[OPINION / ANALYSIS] Will India Survive in Paris Climate Negotiation?

AVILASH ROUL

• First ever comment to the First Draft- which can be termed as Paris Protocol- came from India as ‘lopsided’ to bring climate justice, ‘inadequate’ for developing countries and ‘lenient’ to developed countries. Usually, after Bonn Intercessional Conference, which commence during June every year, the negotiation on climate change gets movement. However, this year it is the submission of national climate goals of countries as Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) that have started posturing of the countries for the Paris Summit. As the major players and greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters have submitted their action points as INDCs, will the Paris Climate Summit be a milestone in fighting climate change in the 21st Century?

• French President would be more optimistic to lure on an elusive Paris Protocol after India’s entry on 1 October at UNFCCC portal. The synthesis report, which eagerly awaited India’s entry, is now under preparation to become the negotiating text of the Summit. Any legally binding protocol that includes major emitters will be strongly opposed by India, which has been its longstanding position. But, the first Draft of Protocol is hinting towards a binding agreement falling on India and other developing countries on which India has already reacted.

• Much-awaited and anticipated but least publicly consulted among the 119 INDCs submitted (till October 5) is India’s INDC, named as ‘working Towards Climate Justice’. It is ‘welcomed’ as a ‘promising’ document better than that of the ‘US and EU’. By invoking Gandhian ecology and Vedas in its INDC, which was tactically released to public on Gandhi’s birth anniversary, India has positioned itself advantageously for the meanest and toughest week-long negotiation at Paris Climate Summit (COP21). While India has postulated the right strategy for Paris negotiation, back home, it needs to streamline its grandiose plan with accountability and monitoring institutions at place. However, the green groups in India are surprisingly satisfied with the content of the INDC!

• Since June this year, major countries have been submitting its INDCs to address the impacts of climate change. Many such INDC communications will continue upto 2016. Among 194 member countries of COP, 147 agreed under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) to ‘initiate or intensify’ domestic preparations as INDCs towards adopting a protocol in Paris.

• From the outset, India’s INDC has been very impressive but not path breaking. Those who have labeled India as being obstructionist since Copenhagen Summit or from prior COPs, would rather be cheerful of latter’s commitment of 33 - 35% reduction of emission by 2030 from 2005 levels. It may be ‘conservative’ emission reduction, but it is continuation of its Copenhagen voluntary pledge of 20-25% intensity reduction by 2020. The other major emitter - China, which submitted its INDC as ‘Enhanced Actions on Climate Change’ in June, had promised to lower its CO2 emissions by 60-65% by 2030 from the 2005 level.

• For 2015 Paris Agreement, at best a compromise declaration, India will pitch for establishing an ‘effective, cooperative and equitable global architecture based on climate justice’ and the principle of Equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities. Before the official release of the INDC, Minister of Environment and Forest and Climate Change had argued for bringing ‘life style’ debate at Paris negotiations. Although India through G-77 and China successfully prioritized ‘un-sustainable patterns of consumption and production’ in Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) adopted in 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, present national contradictions between ecological space and survival space of marginalized sections would rather backfire by questioning climate justice. India should reformulate its lifestyle argument as her northern neighboring country Bhutan has already Gross National Happiness (GNH). 

• The government has stage-managed world events tactfully to convey India’s climate action plan. During Sustainable Summit at Special Session of General Assembly in New York, Indian Prime Minister eloquently quoted Gandhi, as in INDC. For UNFCCC and international audience, the INDC, which is rationalized with Gandhian ecology, would definitely sound a bell. Nationally, successive governments have either abused or misused the spirit of ‘trusteeship’ as put forward in the INDC. Recent example is the manner in which Land Bill/Ordinances were being approved and later withdrawn.

• The impressive low carbon path, which espouses nuclear power and hydropower among other non-fossil fuels, will face a firm opposition on the ground due to its severe social and environmental consequences. To reach the potential in hydropower, India needs withdrawal of Supreme Court’s stay order on hydropower in Uttaranchal, implementing controversial Inter Basin Water Transfer (famously known as Interlinking of Rivers). Most importantly, a tussle on Brahmaputra with China to harness massive hydropower as well as recent foreign policy failure in Nepal, which is potentially a source of major hydropower for India, would be major hurdles. Similarly, nuclear power of India is completely dependent on the decision of Nuclear Supply Group (NSG), which has not given a go signal yet. Most of foreign trips of Indian PM which linked to get Uranium supply uninterrupted have not transformed into reality. Reputation of Clean coal technology of its cleanliness will continue a debating instrument in coming days too.

• Aware of being cornered during Paris negotiation, India has been working behind closed doors with few most vulnerable Island nations and Like Minded Developing Countries. Through Forum for India-Pacific Island Cooperation (FIPIC), India has reached out to most vulnerable countries on climate change which can be helpful during Paris Summit. Unlike in 2009, India has yet to forge a common SAARC statement for Paris. Among powerful BASIC group, China has already moved ahead in the group. The newly formed Vulnerable 20 (V20) had just completed a huddle in Peru devising a financial mechanism to support and sustain each other. India’s call for financial obligation for developed countries may get a support from V20 but finance transferring to India for its $2.3 trillion demand would face fractured mandate. Five SAARC countries are member of V20 which will have a tremendous role during Paris Negotiation.

• All member countries will be meeting at Bonn during October 19-23 to continue negotiation on the First Draft. India would like to rush ahead making partners to convey its reservations on the first Draft. The so-called ‘national interests’ of sovereign nations have jeopardized the effort to protect, preserve and manage ‘commons’. Fighting climate change has become victim of such parochial notions. India’s INDC may dispel its image of being an obstructionist during Paris talks, but India, like other major GHG emitters, won’t let down its national interest sooner. Thus, all eyes are set on the upcoming most crucial COP of 21st Century. 

Dr Avilash Roul, Senior Fellow at Indo-German Center for Sustainability, IIT- M, Chennai

Source: sspconline.org

All you need to know about "The Rohingya Migrant Crisis"

Introduction:

• Tens of thousands of Muslim Rohingya have fled Myanmar in the past year, many of them taking to the sea in the spring of 2015 to try to reach Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. 
• The latest surge in refugees was prompted by a long-building crisis: the discriminatory policies of the Myanmar government in Rakhine State, which have caused hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee since the late 1970s.
• Their plight has been compounded by the responses of many of Myanmar’s neighbors, which have been slow to take in the refugees for fear of a migrant influx they feel incapable of handling.

Who are the Rohingya?

• The Rohingya are an ethnic Muslim minority group living primarily in Myanmar's western Rakhine State; they practice a Sufi-inflected variation of Sunni Islam. 
• The estimated one million Rohingya in Myanmar account for nearly a third of Rakhine state's population. 
• The Rohingya differ from Myanmar’s dominant Buddhist groups ethnically, linguistically, and religiously.
• The Rohingya trace their origins in the region back to the fifteenth century when thousands of Muslims came to the former Arakan Kingdom. Many others arrived during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when Bengal and the Rakhine territory were governed by colonial rule as part of British India. 
• Since independence in 1948, successive governments in Burma, renamed Myanmar in 1989, have refuted the Rohingya's historical claims and denied the group recognition as one of the country's 135 ethnic groups. 
• The Rohingya are largely identified as illegal Bengali immigrants, despite the fact that many Rohingya have resided in Myanmar for centuries.
• Both the Myanmar government and the Rakhine state’s dominant ethnic Buddhist group, known as the Rakhine, reject the use of the label "Rohingya," a self-identifying term that surfaced in the 1950s and that experts say provides the group with a collective, political identity. 
• Though the etymological root of the word is disputed, the most widely accepted origin is that "Rohang" is a derivation of the word "Arakan" in the Rohingya dialect and the "ga" or "gya" means "from."
• By identifying as Rohingya, the ethnic Muslim group asserts its ties to land that was once under the control of the Arakan Kingdom, according to Chris Lewa, director of the Arakan Project, a Thailand-based advocacy group.

What is the legal status of the Rohingya?

• The Myanmar government refuses to grant the Rohingya citizenship status and, as a result, the vast majority of the group's members have no legal documentation, effectively making them stateless. 
• Though Myanmar's 1948 citizenship law was already exclusionary, the military junta introduced a citizenship law in 1982 whose strict provisions stripped the Rohingya of access to full citizenship. 
• Until recently, the Rohingya have been able to register as temporary residents with temporary identification cards, known as "white cards," which Myanmar's regime began issuing to many Muslims (both Rohingya and non-Rohingya) in the 1990s. 
• The white cardsconferred  some limited rights but were not recognized as proof of citizenship. Although the temporary cards held no legal value, Lewa says that the IDs did represent some minimal recognition of temporary stay for the Rohingya in Myanmar.
• In 2014 the government held a UN-backed national census—its first in thirty years. The Muslim minority group was initially permitted to self-identify as "Rohingya," but after Buddhist nationalists threatened to boycott the census, the government decided the Rohingya could only register if they identified themselves as Bengali.
• Similarly, under pressure from Buddhist nationalists protesting Rohingyas’ right to vote in a 2015 constitutional referendum, President Thein Sein cancelled the temporary ID cards in February 2015, effectively revoking their newly gained right to vote—white card holders were allowed to vote in Myanmar's 2008 constitutional referendum and 2010 general elections. "Country-wide anti-Muslim sentiment makes it politically difficult for the [central] government to take steps seen as supportive of Muslim rights," writes the International Crisis Group.
• Despite the documentation by rights groups of systematic disenfranchisement, violence, and instances of anti-Muslim campaigns, Muslim minorities continue to "consolidate under one Rohingya identity" says Lewa.

Where are they migrating?

• Many Rohingya have sought refuge in nearby Bangladesh, which hosts more than thirty-two thousand registered refugees; more than two hundred additional unregistered Rohingya refugees are believed to live in the country, according to UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates. 
• However, conditions in the most of the country’s refugee camps are dire, driving many to risk a perilous voyage in the Bay of Bengal.

What is the role of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and international actors in resolving the migration crisis?

• No unified or coordinated ASEAN response has been proposed or developed to address the deepening crisis. States in Southeast Asia also lack established legal frameworks to provide for the protection of rights for refugees.
• Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand—all ASEAN members—have yet to ratify the UN Refugee Convention and its Protocol. ASEAN itself has remained silent on the plight of the Rohingya and on the growing numbers of asylum-seekers in member countries largely because of the organization’s commitment to the fundamental principleof noninterference in the internal affairs of member-states. Lilianne Fan of the London-based Overseas Development Institute says that while ASEAN has the capacity to manage this crisis, member states lack the political will to resolve it.
• Advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch, the Arakan Project, and Fortify Rights, a Southeast Asia-based advocacy group, continue to appeal to major international players to exert pressure on Myanmar's government. Some, like New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, argue that the United States should not have normal relations with the country until its persecution of the Rohingya ends. Others, like senior advisor at the United States Institute of Peace and former U.S. mission chief in Myanmar Priscilla Clapp, say that placing sole blame on Myanmar oversimplifies and misrepresents the complexities of the country's historical ethnic diversity. "An international response that consists primarily of assigning blame for this humanitarian tragedy is no longer tenable. It is time for the international community to organize a realistic, workable solution," writes Clapp.
• To date, the United States and other global powers have urged the central government in Myanmar to do more to protect ethnic minority groups from persecution. On a visit to Myanmar in the fall 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama said, "Discrimination against a Rohingya or any other religious minority… does not express the kind of country that Burma over the long term wants to be."
• Though no coherent regional or international response to the migrant crisis has come to fruition, more pointed international pressure appears to be mounting against Myanmar's central government. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Anne Richard said in May that resettlement fails to address the plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar. "The answer to the issue is peace and stability and citizenship for the Rohingyas in Rakhine State, and that is the solution."

Future: apprehensions and hope

• The Rohingyas have also tried to overcome their hardships by establishing rudimentary schools; by helping one another find work; and by joining organizations that provide services, advice and a sense of solidarity. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said it was supporting 31 “learning centers” across Malaysia for Rohingya children. Other schools operate without United Nations support. It is only seldom that the Rohingyas use their communal solidarity as a form of security for themselves.
• Bangladesh has offered to relocate the 32,000 registered refugees to an inhabited island called Thengar Char, two hours away from the mainland. Not only is such a large scale move logistically impractical, but also the island disappears under floodwater for a few good months during the monsoon and is visited by pirates. Their ‘home country’ Myanmar has banned the community from fleeing, but refuses to address the problem. Pakistan’s permanent representative at the UN has suggested for the cause to be taken up to the UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon, and that the recent resolution adopted on Rohingya Muslims at a Ministerial meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) be sent to the President of the Security Council. Malaysia and Indonesia have agreed to provide temporary asylum to 7000 migrants. Fate of thousands of the beleaguered community remains dark as they flee from one country to another in search of a basic need: an identity.

Source: sspconline.org, wiki

[Economy] The building of the BRICS bank

India named veteran banker K.V. Kamath to be the first President of the New Development Bank, popular as the BRICS bank. The focus of this bank will be to invest in infrastructure. Mr. Kamath, 67, is a veteran banker, who was credited with developing ICICI Bank into India’s second-largest lender. He headed the bank for 13 years until 2009 and is now its Non-Executive Chairman. He is also Non-Executive Chairman of India’s second-biggest software services exporter Infosys.

What is BRICS?

• In 2001, the then Goldman Sachs Group economist Jim O’Neill coined the term BRIC to describe the growing prominence of Brazil, Russia, India and China in the global economy. Not yet considered developed countries, the four were grouped together for being at the same stage of economic development.

• BRIC country leaders started meeting as a bloc in 2009. South Africa joined them later, though there was some scepticism that as a country of less than 50 million people it is too small to join the group. So, BRIC is now BRICS.

What is BRICS bank?

• It is how the New Development Bank is better known as. Last July, the BRICS countries agreed to set up a development bank, whose purpose, according to its articles, is to “mobilise resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects” not just in BRICS countries but also in other emerging economies. It seeks to do so by supporting public and private projects through loans, guarantees and equity.

But doesn’t the world already have enough institutions to do that — the IMF/World Bank, for instance?

• True. It’s clear their presence hasn’t been ignored in the creation of the New Development Bank. The articles of the bank do say that its creation is to complement “the existing efforts or multilateral and regional financial institutions.” But, in a sense, the BRICS bank was born because the countries that represent this have long realised they need an alternative system to IMF/World Bank, one in which they have greater say.

How will the New Development Bank be different?

• So, BRICS account for about 40 per cent of the world’s population and a combined economy of about $16 trillion. Although they account for over one-fifth of the global economy, together they garner only 11 per cent of votes at IMF. On the other hand, developed countries such as the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K. and France hold 40 per cent of the voting power. In the BRICS bank, the founding members have equal voting rights.

Is there more to its founding?

• Definitely! Hongying Wang, senior fellow at global think-tank Centre for International Governance Innovation, reckons dissatisfaction toward traditional multilateral financial institutions to be just one of the three reasons.

• One of the other reasons is that the creation of a joint development bank is a milestone in the evolution of the BRICS. That is, it turns the informal co-operation among those countries into a concrete institution. Finally, the bank seeks to fill the enormous hole that exists in infrastructure financing in many developing countries.

• The last point assumes significance because the traditional development banks have reduced funding for infrastructure in recent decades while private investors have been reluctant to take on long-term projects of this kind. The infrastructure financing deficit in developing countries is estimated to be $1 trillion annually. BRICS countries, especially China, have accumulated financial resources that enable them to fill the gap to some degree.

How will the bank be structured and run?

• The bank will begin with a subscribed capital of $50 billion, divided equally between its five founders, with an initial total of $10 billion put in cash over the next seven years and $40 billion in guarantees.

• The group has also agreed to a $100 billion currency exchange reserve, which member-countries can tap during balance of payment problems. China, the biggest foreign exchange reserve-holder amongst them, will contribute the major portion of the currency pool. Brazil, India and Russia will contribute $18 billion each while South Africa will chip in with $5 billion.

• In a crisis, China will be eligible to ask for half its contribution, South Africa for double its contribution while the others can get back what they put in.

• The bank will be based in Shanghai. After a five-year term at the helm by an Indian, the President’s post would by turn go to a Brazilian and then to a Russian.

• The bank can add more members. Media reports suggest Russia has invited Greece, which has a huge economic battle on its hands, to be a member. Even if more members are added, the capital share of BRICS can’t drop below 55 per cent.

How does the bank’s creation play out for each of its member-countries?

• Hongying Wang says, for China, this is an opportunity to export its infrastructure over-capacity. China can reduce its mammoth reserves and improve financial returns on its external assets while at the same time learn to play a leading role among the developing countries. For India and South Africa, this promises to be a welcome source of much-needed infrastructure financing. For Russia, the benefit at the moment is largely seen to be political, given that the country has been isolated in the international arena over the Ukraine issue. For Brazil, the new development bank could bring financing for its oil exploration projects.

What would be the challenges?

• Raj M. Desai, Non-resident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings, says the main challenges will be in setting up and operating a bank in which shares are equally divided among countries that do not have much in common, apart from their distrust of the current global governance system.

• Hongying Wang has a similar view. The differences are many, as amplified by their political systems (example: China and Russia v. India, Brazil and South Africa), economic interests (example: commodity exporters v. importers), and enormous power discrepancies (China’s economy, trade, and foreign reserves being much larger than the rest combined).

• Dr. Pallavi Roy, who teaches at the University of London, points out that one of the threats could, interestingly, be another development bank incubated by China. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), backed by China, has more capital and members than the BRICS Bank.

Can the BRICS bank take on IMF, World Bank?

• Brookings’ Desai points out that the capital base of the World Bank and the ADB combined is about $400 billion, so it would take the participation of several other middle-income countries for the BRICS bank to be able to compete with those institutions.

• But the contingency reserve account also proposed as part of the BRICS effort may provide an alternative source of stabilisation support. In this, it could potentially compete with the IMF, which has had very few takers from BRICS economies on this front in recent years.

By: Sanjay Vijayakumar

Source: The Hindu

[Part 2] Useful Image Collection of 2015

Part 1 Link: Click Here

15. Black Money Bill

16. India and China

17. In India Tourism Friendly?

18. Outcomes of Recent Budget Session

19. Child Labour Law

20. India and China the states of play

21. One 'Great Quake' in year, and it hasn't Come yet

22. PM visit China

23. Eye on China

24. RBI plans retail push in T-Bill

25. Creativity is an integral part of everone's life

26. Asia Voice will be stronger in India and China speak in ONE voice

27. Who vs who in Yemen

28. In the Name of Ganga

29. Meaning oney Bill

30. Constitution Amendment

Source: Wiki, Indian Express, The Hindu,BT & Our Teamwork

PM Modi on Three Day Visit to China: In Detail

Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited China this week to build friendship between the two Asian giants despite a long history of disputes and rivalries, along with some areas of cooperation, especially in the economic sphere.

PM Narendra Modi "believes" that his three-day visit to China will deepen bilateral ties and create a milestone for the relations between developing countries in Asia and around the world.

DAY 1

PM Modi’s first leg of his high-octane China visit in Xian promised a rich harvest of positive optics as Chinese President Xi Jinping went on record as saying that Modi was the first foreign leader whom he had received in his home province Xian. Mr. Modi has been given a traditional welcoming ceremony. It came as a reciprocation of sorts since Xi himself had begun his maiden India trip eight months ago in Ahmedabad, in Modi’s native state Gujarat.

"You received me very warmly in your hometown. I am very glad to receive you in my hometown," Xi told Modi in Chinese. Modi, in Hindi, responded, "This is an honour to 125 crore Indians whom I am representing as Prime Minister."

After their meeting, Xi Jinping accompanied Modi to several ancient sites in Xi'an. He also hosted a banquet for him in a building on the ancient city wall.

DAY 2

On the Day 2 of Modi's visit, India and China signed a record 24 agreements in key sectors, including in railways and education.

Protocol for setting up Consulates-General at Chengdu and Chennai besides an MoU on consultative mechanism for cooperation in trade negotiations were among the 24 agreements signed in the presence of Modi and his Chinese counterpart Li Keqiang. An action plan between the Indian Railways and China National Railways on enhancing cooperation in the railway sector was also signed.

Here's the complete list:

• Protocols between India and China on the establishment of consulates-general at Chengdu and Chennai and the extension of the consular district of the consulate general of India in Guanzhou to include Jiangxi province.

• MoU between the ministry of skill development and entrepreneurship of India and the ministry of human resources and social security of China on cooperation in the field of vocational education and skill development.

• Action plan on cooperation in setting up of the Mahatma Gandhi National Institute for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship in Ahmedabad/Gandhinagar in Gujarat.

• MoU between India and China on consultative mechanism for cooperation in trade negotiations.

• MoU on cooperation between the ministry of external affairs of India and international department of the central committee of the Communist Party of China.

• Action plan between the National Railway Administration of China and the ministry of railways of India on enhancing cooperation in the railway sector. (2015-16).

• MoU on education exchange programme.

• MoU between the ministry of mines of India and the ministry of land and resources of China on the cooperation in the mining and minerals sector.

• Space Cooperation Outline (2015-2020).

• Protocol on health and safety regulations on importing Indian rapeseed meal between the export inspection council, ministry of commerce and industry of India and the general administration of quality supervision, inspection and quarantine.

• MoU between Doordarshan and China Central Television on cooperation in the field of broadcasting.

• Agreement between the ministry of tourism of India and the national tourism administration of China on cooperation in the field of tourism.

• MoU on establishing India-China think-tanks forum.

• MoU between India's Niti Aayog and the Development Research Centre, State Council of China.

• MoU between India's ministry of earth sciences and the China Earthquake Administration concerning cooperation in the field of earthquake science and earthquake engineering.

• MoU between India's ministry of earth sciences and the State Oceanic Administration of China on cooperation in the field of ocean science, ocean technology, climate change, polar science and cryosphere.

• MoU on scientific cooperation between Geological Survey of India, ministry of mines of India and the China Geological Survey, ministry of land and resources of China in geoscience.

• MoU between the ministry of external affairs of India and ministry of foreign affairs of China on establishment of states/provincial leaders' forum.

• Agreement on the establishment of sister-state/province relations between state government of Karnataka and provincial government of Sichuan of China.

• Agreement on establishment of sister-city relations between Chennai and Chongqing of China.

• Agreement on establishment of sister-city relations between Hyderabad and Qingdao of China.

• Agreement on establishment of sister-city relations between Aurangabad and Dunhuang of China.

• MoU between the Indian Council for Cultural Relations and Fudan University on the establishment of a centre for Gandhian and Indian studies.

• MoU between Indian Council for Cultural Relations and Yunnan Minzu University on the establishment of a yoga college.

DAY 3

On the third day of his visit to China, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met CEOs of top Chinese companies in Shanghai. Taking ties to a new level, 21 Memorandum of Understandings were signed between Indian and Chinese companies.

Modi who interacted with CEOs of 22 companies, invited them to participate in his 'Make in India' campaign and listed the 5F formula. He said, "I have come to say to you Make in India. The 5F Formula - From Farm to Fibre to Fabric to Fashion to Foreign! India and China can together give something to the world."

In a major takeaway, Bharti enterprises and IL&FS signed deals worth $2.5 billion and $3 billion respectively.

"In the three days that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been in China, he has announced a slew of bilateral agreements — ranging from finding a political solution to the border issue, to strengthening cultural ties. We hope that this visit to one of the most powerful country in the world will be fruitful in both political and friendly manner."

[Q&A] Most of the countries have a shared navigational system, then why is India developing its own when it can collaborate with the US or EU or Russia? Also, since the IRNSS is capable of covering South Asian region only, how much strategic advantage and autonomy will it give to India when compared with navigational systems of the US, EU, Russia and China?

Abhijit Singh Replies[Maritime Issues, Littoral Security]: 

• To begin, it is important to point out that a satellite navigational system is an onerous enterprise that takes enormous capital and technological investment - not to mention years of research and experimentation - to fully operationalise. The high investment needed is one reason why countries favour developing navigation systems on a shared basis, so that the labour and costs involved can be distributed among the various partner. 

• In practice, the side that seeks the greatest strategic and security gains develops the navigational system at huge costs and then offers it to other partners as a facility for ‘subscription’. The rest simply sign up, knowing fully well that they benefit from it but still remain at the mercy of the dominant power that retains control over vital components of the navigational system.

• A case in point is China’s indigenous satellite navigation system known as Beidou. To make the project a viable enterprise, Beijing has got many Southeast Asian countries to sign up for it. However, questions are being raised on whether it will be able to attract a large enough clientele to make the system a viable proposition. On the other hand, the act of signing up to the Beidou by regional states is being construed in some quarters as a strategic concession to China. Beijing, meanwhile, is constrained by the fact that despite putting 16 navigation and four experimental satellites into space, the project's coverage is still limited to Southeast Asia. For a global cover, the system needs an additional 40 satellites in orbit and another round of huge capital investment.

• In effect, all sea-going nations have a choice – to either develop their own navigational system or join an existing facility, in which case they remain mere consumers. India could, in theory, develop a navigational system in collaboration with the US or EU or even Russia, but can be almost certain that vital systems will remain under the practical control and authority of the bigger partner (as we have seen in the case of co-development of other technologies in recent years). Unfortunately, if an aspiring state chooses to go alone, it rarely has the investment capability or the technological wherewithal to develop a global facility.

• The Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS) with a constellation of seven satellites and a coverage limited to the Indian subcontinent and South Asia is what India can presently afford, given that New Delhi does not want to be dependent on a foreign power when it comes to military navigation. Apart from the many civil and commercial benefits that accrue from the system, there is no denying the sense of greater autonomy and control over an essential strategic asset.

Source: idsa.in

[Part 1] Useful Image Collection of 2015

1. PBD (9th January 2015):Major Concentrations of Indian Dispora around the World:

2. National Girl Child Day (24 January 2015):

3. Obama's India visit Some of the key demands from each side:

4. Millennium Development Goals:

5. Rail Budget:

6. Economic Survey 2013-2014

7. The National Judicial Appointments Commission in other Countries:

8. Kyasanur Forest Disease:

9. Earthquake: India Map of Seismiczone

Earthquake Scale

10. 304 Section Apply in Salman case:

11. UK Elections:

12. About larks:

13. Siachin Glacier:

14. New 3 Schemes:

Source: The Hindu,Wiki,ET,AIR,Teamwork

Tiny dinosaur fossil discovered in China

Sheds new light on the evolution of flight

• The fossil of a bizarre pigeon-sized dinosaur that had bat-like wings made of skin rather than feathers has been identified in China, shedding new light on the evolution of flight.

• The dinosaur — named Yi qi — the shortest name ever given to a dino, which means “strange wing.”

• At 160-million-years old, the dinosaur is older than the first known birds, such as Archaeopteryx. It also appears to be the earliest known flying non-avian dinosaur.

Unexpected discovery:

• “This is the most unexpected discovery I have ever made, even though I have found a few really bizarre dinosaurs in my career,” paleontologist Xu Xing of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in Beijing said.

• “It demonstrates how extreme the experimentation for dinosaurs to get in air is,” said Xu, the lead author of the study.

• Researchers unearthed the remains for Yi qi at Hebei Province in China, Discovery Newsreported.

• The rod-like bones that extended from each wrist of the tiny dinosaur and weighed about the same as a modern pigeon puzzled the scientists.

• Their real purpose was determined by co-author Corwin Sullivan, a Canadian paleontologist now based at the IVPP, after he pored over scientific literature on flying and gliding animals.

• Further investigation of Yi qi’s remains uncovered. While the dinosaur did have feathers, they were more like hairs, bristles or streamers, and would not have been capable of forming good aerodynamic surfaces, Sullivan said.

• “Yi qi was mainly gliding, perhaps in combination with a bit of awkward flapping,” he added.

• Researchers believe Yi qi was a scansoriopterygid, referring to a group of dinosaurs only known from China that were closely related to primitive birds.

• The finding was published in the journal Nature .

Yi qi appears to be the earliest known flying non-avian dinosaur

Source: The Hindu

[Opinion/Analysis] Rafale and Indian Art of Defence Purchases

• The decision to buy 36 Rafale fighters exposes the complexinstitutional mechanisms in defence procurement.

• Three broad conclusions were immediately drawn by strategic analysts, when the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his recent three nation tour (including France), asked the French President to consider supplying 36 Rafale fighters through government-to-government (G-to-G) route to India. First, such a decision was surprisingly puzzling because a larger 126 MMRCA tender process is still underway in technical terms, in which Rafale is the L1 (lowest bidder, technically-qualified). Second, a G-to-G supply will negatively impact the much publicized ‘Make in India’ effort as neither offsets obligations nor transfer of technology would be binding in this new deal. And third, such G-to-G contracts, more of which are likely in near future as stated by the Indian Defence Minister in response to the Rafale decision, would probably be a preferred choice for strategic systems purchases.

• In sum, the decision, as argued by many experts, appears to be ill-timed, ill-advised and certainly ill-calculated. On the contrary, some analysts and industry watchers have argued that the announcement connotes decisiveness at the politico-bureaucratic executive level and it may not jeopardize the larger ‘indigenization’ effort as it is just another one-off deal.

• There are some merits in both arguments, although critics appear to outnumber defenders in this case. It is not my intention to question the wisdom of either the government or commentators. As a student of strategic affairs, I am supposed to relate fundamentals of defence purchases to the deal in question and place reasonable assumptions for further debate and consideration. I advance a set of three pointers: a) the G-to-G Rafale purchase decision appears to be a decisive politico-bureaucratic choice with objective and strategic considerations; b) the decision may negatively impact ‘indigenization’ efforts in the short run, only if future big-ticket items follow competitive bidding routes; and c) the decision exposes institutional weaknesses in defence procurement processes.

• First, absence of transparency in defence procurement often leads to surprise announcements that often times embeds political considerations. Examples exist where recipients have reserved, reversed or taken altogether new decisions in arms procurements. Rafale’s exports history stands as a testimony to fluctuating decisions by buyers / potential buyers like Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Malaysia, Brazil, Singapore and others. The fundamental principle of arms trade is that the supplier is always at the mercy of the recipient – hence employment of lobbies or well-timed visits of high profile political leaders to recipient countries during times of negotiations. Because arms purchase decisions are more politico-bureaucratic than economic or technology driven, specific deals will invariably have broader political considerations by the recipient. Seen from this prism, the decision on Rafale by India appears to be politico-bureaucratic driven – both objectively as well as strategically. Objective considerations would necessitate a decision on a long pending complex deal (126 MMRCA) that has gone nowhere, thus impinging negatively on the modernization process of the IAF. This required resolute political decision, which incidentally was linked to the Prime Minister’s visit to France. Strategically, the decision is intertwined with the larger Indo-French bilateral relations where spin off benefits could come from other sectors like civil nuclear cooperation and technology driven business domains. Interestingly, larger strategic interest convergences between India and France was one of the major factors in the 126 MMRCA selection process as well. In any case, the Indian Defence Procurement Procedure (hereafter, DPP) has provisions for such decisions under ‘fast track procedure’ and ‘strategic considerations’ whereby a particular deal can bypass DPP.

• Second, although details of the new 36 Rafale purchase are yet to emerge, one can reasonably argue that the deal in all certainty will neither have ‘offsets’ or technology transfer obligations. This has prompted many to argue that G-to-G deals will negatively impact the ‘make in India’ efforts in defence production. This is true for the 36 Rafale sale only. If more big ticket items in future follow the same G-to-G procurement route, then it will definitely bring in much disappointment for the Indian industry as there would be less indigenization efforts because of lack of orders and incentives. The Defence Minister’s recent statement that ‘G-to-G route is better than competitive route’ or ‘more strategic choices would be considered through G-to-G route’ needs to be examined closely. He is merely stating a fact on the former, which may or may not necessarily conform to all elements of DPP. It is not clear as to what he actually intends to state in the latter observation. If his intent is to buy only strategic systems through G-to-G route, then it is fine. Most analysts do not realize that this is embedded in the ‘strategic considerations’ and ‘buy global’ sections of DPP. India can waive L1 and even bypass normal procedural routes, if it feels that acquisition of a particular system could benefit it in strategic terms. In this case, a particular choice becomes subjective. ‘Buy Global’ choice permits the decision makers to opt for a system or technology, which are not available within India. Rafale may fall into the category of ‘strategic considerations’, but it is certainly not a ‘buy global’ choice. It can be argued that Rafale deal may jolt the aspirations of Indian industry for the short term, but if such decisions are avoided in future and more and more defence contracts go through competitive bidding process, then defence indigenization and industrialization process can bounce back from the current position. This requires careful planning and resolute political decision.

• Last but most important, the new Rafale choice has dealt a severe blow to the on-going 126 MMRCA tender process in many ways – not only has it exposed the inherent procedural weaknesses in the DPP but more importantly put a question mark on the negotiating capabilities of the Indian side. Political indecisiveness is also evident in the whole process. Consider these: a) the 126 MMRCA was conceived after much deliberations during the end of the then NDA tenure in 2004 (which actually means that the necessity must have been contemplated at least since the late 1990s); b) it took the UPA government more than 3 years to issue RFI (request for information); the vendors sought more than normal time allotted to respond to the RFP (request for proposal) by late 2009; the stage from RFP to culmination of technical evaluation (tests in high altitude, desert and plain conditions by six competing vendors) took nearly 3 years (2012); the commercial (including offsets, ToT, life cycle costs and others) negotiations have already taken more than 3 years with no definitive results in sight as of today! If this is not enough, three more committees have been added to the existing half a dozen multi-disciplinary committees to evaluate elements of DPP, constitution and inclusion of which have been taken up during the so-called review and refinement process of DPP (DPP has been revised ten times in a span of 13 years since 2002, with one more revision coming any time by the end of this year). With no clarity on offsets, ToT, life cycle costs and contract negotiation processes, contained within RFP issued to the vendors, and all such provisions subject to negotiations, the ultimate scenario is: the vendors and their negotiators are as clueless as their counterparts from the Indian side (the MoD mandarin and representatives of the end-user IAF). It is not for nothing that the 126 MMRCA process has led to further confusion and thus forced the decision makers to opt for an altogether new decision.

• At the heart of the problem lies a vaguely worded, often overlapping, relatively unclear and horrendously lengthy procedural arrangement called DPP. 36 Rafale decision would not have happened if DPP had addressed procedural complexities.

Written by: DEBA RANJAN MOHANTY
Source: sspconline.org

All you need to know about Earthquakes (Nepal Updates)

For Recent Nepal Earthquake Updates [Part 1-26/04]: Click Here
For Recent Nepal Earthquake Updates [Part 2-12/05]: Click Here

What is an earthquake?

• An earthquake is what happens when two blocks of the earth suddenly slip past one another. The surface where they slip is called the fault or fault plane. 

• The location below the earth’s surface where the earthquake starts is called the hypocenter, and the location directly above it on the surface of the earth is called the epicenter.

• Sometimes an earthquake has foreshocks. These are smaller earthquakes that happen in the same place as the larger earthquake that follows. Scientists can’t tell that an earthquake is a foreshock until the larger earthquake happens.

• The largest, main earthquake is called the mainshock. Mainshocks always have after shocks that follow. These are smaller earthquakes that occur afterwards in the same place as the mainshock. Depending on the size of the mainshock, aftershocks can continue for weeks, months, and even years after the mainshock!

What causes earthquakes and where do they happen?

• The earth has four major layers: the inner core, outer core, mantle and crust. 

• The crust (Fig.2) and the top of the mantle make up a thin skin on the surface of our planet. But this skin is not all in one piece – it is made up of many pieces like a puzzle covering the surface of the earth. 

• Not only that ((Fig. 3) ), but these puzzle pieces keep slowly moving around, sliding past one another and bumping into each other. We call these puzzle piecestectonic plates, and the edges of the plates are called the plate boundaries.

• The plate boundaries are made up of many faults, and most of the earthquakes around the world occur on these faults. Since the edges of the plates are rough, they get stuck while the rest of the plate keeps moving.

• Finally, when the plate has moved far enough, the edges unstick on one of the faults and there is an earthquake.

Why does the earth shake when there is an earthquake?

• While the edges of faults are stuck together, and the rest of the block is moving, the energy that would normally cause the blocks to slide past one another is being stored up.

• When the force of the moving blocks finally overcomes the friction of the jagged edges of the fault and it unsticks, all that stored up energy is released.

• The energy radiates outward from the fault in all directions in the form of seismic waves like ripples on a pond. The seismic waves shake the earth as they move through it, and when the waves reach the earth’s surface, they shake the ground and anything on it, like our houses and us! (see P&S Wave inset)

How are earthquakes recorded?

• Earthquakes are recorded by instruments called seismographs. The recording they make is called a seismogram.

• The seismograph (Fig. 4) has a base that sets firmly in the ground, and a heavy weight that hangs free. When an earthquake causes the ground to shake, the base of the seismograph shakes too, but the hanging weight does not. Instead the spring or string that it is hanging from absorbs all the movement. The difference in position between the shaking part of the seismograph and the motionless part is what is recorded.

How do scientists measure the size of earthquakes?

The size of an earthquake depends on the size of the fault and the amount of slip on the fault, but that’s not something scientists can simply measure with a measuring tape since faults are many kilometers deep beneath the earth’s surface.

So how do they measure an earthquake?

• They use the seismogram recordings made on the seismographs at the surface of the earth to determine how large the earthquake was (Fig. 5).

• A short wiggly line that doesn’t wiggle very much means a small earthquake, and a long wiggly line that wiggles a lot means a large earthquake. The length of the wiggle depends on the size of the fault, and the size of the wiggle depends on the amount of slip.

The size of the earthquake is called its magnitude. There is one magnitude for each earthquake. Scientists also talk about the intensity of shaking from an earthquake, and this varies depending on where you are during the earthquake.

How can scientists tell where the earthquake happened?

(For more about P waves and S waves: Click Here)

• Seismograms come in handy for locating earthquakes too, and being able to see the P wave and the S wave is important. You learned how P & S waves each shake the ground in different ways as they travel through it.

• P waves are also faster than S waves, and this fact is what allows us to tell where an earthquake was.

• To understand how this works, let’s compare P and S waves to lightning and thunder. Light travels faster than sound, so during a thunderstorm you will first see the lightning and then you will hear the thunder. If you are close to the lightning, the thunder will boom right after the lightning, but if you are far away from the lightning, you can count several seconds before you hear the thunder. The further you are from the storm, the longer it will take between the lightning and the thunder.

• P waves are like the lightning, and S waves are like the thunder. The P waves travel faster and shake the ground where you are first. Then the S waves follow and shake the ground also. If you are close to the earthquake, the P and S wave will come one right after the other, but if you are far away, there will be more time between the two. By looking at the amount of time between the P and S wave on a seismogram recorded on a seismograph, scientists can tell how far away the earthquake was from that location. However, they can’t tell in what direction from the seismograph the earthquake was, only how far away it was. If they draw a circle on a map around the station where the radius of the circle is the determined distance to the earthquake, they know the earthquake lies somewhere on the circle. But where?

• Scientists then use a method called triangulation to determine exactly where the earthquake was (Fig. 6). It is called triangulation because a triangle has three sides, and it takes three seismographs to locate an earthquake. 

• If you draw a circle on a map around three different seismographs where the radius of each is the distance from that station to the earthquake, the intersection of those three circles is the epicenter!

How are quakes classified?

Based on their magnitude, quakes are assigned to a class. An increase in one number, say from 5.5 to 6.5, means that a quake's magnitude is 10 times as great. The classes are as follows:

• Great: Magnitude is greater than or equal to 8.0. A magnitude-8.0 earthquake is capable of tremendous damage.
• Major: Magnitude in the rage of 7.0 to 7.9. A magnitude-7.0 earthquake is a major earthquake that is capable of widespread, heavy damage.
• Strong: Magnitude in the rage of 6.0 to 6.9. A magnitude-6.0 quake can cause severe damage.
• Moderate: Magnitude in the rage of 5.0 to 5.9. A magnitude-5.0 quake can cause considerable damage.
• Light: Magnitude in the rage of 4.0 to 4.9. A magnitude-4.0 quake is capable of moderate damage.
• Minor: Magnitude in the rage of 3.0 to 3.9.
• Micro: Magnitude less than-3.0. Quakes between 2.5 and 3.0 are the smallest generally felt by people.

After an earthquake strikes, its magnitude is continuously revised as time passes and more stations report their seismic readings. Several days can pass before a final number is agreed upon.

What are the seismic zones of India?

• The Geological Survey of India (GSI.) first published the seismic zoning map of the country in the year 1935.

• With numerous modifications made afterwards, this map was initially based on the amount of damage suffered by the different regions of India because of earthquakes.

• Color coded in different shades of the color red, this map shows the four distinct seismic zones of India. Following are the varied seismic zones of the nation, which are prominently shown in the map:

Zone - II: This is said to be the least active seismic zone
Zone - III: It is included in the moderate seismic zone
Zone - IV: This is considered to be the high seismic zone
Zone - V: It is the highest seismic zone

Can scientists predict earthquakes?

• No, and it is unlikely they will ever be able to predict them. Scientists have tried many different ways of predicting earthquakes, but none have been successful. On any particular fault, scientists know there will be another earthquake sometime in the future, but they have no way of telling when it will happen.

• First, a statistical study of historical earthquakes in a given region shows how frequent quakes of various magnitudes have been in the past. From those figures, they can guess how likely future quakes will be. For example, if a certain region has been struck by four magnitude 7 quakes in the last 200 years, seismologists would say there is a 50 per cent probability of another such quake occurring in the next 50 years.

• Seismologists can also measure how much stress a certain region of the earth's crust is under, and how quickly that stress is increasing. That knowledge, along with the elapsed time since the last earthquake, helps scientists determine if another earthquake is on the way. This method is far from perfect, though, and requires extremely detailed seismological data, which simply isn't available for most regions.

Is there such a thing as earthquake weather? Can some animals or people tell when an earthquake is about to hit?

• These are two questions that do not yet have definite answers. If weather does affect earthquake occurrence, or if some animals or people can tell when an earthquake is coming, we do not yet understand how it works.

Major Earthquakes (1976-2015 Till now dates):

Date	Location	Magnitude	Estimated number of deaths
April 25,  2015	Nepal (Easten Pokhara & Kathmandu)	7.9	1600+
April 16,  2013	Iran	7.7	40
Sept. 5, 2012	Costa Rica	7.9	Tsunami alert
Aug. 31, 2012	Philippines	7.6	1
Aug. 11, 2012	Northwestern Iran	6.4 and 6.3	306
April 11,  2012	Indian Ocean	8.6	Tsunami alert issued, no major damage
Oct. 23, 2011	Turkey	7.2	603
April 7, 2011	Japan	7.1	3
March 11,  2011	Japan	9.0	Approx. 16,000 (9,000 missing)
Feb. 27, 2010	Chile	8.8	At least 700
Jan. 13, 2010	Haiti	7.0	85,000 to 316,000 (gov't estimate)
Sept. 30, 2009	Near Padang, Indonesia	7.6	1,110
April 6, 2009	Near L'Aquila, Italy	6.3	283
May 12, 2008	Sichuan province, southwest China	7.8	More than 80,000
May 27, 2006	Java, Indonesia	6.3	5,135
Oct. 8, 2005	Pakistan-administered Kashmir	7.6	80,000
March 29,  2005	Indonesia	8.7	1,000
Dec. 26, 2004	Off the coast of Indonesia	9.0	230,000 (includes tsunami victims)
Dec. 26, 2003	Bam, Iran	6.6	26,271
Jan 26, 2001	Gujarat, India	7.7	20,000
June 21, 1990	Iran	7.7	35,000
Dec. 7, 1988	Armenia	6.9	At least 25,000
Sept. 19,  1985	Mexico	8.1	9,500
Sept. 16,  1978	Iran	7.5 to 7.9	15,000
July 28, 1976	China	7.8 to 8.2	242,000
Feb. 4, 1976	Guatemala	7.5	At least 23,000

U also like to see Earthquake Science Explained by USGS: Click Here

Source: usgs.gov, wikipedia.org