 A very good evening to all of our friends and welcome to the Hindu News Analysis of Shankar IAS Academy for the date 12th March 2021. And before we begin our news analysis, we will address certain queries with respect to our pre-fit program. See as you are aware, Shankar IAS Academy starts another exclusive batch under the pre-fit program. And this batch will start from 22nd March 2021. With respect to the new batch, we have received a few doubts. One is about the registration link. See the first link we have given in the video description and the comment section will lead you to this particular page. In the right hand side, by filling your details under the tab pre-fit entrance exam registration, you can register for the free entrance exam for this new batch. And once you register, you will be receiving a confirmation email and also a message to your mobile phone. Now the next query is whether the entrance exam is conducted online or via offline mode. See the entrance exam is conducted only in the online mode. Now another query is whether the daily tests, then daily discussions etc in the new pre-fit batch will be conducted online or offline or both. Dear aspirants, in light of the prevailing COVID-19 situation across India and also based on the requests of aspirants from different states, the new pre-fit batch will be conducted in online mode. Now another query which we have received is, I had enrolled in the first entrance test which was held on 7th February 2021 for batch 1. I did not feature in top 100 ranks and I did not join batch 1 of pre-fit through direct admissions also. So should I register again for participating in the upcoming entrance exam for this new batch? See for this query, the answer is yes, you have to register again. Aspirants who wish to join the new pre-fit batch and to be eligible for a concession or subsidized fee structure, they must participate in the free entrance exam which is to be held on 14th March that is on Sunday which is day after tomorrow. You can take the entrance exam using your mobile phones also and you can take the entrance exam while you are at home. The time available for taking the test is from 7am to 11am and the entrance test will have a total 100 questions and the total test duration is 2 hours. The extended time window of 4 hours is given to accommodate different circumstances of participants like the internet failure, power failure or any other exigencies. But it is to be noted that the session will automatically close by 11am and there will be a total of 100 questions which will include questions from both general studies and CSAT. Kindly note that the enrollment or registration for the free entrance exam will be open only till 5pm of 13th March that is till 5pm tomorrow. In other words, the registration for the entrance test for the new pre-fit batch will close at 5pm tomorrow. And know that it is a free entrance exam but registration is mandatory. Students who secure top 100 ranks in this entrance exam will be eligible for a subsidized fee structure of 800 rupees plus GST per month. And for other students that is for the students who found it challenging to come in the top 100 ranks and also for direct admissions, the fee structure will be 1600 rupees plus GST per month. And the links for the detailed brochure, plan summary and also the schedule are available in the description box and also in the comment section. So with this information, let us begin our news analysis for today. The list of the relevant news articles taken for today's discussion from 5 different editions of the Hindu newspaper along with the page numbers are given here for your reference. Also the handwritten notes in the PDF format and time stampings for all the news articles taken for today's discussion is given in the description box and also in the comment section for the best interest of the viewers. Let us now start with our first news article. And this editorial article talks about the current global discourse in combating or taking action against climate change at the global level. The author assesses why most of the current proposals are not conducive for India. So in this context, we will discuss why India cannot be made a binding party to such proposals. The relevant syllabus is highlighted here for your reference. Please go through it. See why suddenly there is a discussion on global climate action. See, this is because of the new presidency at the United States of America. The new president of the United States has made a promise to his citizens that his government will lead a major diplomatic push to increase global climate ambition. And as a part of this, the US president focuses on the Paris Climate Agreement and the associated voluntary nationally determined contributions. And in addition to this, the president has also asked to reconvene a forum which is called as Major Economies Forum. See the former US president Barack Obama had announced the launch of Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate on March 28, 2009. And this forum was intended to facilitate a straightforward or frank climate dialogue among major developed and also developing economies. It aimed to help generate the political leadership which is necessary to achieve successful outcomes at the UN climate change conferences. Then it sought to advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that will increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. So much of the early work for bringing this particular forum was done during the Bush presidency in the United States. And the forum was announced in 2009. Since then, the forum was convened up to 2013 and then the forum was not much talked about. And this was because there was no major meeting and also the former US president Trump did not focus on actions related to combating the climate change. However, this grouping is said to meet again, that is this year in April, at the insistence of the new president Joe Biden. And though this forum's name is Major Economies Forum, for the US it is the Major Emitters Forum. That means for the US, the participating countries in this forum are the major emitters due to the association between GDP and greenhouse gas emissions. And for US, the domestic policies of these major emitters, that is the major economies, have to be contained in order to pursue global climate action. Now that in the case of developing countries, such measures if put against them will also contain the development of such countries. And reconvening this forum is being much talked about right now because of Biden. In addition to the US moves, we also find the UN and the European Union as having some plans. See, the UN Secretary General has called on all countries to declare the national climate emergencies and also to build a coalition for a carbon neutral world by 2050. The UN Secretary General wishes that countries representing 90% of global CO2 emissions or carbon dioxide emissions should agree for and also join this coalition within 2021. And the European Union may go one step ahead on this if such an agreement does not materialize. And this is because if there is no international agreement to make all countries to commit to become carbon neutral by 2050, then the EU thinks about imposing border carbon levies or tariffs. The EU will impose trade tariff on certain countries based on environmental grounds, saying that such countries do not have plans to become carbon neutral by 2050. So the other states that in such a scenario, the World Trade Organization rules will be modified to allow the use of such tariffs on environmental grounds. Presently, the World Trade Organization excludes the use of tariffs on environmental grounds. Now, while at the outset, some of us may think that all such measures are really promising solutions against the climate change, but it is to be noted that the approaches for these measures are absolutely unfair. And this is because these costs are made to all the nations irrespective of whether they are developed or developing nations. See, the US became independent in 1776 and until 1970s, they focused only on their growth and development. And because of this, the US has improved the standard of living of its people by what is called as industrialization and the associated historical emissions. So after emitting for centuries and after becoming a developed nation, suddenly they are asking all the countries to become carbon neutral. And this is irrespective of the current state of poverty, development, etc. In fact, more than 120 countries got independence after 1940 only. And therefore, it is absolutely unfair to ask commitments from both developed and developing countries. So what could be fair over here? Say the developed nations to become carbon neutral by 2050 and the developing nations like India to become carbon neutral by 2100. But the US, the United Kingdom and also the European Union are against this. So we can say that these countries and the EU are going against the well established principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This means they are asking other nations to forget the historic emissions which these countries have made to become developed or industrialized nations. Now it is to be noted that a very important thumb rule that should govern the climate action should be not the overall emissions of a nation. Rather, it should be per person or per capita emission of a nation. For this also, the US and some developed countries are not accepting this for getting unfair advantages. So in all such issues, there must be just and fair commitments. So at present there is no climate justice or equitable commitments against climate change. So given all such unfair measures being launched in the name of global climate action, the author asks India to carefully calibrate its approach towards climate action. And this is in both economic and political friends. The author states that climate justice is an imperative for India because India should commit only fairly and not as per the whims and fancies of the historically emitted developed nations. And the author notes that India's commitment to climate action should fit for its developmental and global aspirations. And such commitments should not become a compensation for the historic emissions made by US and other industrialized countries. So in this regard, India's diplomatic and negotiating efforts must be quickly geared up so that we can achieve these aspects of climate justice. So these are some of the aspects with reference to the analysis of this news article. And with this information, let us move on to the next news. And now this news article says that the Indian Space Research Organization that is ISRO and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, that is JAXA, have reviewed the cooperation in Earth Observation, Lunar Cooperation and Satellite Navigation. Know that India and Japan are already working on a joint lunar polar exploration, that is Lupex Mission. They are also working on the mission that aims to send a lander and a rover to the Moon's South Pole. And this will be sent around 2024. So in this context, let us discuss in detail about the India-Japan relationship over the years. The relevant syllabus is highlighted here for your reference. Please go through it. See the friendship between India and Japan has a long history rooted in spiritual affinity and strong cultural and civilizational ties. Post-Second World War, India and Japan established diplomatic relations on 28 April 1952. In the first decade after the establishment of diplomatic ties, several high-level exchanges took place. And this includes the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Nobu Suke Kishi to India in 1957 and our Prime Minister Nehru's visit to Tokyo in the same year. Japan started providing yen loans to India in 1958. And it is to be noted that a transformational development in the economic history of India was the Suzuki Motor Corporation's path-breaking investment in India in the early 1980s. And this revolutionized India's automobile sector bringing in advanced technology and management ethics to India. A test of reliability of Japan as a friend was witnessed in 1991 when Japan was among the few countries that unconditionally bailed India out of the balance of payment crisis. In 2000, the India-Japan Global Partnership in the 21st century was launched. And in 2006, the Prime Minister's Manmohan Singh and Shinzo Abe upgraded the relationship to a global and strategic partnership with the provision of an annual Prime Ministerial Summits. A comprehensive economic partnership agreement or CEPA between Japan and India was concluded in 2011. And in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Japan for the 9th annual summit meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. And during the visit, the two sides upgraded the relationship to a special strategic and global partnership. And in this regard, both sides also agreed to establish the India-Japan Investment Promotion Partnership. Now coming to economic and commercial relations, the India-Japan CEPA of 2011 covers not only trade-in goods but also in services, movement of natural persons, investments, intellectual property rights, custom procedures, etc. And the CEPA envisages abolition of tariffs over 94 percentage of items traded between India and Japan over a period of 10 years. Now know that Japan has been extending bilateral loans and also grant assistance to India since 1958. And Japan is the largest bilateral donor for India. Some important projects receiving Japanese funds are the Ahmadabad Mumbai High Speed Rail, then the Western Dedicated Fried Corridor and the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor. Now coming to cooperation in science and technology, the India-Japan bilateral science and technology cooperation agreement was signed in 1985. Later, the India-Japan Science Council, that is IJSC, was established in 1993. Now talking about the Indian diaspora in Japan, we should know that the arrival of Indians in Japan for business and also for commercial interests began in the 1870s at the two major open ports of Yokohoma and Kobe. The old Indian community in Japan focused on trading in items like textiles, commodities and also electronics. And in the recent years, there has been a change in the composition of Indian community in Japan with the arrival of a large number of professionals. And this includes IT professionals and engineers working for Indian and Japanese firms as well as professionals in management, finance, education and science and technology research. Now talking about security, know that the joint declaration on security cooperation between Japan and India was signed in 2008. And also there was various frameworks for security and defence dialogues between the two countries including the 2 plus 2 meeting, annual defence ministerial dialogue and cost guard to cost guard dialogue. And know that India and Japan are also part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the annual Malabar Naval exercise. So this is in brief about India-Japan relations. And with this information, let us move on to the next news. And now this editorial is based on a recent order of Karnataka High Court, which is about the compliance with something called as Program Court under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995 or simply CTNA. So in this discussion, let us see what the issue is, what is the order then also about CTNA and its program court. The relevant syllabus is highlighted here for your reference. Please go through it. First, let us see the background of the order. Recently, all of you would have heard about an obscene video of former Karnataka minister. Unfortunately, the video was widely circulated, defaming him and also the women involved. It is also alleged that the minister sought sexual favours from the woman, promising her a job. And after this incident, the said minister was signed from his post. But the issue did not subside because it was speculated that more such kind of videos exist and those will also be circulated in the media, including social media. And alarmed by this speculation, the six ministers belonging to BJP approached the court for putting restraint on such contents available on the media. And the reason for this incident is stipulated as political vendetta. Why because, see in 2019, the Congress Janadar Secular Coalition was ruling Karnataka. But around 14-15 MLAs resigned from the coalition and they joined BJP. And this defection of MLAs from Congress to BJP made the coalition to lost majority in Karnataka. And this resulted in BJP forming the government. Now among the 15 MLAs, the former Karnataka minister whose obscene video was circulated was also present. So the remaining MLAs fearing that similar videos of them also might get circulated for defaming them, they approached the High Court on March 5. And they sought the court to restrain the media from airing, printing or publishing any defamatory content against them. And for this only, the court has given an interim order stating that the media organizations should strictly abide by the program court which is prescribed under the Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks Act read with Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 or simply CTNR. The order also mentions that the authorized officer or AO to take necessary action under Section 19 of the Act. And he or she should take actions wherever required or wherever there is a violation. And further note that about 70 media organizations including television channels, social media platforms, digital media outlets and also newspapers have been grouped as respondents under the order. So to understand this order, let us first understand about the Cable Television Network Act. See, it is an act to regulate the operation of Cable Television Networks in the country and for the matters related to it. See, Cable Television Network means any system consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, control and distribution equipment that is designed to provide cable service for reception by multiple subscribers. So the telecast of content including reality shows on private satellite TV channels are also regulated under this Act and the rules framed under it which is the Cable Television Network Rule 1994. And importantly note that the Act does not provide for peace censorship of content which is telecast on such TV channels. However, it prescribes that all the programs and advertisements telecast on such TV channels should be in conformity with the prescribed program code and advertising code which are enshrined in the Act and also in the rules. See, program code and advertising code contain a whole range of parameters which are intended to regulate programs and advertisements. So based on these codes, the Act imposes reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in public interest. So here our focus is on program code which is mandated under section 5 of this Act and this section restricts the transmission or retransmission of any program through a cable service unless it is in conformity with the prescribed program code. So what are these codes? See, it is prescribed under Rule 6 of Cable Television Network Rules. The Rule 6 clause 1 lists certain types of contents in program that should not be carried out in the cable services. That is, they are barred from being published or aired in the cable services. For example, a program which offends against good taste or decency should not be carried out or published or aired in the cable service. Similarly, programs that contain attack on religions or communities or which promote communal attitudes should not be carried out in the cable service. As you can see here, it also bars the programs that contains anything obscene, defamatory, half-truth, etc. Further, it also bars programs that denigrates women or which is derogatory to women. So we can say that if the program code would have been properly followed the obscene video of the minister would not have been circulated widely in the media including social media. Now what is the remedy for this under this Act? See, as a remedy, the Act provides power to prohibit transmission of certain programs in public interest under section 19 of the Act if the program or channel is not in conformity with the prescribed program code. And this power is provided to the authorized officer under this Act. Here the authorized officer means a district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate, additional district magistrate or a commissioner of police, all of them within their law and limits of jurisdiction. So by an order, the authorized officer may prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or retransmitting such program or channel if she or he thinks it necessary or expedient to do so in the public interest. Simply, the authorized officer ensures that the program code is not breached. And based on this only, the court has ordered the authorized officer to take the necessary action. So either into this order, the commissioner of police of Bangalore city has issued an order. And not that for Bangalore city, the commissioner of police is the authorized officer. Under this order, the commissioner has prohibited all the broadcasts which are not in conformity with the program code according to the Act and rules. So this is the background and the basics which you need to know. Now coming to the editorial, see the author has criticized and listed certain issues in this regard. The first issue is that the order may lead to harassment of broadcast media. See, as the author notes, the order is unexceptionable, that is, it is nothing new because the broadcast media is already mandated to other to the program codes but the orders may lead to harassment because the program code is ambiguous or widely worded or we can say that it is open to interpretations. For example, what will constitute as offending good taste or decency is open to interpretation by the authorized officer. Or we can say that it is the discretion of the authorized officer to decide whether a particular content is offending good taste or decency. And in this regard, she or he may prohibit the program or channel based on his or her interpretations. So unnecessarily, the media may be harassed in order to prohibit such content. So here the author suggests a measure to tackle this issue which is providing judicial orders. See, like how the Supreme Court has interpreted the fundamental rights and has listed many rights as inherent under the right to life, the judicial system should also interpret the program code and clearly demarcate what constitutes as a violation of program code. The second issue is deciding whether such a program or channel is against public interest or not. Because based on this factor only, under the section 19 of CTNA, the authorized officer can prohibit a particular program or channel. So now the onus is on the channel or broadcaster to decide whether it is violative of public interest or there is a presence of public interest in the program or channel to be published or aired. Thus as a conclusion, the author calls the broadcast media to be very much attentive regarding this matter. So in this discussion, we saw about the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act of 1995 and the Associated Program Code and also about the recent orders issued by the High Court of Karnataka and the views of the author. So with this information, let us move on to the next news. Now have a look at this question. It is based on this news article which says that China has made some sweeping changes in Hong Kong's electoral system. Now this will give Beijing appointed politicians a greater say in running the Hong Kong Special Administration Region and the changes will reduce the share of elected representatives in Hong Kong's Legislative Council. So in this context, let us discuss in brief about the history of Hong Kong. Know that Hong Kong is China's Special Administrative Region which is located on the south coast of China. The region is bordered by Guangdong Province to the north and the South China Sea to the east, south and west. At the southeastern tip of China, Hong Kong covers the Hong Kong Island, Lantau Island, the Kowloon Peninsula and the new territories including 262 outlying islands. And between the Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula lies the Victoria Harbour which is one of the world's most renowned deep-water harbours. Now have a look at this map for better understanding. See as we know, the Opium Wars denotes the two armed conflicts in China in the mid-19th century. And the war was fought between the forces of western countries and the Qing dynasty of China. The first opium war which happened in 1839 to 1842 was fought between China and Britain and following this in 1841 Britain occupied Hong Kong. Hong Kong was formally ceded by China in the following year, that is in 1842 and this was done as per the Treaty of Nanking. And in the late 19th century, various adjacent lands were added to the territory of Hong Kong and hence the territory of Hong Kong expanded. In 1898, China leased the new territories together with two 35 islands to Britain for 99 years. And hence the leasehold was to end by the last date of June 1997 and we should remember that the Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1937 and due to this war, Hong Kong became a refuge for thousands of mainland Chinese fleeing before the advance in Japanese army. And in 1941, Japan occupied Hong Kong but in 1946, the Britain re-established civil government in Hong Kong. And this was followed by the return of hundreds of thousands of former residents and refugees fleeing the civil war between the nationalists and the communists in China. Now at present, 92% of Hong Kong people are ethnically Chinese but there are also other minor groups like Filipinos and Indonesians. And remember in 1982, Britain and China began talks on the future of Hong Kong and person to an agreement signed in 1984 the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China on 1st July 1997. Here, China had promised that under its one country, two systems formula, China's socialist economic system would not be imposed on Hong Kong. And also, Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defence affairs for the subsequent 50 years. Now with the increase in China's control over Hong Kong, we have been hearing about several pro-democracy protests happening in Hong Kong the most recent being the 2020 protests. So this is in brief about Hong Kong. Now with this information, have a look at this question. The one country, two systems policy often seen in news is related to the correct answer for this question is Option D, China and Hong Kong. So with this information, now let us move on to the next news. And now have a look at this second question. It is based on this news article which mentions that our Prime Minister has attended the first Quad Summit today. And this is a virtual summit and for the first time leaders of the Quad Grouping are meeting. And in the summit, the leaders of the Quad countries have discussed about various regional and global issues of shared interests and they have exchanged their views on practical areas of cooperation towards maintaining a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. And it should be noted that the summit provided an opportunity to exchange views on contemporary challenges such as resilient supply chains, emerging and critical technologies, maritime security and also climate change. And they also discussed on the ongoing efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and explore opportunities for collaboration in ensuring safe, equitable and affordable vaccines in the Indo-Pacific region. So in this regard, we will be knowing more about the summit from tomorrow's newspaper. So today we will be discussing about Quad. See Quad stands for Quad Electoral Framework or Quad Electoral Security Dialogue. Its members are India, the United States of America, Japan and Australia. Know that the idea of Quad was born in 2007 but this was shelved when the former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Drutt withdrew his country's participation from Quad. Then later in 2017 only, Quad made a comeback with a formal consultation meeting which involved the four countries. See we should know that. See we have seen that the Quad members are mainly advocating for a free and open Indo-Pacific. And to achieve this objective, the US, Japan and Australia want India to play a central and constructive role in shaping the Quad's role in the Indo-Pacific. And this is because India is often seen as one of an anti-China bulwark or defence. But here it is to be noted that for India, Quad is not simply to counter China but India considers Quad as a way of addressing the rising power asymmetry in Asia. And for USA, Quad members are central to its Indo-Pacific strategy and based on this, China criticizes Quad as an Indo-Pacific NATO. Also note that recently the Quad process was expanded to include more countries into it and was called as Quad Plus. See it includes New Zealand, South Korea, Brazil, Israel and also Vietnam as its new members. But note that it is just a conjectural or theoretical alliance. So in this discussion we saw about Quad and also about the new initiative Quad Plus. So with this information have a look at this question which of the following countries is not a part of Quad Plus often seen in news. Here four countries are given Israel, Vietnam, China and South Korea. So the correct answer for this question is option C, China. Now with this we have analyzed almost all the relevant news articles from today's The Hindu newspaper. Now let us move on to the practice questions discussion section based on today's news analysis. Now see this first question with reference to Cable Television Network's Regulation Act of 1995 consider the following statements. The first statement reads, in the public interest the authorized officer under the act has the power to prohibit the transmission of certain programs and the operation of Cable Television Network. See this statement is incorrect under section 19 of the act. The authorized officer is provided with powers to prohibit the transmission of certain programs in public interest. But the authorized officer does not have the power to prohibit the operation of the Cable Television Network as it is. And note that this power is vested with the central government under section 20 of this act. Now the second statement reads, district magistrate or commissioner of police within the local limits of jurisdiction are authorized officers under the act. Yes, this statement is correct because the statement doesn't use the word only. Otherwise it would have been a wrong statement. So the first statement is incorrect and the second statement is correct. And in this question we have to identify the correct statement or statements. So the correct answer for this question is option B to only. Now we have three main questions. Please write your answers and post it in the comment section. Now we have come to the end of analysis of all the news articles taken up for today's discussion and also the discussion of practice questions. If you like this video, please press the like button, comment, share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for more videos and updates related to civil service preparation. Thank you.