters due to asset distribution and creditor control.

Context:

Amidst Himalayan beauty, environmental degradation of habitat is rising as evident in Uttarakhand and Himachal face tragic consequences due to unsustainable development, frequent disasters, and compromised safety.

Lack of structural scrutiny

• Chardham Mahamarg Project Impact: Uttarakhand's infrastructure project claims forests, lives, soil, and water sources, bypassing environmental laws for development.
• Bhagirathi Eco Sensitive Zone: Protected area holds Ganga's last natural flow, but approvals for project ignored EIA, legal directives, risking ecological damage.
• Environmental Risk: Pristine regions face peril as road’s Defect liability period (DLP) width under the project threatens deodar trees and mountain slopes.

Challenges and Threats

• Road Width Contradictions: Ministry contradicts own standards, widening hill roads to DLPS despite risks, ignoring Supreme Court's directions and rationale.
• Unanswered Questions: Concerns arise over road-width changes, contradictory requirements, missing EIA, increased carrying capacity, and shift to strategic importance.
• Tourism vs. Ecology: Overburdened shrines' capacity increased, disregarding ecological impact. Nature's warnings prompt reassessment, Supreme Court involvement for implementation.

Rising loss of Himalayan habitat

• Gangotri Glacier Threat: Fast-receding Gangotri glacier faces black carbon deposits due to vehicular movement, forest fires, escalating melting.
• Himalayan Destruction: Greed-driven actions by political, bureaucratic, and real estate interests damage forests, rivers, and lives.
• Conservation Priority: Protecting Ganga's pristine stretch demands minimizing road width near Gangotri. Sustainable development requires preservation of lifelines.