 The United States brought a resolution regarding a ceasefire in Gaza to the UN Security Council. Now Russia and China vetoed it. To those who are observing this issue, who have been observing this issue, it might seem surprising. For instance, the US in the past has vetoed resolutions calling for ceasefires while the other permanent members have continuously demanded such ceasefires. So what was this resolution about? What was the devil in the details? And why was it vetoed? We go to Abdul for an answer to these questions. Abdul, thank you for joining us. A lot of discussion around this so-called ceasefire resolution, allegations being thrown on from both sides. But of course, I guess the devil is in the details in what exactly is the ceasefire resolution is the million dollar question. So what exactly did the US United States bring to the Security Council? Well Prashant, this was, you can say, a kind of US attempt to basically wash its own, whatever problems it had had. And basically in the last four months, five months of the war, when it had vetoed at least three times the resolutions which were presented earlier to asking for ceasefire. All the time, the US had claimed that it is not pressurizing Israel because it stands with Israel's whatever objectives are there in Gaza. And hence it was supporting the Israel's moves despite claiming that it is for humanitarian aid and wants to minimize the casualties which are related to civilians, primarily the children and women. So the resolution it presented, it seems after a lot of pressure from within the US because of the popular pressure and become the global community. But still wanted to protect the interest of Israel. If you see the resolution's text, it simply says that it talks about the need of a ceasefire does not talk about how there should be a ceasefire or does not demand a ceasefire, that there should be a ceasefire even for a short period. It says that there is a need for a ceasefire and there should be the international attempts which are being made should be supported by all the parties and therefore that would lead to if there is a possibility that would lead to a ceasefire. In return, if Palestinian side particularly Hamas should be ready to release all the hostages it has had and therefore it does not, of course it talks about increased access to humanitarian aid and so on and so forth. But apart from these three things, it does not say anything else. So it does not ask for, does not demand for a ceasefire and expects that Hamas should release all the hostages if there is a temporary ceasefire agreed for. That would mean if Israel decides that the temporary period is over and tries to restart the war against Palestinians in Gaza, then that would be justified. So that was a text which basically was opposed by Russia and China. They were saying that of course Algeria, another country Guyana also abstained. So these four countries primarily in a way were opposed to this idea that we should leave the possibility of a ceasefire on the peace negotiations which are going on and we all know the uncertainty of it given the fact that Israel has repeatedly refused to engage with the Palestinians on the ground of any permanent ceasefire, demands of any permanent ceasefire. So because of the vagueness of the language, because it's a complete responsibility putting on Palestinian side, it seems that China and Russia decided to veto it and Algeria also voted against the resolution. Abdul, of course, in this context, will you also maybe take us through what is happening on the ground because one of the concerns raised by many of these countries where it does not address the question of the assault on Rafa also, the potential assault on Rafa. Exactly. See, Israel has repeatedly said that despite the pressure, despite if even there is an international consensus that there should not be any attack on Rafa, Israel will carry out a ground offensive when, of course, they're not saying when, but it will carry out a ground offensive in Rafa. There are already bombings, several bombings have been reported inside Rafa, including a bombing on Friday. Even on Saturday, there are reports of attacks on some parts of Rafa. And there are a number of people who have died. So every day around 50 plus people are being killed inside Rafa alone. So it seems that Israel, despite the fact that it knows that there are more than 1.3, almost 1.5 million Palestinians are staying in that small territory. Any bombing would lead to large scale casualties. Israel is carrying out bombing and it is determined to carry out ground offensive. So even the resolution does not say that, as I said before, that it tomorrow, after, say, a temporary ceasefire is agreed and all the hostages are released, there would be no attack on Rafa. And knowing the fact that any attack on Rafa ground offensive, particularly, would be disastrous. The number of Palestinians who have been killed so far, more than 32,000, may multiply many times if a ground offensive like what happened in Khaaniyuna is or in northern Gaza is taken. So despite that possibility, there is no mention of a permanent ceasefire in the resolution and therefore, as Russia and China were claiming, that the non-permanent members have drafted a new resolution. This talks about, clearly talks about permanent ceasefire. Of course, it talks about release of hostages and so on and so forth. But it also talks about the permanent ceasefire. That would mean there will be no ground offensive to Rafa. Will I support for it? We are not sure whether the US will support such resolution, given the track record, as I said before, three times they have already vetoed and they are still not very sure about permanent ceasefire inside Gaza. And therefore, the future of that draft resolution prepared by the non-permanent members is also uncertain. And Abdul, thank you so much for that update. India said to conduct vital elections in April and May, which will determine the fate of the Narendra Modi-led government. A lot of policies and questions are at stake and the direction the country will take in the next five years will be determined by these elections. Now, key question is of health policy. If there is anything that COVID-19 has taught us, it is how decisions taken by bureaucrats and ministers can affect our lives and deaths. And we are a long way away from being governed by the right kind of policies. Recently, a group of health activists in India released a manifesto which asked political parties to commit to certain aspects of health policy. We go to Jyotsana for more on these details. Jyotsana, thank you so much for joining us. So, a very important manifesto because health policy and many other policy decisions often don't really come up for discussion during elections. Those are not the topics leaders talk about. But those topics do have a vital influence on our day-to-day lives. COVID, of course, proving the best example of that kind of an impact. So, maybe could you give us an overview of the health? You know, why a health manifesto is necessary? What are the kind of contexts in today in the India's health policy scenario? Yeah, thanks for inviting Prashant. So, you're right. I mean, health is very important. But we also know that health has never been a very political issue. And we have not really seen that in any elections. It is specifically health which really swings the elections or doesn't. But at the same time, I think the People's Health Movement, India, as part of that, we all believe that since COVID, health has become an issue that people talk about in a day-to-day lives and it has become more political than before. Also, the kind of devastation that was created during COVID-19, especially in countries of the global South, such as India. It is very important that the governments realize how important it is to prioritize health and not just the governments, but all the political parties who are going to fight elections that health has to be taken up as a major issue. So, with that kind of an understanding, we have gone ahead and launched a health manifesto, which basically is consists of policy proposals, which we are requesting political parties to include in their commitments while going to the people asking for the votes and and have those commitments being fulfilled because some of them will represent us in the parliament in the coming days. And they should fulfill some obligations that as elected representatives, they would have in terms of how health of people should be governed and their access to proper and quality and free health care. Right, Joseph, in this context, of course, could you maybe go into specifics and tell us what are some of the concrete recommendations that this manifesto makes and is manifesto asks political parties to include? Yes. So, if you see overall title of the manifesto is our health, our right. So, obviously, it is very much rooted in an understanding that health is a fundamental right as opposed to which we see. And again, as I said, we saw during COVID times, it is not a commercial product. Health is not business. Health is not commerce. Health is a fundamental right. And coming from that understanding, there are a lot of changes we need to do. The way health is provided and health care is provided in the country. So, within that, I think one of our major demands is a common system of health care delivery for all. So, for example, if we see the super rich in India have a particular kind of hospitals and the way health systems work for them, then there is middle class. There are a different range of hospitals altogether that the middle class goes to. And the treatment also differs there. And then you have the poorest sections, who have to depend on a very different kind of health system, which government provided. But if it is not coming, but because it is not easy to access health, even in the government system, then you have other alternate medicines or as we call Jhola Chhap doctors who are not really trained in medicine, but they can just provide you some basic relief and somebody who sits next door, who provides you some kind of a solution to the problem you are going through, or in fact, coming off a lot of irrational practices that you can be treated with this because it is difficult for people to access health in lack of money and resources. So, there are different systems of health for different classes of people. Now that should not exist. There has to be a standard way of treatment and everybody should have access to it. And if we start to move towards that, that is what we are saying in terms of common health and health standards for all. So this is one of the major things. And then of course, strengthening of the public health care system should be there. We are absolutely saying that we do not want insurance schemes. The way insurance schemes are being again and again promoted, it is a problem because of various reasons. One, if it is a government-provided insurance scheme and your empanel private hospitals, so actually the taxpayers' money is going to the private sector and for treatment. The government should use that money to strengthen the public infrastructure so that everybody has access to it. And of course, there is more accountability being government. Discrimination, stigma, vis-a-vis certain types of populations, that should go away. Gender is very much rooted within our entire health manifesto that women and sexual minorities, they have certain specific needs. That should be reflected in political parties' commitments such as gender-based violence. It should become a major health issue. And to achieve all of this, actually what the government needs to do is to increase its spending on health. So if we see, public spending on health is among the lowest in the world. So what government spends and is something like in India, 21 US dollars per person per year. You compare it to many other countries such as Thailand, Brazil, South Africa. They are spending as much as four times to ten times more than this much money on their people. So we should aim for that. So what we are saying is that the government in 2017 policy, the health policy, had said they will increase government budget to, I mean, the percentage of gross domestic product GDP of India to 2.5%. Right now, the government is spending something like one or 1.2% of its money on health. But it should spend as much as 2.5%. That is the government's promise. We are saying in the next five years, they should increase it to 3.5%. And going forward, the final demand is, which according to the WHO should be the spending on health, that is 5% of the GDP. So the entire money that government has, 3.5% for the next five years and 5% after that should be spent on public health. Joseph, thank you so much for those details on a very important manifesto. I hope the intellectual elections will keep tracking some of these issues in the coming episodes as well. That's all we have in this episode of Daily Deep Brief. We will be back with a fresh episode tomorrow. Meanwhile, do visit our website peoplesdispatch.org. Follow us on all the social media platforms. And if you're watching this on YouTube, please hit the subscribe button. Thank you.