10 August 2022

DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS ANALYSIS

1 – G 20: GS II – Topic International Relations

About the G20:

• Leaders from the nations with the biggest and fastest-growing economies gather annually for the G20 summit.
• Two-thirds of the world’s population and 85% of its GDP are comprised of its members.
• The “Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy” is the official name of the G20 Summit.

Its applicability in modern times:

• The recent G20 summits have focused not only on macroeconomics and trade but also on a wide range of global issues that have a significant impact on the global economy, such as development, climate change and energy, health, counterterrorism, as well as migration, and refugees. As globalization advances and various issues become more intricately intertwined, these recent summits have become more and more important.
• Through its efforts to address these international problems, the G20 has aimed to actualize a just and sustainable world.

Establishment:

• The G7 finance ministers agreed to launch the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors conference in 1999 as a result of the recognition that significant developing market nations must participate in discussions on the global financial system following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997–1998.

Presidency:

• Since the G20 lacks a permanent staff, a country from a rotating zone assumes the leadership each year in December.
• The following summit and any subsequent smaller gatherings must be planned by that nation for the following year.
• They may also decide to invite other nations as guests.
• In 1999, following an East Asian financial crisis that had a global impact, the first G20 summit was held in Berlin.

Full membership in the G20:

• Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and the European Union are among the countries that are represented in this list.

Source The Indian Express

2 – PESA Act: GS II – Government Policies and Interventions

About the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act of 1996:

• The 73rd constitutional amendment was passed in 1992 with the goal of encouraging local self-governance in rural India.
• A three-tiered Panchayati Raj Institution has turned into legislation thanks to this change.
• However, under Article 243(M), its application to the scheduled and tribal territories was limited.
• The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act of 1996 was created in response to the Bhuria Committee’s 1995 recommendations in order to guarantee tribal self-rule for those residing in India’s scheduled areas.
• While the state legislature has given a consultative role to ensure the smooth operation of Panchayats and Gram Sabhas, the PESA granted the Gram Sabha entire power.
• There will always be independence and no higher level can limit the authority granted to the Gram Sabha.
• The PESA is regarded as the foundation of tribal law in India.
• PESA supports the people’s self-governance and acknowledges the traditional system of decision-making.

The Gram Sabhas have been given the following authority and duties:

• Right to required consultation while purchasing land, relocating, or helping displaced people.
• protection of tribal communities’ culture and traditional beliefs
• possession of small-scale forest products
• The settlement of local problems
• Preventing the alienation of land
• Control over village marketplaces
• The right to regulate liquor production, distillation, and prohibition
• Control over money-lending exercise

PESA Act-Related Issues:

• According to this federal statute, the state governments are required to create state laws for their Scheduled Areas.
• As a result, the PESA has only been partially implemented.
• Self-governance in Adivasi areas, such as in Jharkhand, has gotten worse as a result of the incomplete implementation.
• Numerous analysts have said that PESA failed to deliver as a result of ambiguity, legislative flaws, bureaucratic indifference, a lack of political will, reluctance to change in the power structure, and other factors.
• Social audits carried out all over the state have also revealed that distinct development plans were in fact only being authorized by Gram Sabha on paper, without any genuine meetings for discussion and decision-making.

Case Study: Jharkhand’s Tribal Governance System:

• In 2000, Jharkhand was separated from the Southern region of Bihar to become India’s 28th state.
• Geographically and socially, this region of Bihar differed noticeably from the northern region.
• There are 32 distinct tribes there, including nine particularly vulnerable tribes (PVTG).
• Santhal (34%), Oraon (19.6%), Munda (14.8%), and Ho (10.5%) are among the largest tribes in terms of population, according to Census 2001.
• Major tribal communities in the state organized the entire social structure into three functional levels.
• The first one takes place at the village level, the second at the level of a group of five or six villages, and the third at the level of the community.
• Despite the fact that women were typically excluded from these decision-making processes, they were nonetheless seen as democratic and people-centric.
• In contrast to the caste system, they established a nonhierarchical structure of government. A village council served as the fundamental body for self-government in each tribal hamlet.
• All decisions pertaining to administration, the Parliament, and the judiciary used to be made in these venues.
• Administrative issues included labour sharing, agricultural activities, religious celebrations and festivities, and upkeep of village commons (including farms, forests, and water bodies).
• The parliamentary issues concerned protecting and interpreting customs, traditions, and unwritten laws.
• The judiciary handled cases involving conflict resolution, disciplinary measures, and other issues while abiding by unspoken rules and principles.
• System Collapse Over Time: These Adivasi traditional governance systems weakened following the adoption of the Bihar Panchayat Raj System (BPRS) in 1947.
• BPRS was created with consideration for non-Adivasi areas.
• As a result, the traditional governance system’s operation suffered from a lack of priority and neglect.
• Industrialization, the eviction of Adivasis, and urbanization all made this situation worse.

Steps to Take Ahead:

• If PESA is carried out in letter and spirit, it will revive the tribal region’s ailing self-governance system.
• Additionally, this will present a chance to fix the existing governance system’s flaws and transform it into a more democratic and gender-inclusive framework.

Source The Indian Express

3 – Israel Palestine Dispute: GS II – International Relations

Israel-Palestine Conflict:

• It is connected to the long-running conflict over territory and identity, which began with Jerusalem.
• The Israelis took the western half of the city in the 1948 First Arab-Israeli War while Jordan took the eastern portion, which Israel later took and annexed.
• Israel has since increased the size of its East Jerusalem settlements.
• East Jerusalem is where the Palestinians want their future state to be headquartered.
• While the Palestinian leadership is unwilling to make any concessions until East Jerusalem is acknowledged as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Israel views the entire city as its “unified, eternal capital.”
• In east Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, the Palestinians risk being forced out. The Jewish settlers will receive their land.
• Furthermore, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was recently bombed by the Israeli military before a march by Zionist nationalists.
• After Mecca and Medina, the Al Aqsa Mosque is considered to be Islam’s third holiest site.
• Radicalism started to advocate for defending the Al Aqsa Mosque as a result of the fear it instilled in its adherents across the region.
• A judgment to evict four Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah in favour of Jewish settlers was also affirmed by the Central Court in East Jerusalem earlier this year (2021).
• The problem is still open and has the potential to flare up.
• Since the Palestinians fired rockets in 2014 and Israel responded with airstrikes, the current violent outbreak is the worst to occur since that time.

Factors that further triggered the conflict:

• Ruled by Hamas in Palestine: Founded in 1987, Hamas is an extremist branch of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood that uses jihad to “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”
• As a result of his advanced age and senility, the Palestinian President is unable to advance his country’s interests.
• Therefore, Hamas is the more radical Palestinian faction that has now begun retaliating.
• The tyranny of Hamas and Israeli annexation of Palestinian areas are making matters worse for the Palestinians, as is the so-called president authority of Palestine’s failure to hold elections or run the country effectively.
• Political instability in both States: Both sides’ leadership systems are ineffective and stagnant, which allows too many organizations to spiral out of control and turn to extreme violence.
• Israel also held four elections in the previous two years, all of which were deadlocked. Israel’s Prime Minister is still in office, but only in a caretaker capacity.
• Israel is deeply divided among its citizens.
• Due to their shared racial heritage, the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs also identify as Palestinians.
• Israelis from the Arabian Peninsula and the far-right Israeli society are acting in a manner reminiscent of a civil war.
• Problems with the Palestinian People: On the ground, Palestinian attitudes are evolving, with the majority of them stating they oppose a two-state solution.
• It is also unclear whether Hamas, Fatah, or neither of them will rule the Palestinian state.
• The fundamental factor in the failure of the final Palestinian cause is the division of the Palestinian people between Hamas and Fatah, which is advancing in opposing directions.
• With assistance from the Arab world and other nations, United Palestine could have accomplished far more than it is currently doing.
• It is no longer possible for them to coexist as a state since Israeli territory separates them from one another, and the Palestinians are becoming more irate as land gains Jewish ownership.
• Losing Influence in the Region: The US In support of the Palestinian cause, the US is blocking the UNSC meeting, but it fully respects Israelis’ right to self-defense.
• Another significant issue was the US President’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s de facto capital.
• Unlike the US under Donald Trump, who openly supported Israel, the US under President Joe Biden did not have much influence over Israel. They are making an effort to be more impartial.
• Despite talking about being impartial, the present US government hasn’t put any diplomatic effort towards resolving this problem.

India’s Stand on the matter:

• India voiced its great worry at the clashes and violence in Jerusalem at the UN Security Council meeting and urged all sides to maintain the current situation on the ground.
• The Permanent Representative of India to the UN emphasised the importance of starting up direct negotiations for peace as well as her support for a two-state solution.
• US Position: The US President has also demanded a reduction in the lethal violence, which has resulted in numerous fatalities.
• The US did emphasise, though, that Israel has a right to defend itself if it comes under attack from a large number of rockets.
• Arab nations’ response: Completely supporting the Palestinian cause and Hamas are Iran, Qatar, and Turkey.
• Nearly de facto allies of Israel are the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Steps to Take Ahead:

• Leadership Transition: The political leadership and generational transition in the two States are incredibly important.
• The prime ministers of Israel and Palestine have both held office for a long time. Ideally, they should resign since the domestic politics of power and the need to keep their positions outweigh the region’s and its residents’ larger interests.
• There is hope that the younger generation may reconsider the viability of a two-state solution.
• Hamas must also be moderated, which is crucial.
• Preventing Disproportionate Retaliation: Both regimes must have a limit on how far they will go in their retaliation; beyond this limit would only fuel more extremism and terrorism.
• Regional players like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates may have a better road to peace talks than the US. The US no longer has as much influence in the region as it once did.
• To bring about peace, Qatar and Egypt are already closely cooperating.
• India’s role: India considers that peace negotiations are the only route to bringing stability to the area and ending this protracted conflict.
• India supports Palestine and has strong ties with both governments, but it would be foolish to choose one over the other.
• However, because their faith is not strongly rooted in the US, China, or Russia, Palestine wants India to serve in part as their mediator.

Conclusion:

• Given the complicated issues involved, the situation on the ground is quite bad, tensions are rising, and a solution does not appear to be forthcoming anytime soon.
• For at least 20 years, peace negotiations have been ongoing, but in vain. However, India continues to support holding peace negotiations.
• Both parties must work toward a potential resolution that is in their best interests, but this can only be achieved via negotiations and not by violence.

Source The Hindu

4 – AGM 88 HARM: Prelims Specific Topic

Context:

• On Monday, August 8, Colin Kahl, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy of the United States, acknowledged that Washington had given Ukraine certain “anti-radiation missiles” that could be fired from some Ukrainian Air Force aircraft. The declaration has given credence to Russian claims that an American anti-radar missile, the AGM-88 HARM, which is a component of NATO’s arsenal, was employed in the theatre of battle.

AGM 88 HARM Missile System Information:

• High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile is what the AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface missile stands for. It is a tactical weapon launched by fighter jets with the capacity to locate and target radiation emitted by adversarial radar installations with surface-to-air detection capabilities.
• The missile was was created by Texas Instruments, a company with its headquarters in Dallas, but it is presently produced by Raytheon Corporation, a significant American defence contractor. Northrop Grumman, with headquarters in Dulles, Virginia, produces an improved version of the weapon.

Source The Hindu