 Good evening aspirants, welcome to the Indian News Analysis brought to you by Shankarai's Academy for the date 17th of December 2021. So these are the articles that I have chosen today for discussion. Now the first discussion is going to be based on this editorial article which talks about the World Trade Organization's agreement on agriculture which challenges India's minimum support price. And we will see what are all the issues in the minimum support price that is being challenged in the World Trade Organization. Now in the second discussion we are going to discuss an amendment which aims to bring down the government stakes in two public sector banks. Now in this next discussion I am going to discuss about the Wanyar quota law issue and in this fourth discussion we are going to discuss about an important committee report that deals with Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958. And in this discussion we are going to see about an important parliamentary committee report. The report is based on the data protection bill. And then followed by that I have prelims practice questions discussion session where we will be discussing four prelims practice questions today. So without wasting much time let us move on to first news article discussion. So our first discussion is going to be based on this editorial article. See through this editorial the author of this editorial has discussed many aspects related to minimum support price and agreement on agriculture which is signed by the World Trade Organization. So basically author discusses how a legal guarantee to MSP violates the international obligation under this agreement on agriculture. Along with this author also explains how the domestic subsidies provided to agriculture are classified into three categories under this agreement. He also explains the de minimis rule then he talks about the external reference price that has been fixed with the base year of 1986 to 1988. Then he talks about the peace clause that is signed under this agreement and what is the issue with the peace clause. And finally author provides some alternative measures that can be used to bypass the issue in this peace clause. See this topic is very important from Indian perspective because this peace clause is an issue for India. And from exam perspective you see we often get questions based on minimum support price. For example India 2018 and 2017 we had questions directly on MSP as you can see here. But for the past two years there have not been any questions in GSP for three relating to MSP. And we know that this year saw a widespread farmers protest regarding this MSP issue. So MSP is the hot topic again. And that is why we can expect a question on MSP in this year's mains. And that is why I have chosen this editorial particularly today where we are going to discuss about the MSP particularly with the context of agreement on agriculture that is signed under the World Trade Organization. So I advise the aspirants to listen to this discussion carefully. It will be very useful for your examination. Now this is the syllabus relevant to this discussion. You can take note of it. Now first let us understand what is MSP briefly. As you know MSP stands for minimum support price. Now the need for MSP arises because the prices of agricultural commodities are inherently unstable. So why the prices are unstable? It is because there is variation in the supply of agricultural commodities due to lack of market integration and due to lack of proper information to the farmers. And how this price instability happens? Let us understand this now. Let us assume that there is a very good harvest in a particular period for a particular commodity. Now this results in sharp fall in price of that commodity. Here you can consider the commodity of tomato because if you remember during August of this year farmers were dumping tomatoes on the roadside. This happened because there was a bumper harvest of tomatoes but that resulted in a sharp fall in price of that commodity. So that means if you are a farmer and you found that sowing tomatoes was not profitable last season then that means you won't sow any tomatoes this season. And what will happen if every farmer takes the same decision? That is they decide not to sow tomato in the next season. This is what results in the adverse impact on the future supply of that particular commodity. In this case tomato. Because if you will not sow tomatoes how will we get tomatoes harvested in the next season? This leads to scarcity of supply of tomatoes and when there is scarcity it means the demand is not met. And when the demand is more but the supply is not enough this leads to major price rise for the consumers. And this is what actually happened in case of prices of tomatoes recently because the prices of tomatoes skyrocketed. So this is how the prices of agricultural commodities are unstable. Now to prevent this instability minimum support price for major agricultural products is fixed by the government each year. See this MSP is used as a tool by the government because it gives guarantee to the farmers that a fair amount of price is fixed to their upcoming crop. And this guarantees provided prior to the sowing season. So the farmer knows that she or he will definitely get that price for their crop. That means MSP is the price at which government purchases crops from the farmers. And that is why MSP is an important part of India's agricultural price policy. But in the World Trade Organization there is always issue with this minimum support price of India because it comes in conflict with the agreement on agriculture of the WTO. See the main rationale behind this agreement on agriculture is to prevent trade distorting practices. So why it came into effect? See in 1980s the industrialized countries of the world they provided huge subsidies to their farmers. It was provided to protect the farmers. Now this act of industrialized countries resulted in surplus agricultural produce in their respective countries. So what they did was they again provided export subsidies to dump this excess agricultural produce in the world market. So when there is excess agricultural produce it obviously leads to decline in the price of that agricultural product as we already saw. So this resulted in a global slump or global decline in agricultural prices. And this fall in agricultural prices in turn affected every other country. So to prevent such kind of situation from happening again this agreement on agriculture was signed as part of the Uruguay round of negotiations in the WTO. And this agreement entered into force in 1995. But how this agreement comes into conflict with the MSP? Now to understand that we need basic understanding of the three boxes or the three ways under which the agricultural subsidies are classified in this agreement. See these three boxes are the ways in which the agricultural subsidies are classified. Remember this fact it is important from a problems perspective. So what are these three boxes? They are the green box, blue box and amber box. So first what is this green box? It is the box under which the subsidies are considered as not trade distorting. So since these subsidies are not trade distorting there is no limit for these subsidies. That is the governments spending on green box subsidies cannot be controlled by the agreement on agriculture. So what are all the subsidies which could be considered as green box subsidies? Say it includes research funding, then funding for farmer training programs, pest disease control programs, then funding for agriculture extension programs, then it also includes subsidies for expansion of irrigation, et cetera. So all these are considered as green box subsidies and therefore they are not trade distorting and there is no limit for these subsidies. I note that along with all these subsidies it also includes income support provided to the farmers. That means the Pradhanwantri Kisan Samman Nidhi that is PM Kisan scheme which was launched by the central government is also a part of this green box subsidies. Now next comes the blue box subsidies. Now these blue box subsidies are also called as production limiting subsidies. Why because these are the subsidies which are aimed at limiting production. So they are considered as non-trade distorting. That means the blue box subsidies are also non-trade distorting subsidies like the green box subsidies. Therefore here also there is no limit for them. See basically the subsidies under the blue box they aim to limit production by imposing production quotas or they require farmers to set aside part of their land. And the blue box also covers payments that are directly linked to acreage or animal numbers. See acreage means the area of land which is used for agricultural purposes. So the payments directly linked to acreage or animal numbers are also considered as blue box subsidies. Here we can take the example of Norway because it provides cow subsidy. See the Norway government provides a certain amount as subsidy when a farmer purchases a cow. The subsidy amount remains the same for the first 23 cows. So when the farmer purchases the 24th cow then at that time the subsidy amount is reduced by 50 percentage. Now this reduced subsidy is applied for the 24th to 50th cow. And after this 50th cow there is no subsidy at all. So that means this program of Norway tries to limit a person from not owning more than 50 cows. So this is a production limiting factor and that is why the subsidy of Norway is placed in the blue box. So far we saw about the green box and blue box subsidies and we also saw some of the examples under these two boxes. Now comes the important amber box subsidy. See amber box subsidies include all domestic price support measures that are considered to distort production and trade. And we saw that the green and blue box they did not distort trade. So there was no limit for those subsidies. But since this amber box distorts production and trade the subsidies provided under this must be limited. That means the subsidies that fall in amber box must not be provided beyond a certain limit. Now this is where India's MSP comes into play because in case of India the price support provided in the form of procurement of crops at MSP is classified as trade distorting subsidy. And therefore MSP of India falls under the amber box measures. So it is subject to certain limits. And that is why we are going to focus more on amber box subsidy. Now you should note that to measure the amount of subsidy provided under the amber box all the WTO signatories are required to compute aggregate measurement of support or ensure AMS. So what is this AMS or aggregate measurement of support? It is the sum of product specific support and it includes price support which is particular for a particular crop. And it also includes the non-product specific support which includes fertilizer subsidy. Here the price support for a particular crop could be MSP of rice. So that means AMS is a sum of product specific and non-product specific subsidies. Now in case of developing countries there is an exemption provided in the agreement under article 6.4B. This exemption is called the de minimus level. Now under this de minimus rule developing countries are allowed to provide product subsidy and non-product subsidy up to a certain level. And this level is what is called as the de minimus level. Now this de minimus limit or level it is capped at 10 percentage. See it is 10 percentage of the total value of production of the product in case of a product specific subsidy. But in the case of non-product specific subsidy it is the 10 percentage of the total value of a country's agricultural production. So here remember the difference in case of product specific it is the 10 percentage of the total value of production of that particular product. But in case of non-product specific subsidy it is the 10 percentage of the total value of a country's total agricultural production. So that means in case of MSP that is provided to rice the total price support that our country can provide is capped at 10 percentage of the total value of rice production. So why this de minimus level is kept? It is kept because when the subsidies breaches this de minimus level it is considered as trade distorting. And note that even if the government does not procure directly from the farmers but mandates private parties to acquire the product at a price determined by the government then also the de minimus limit of 10 percentage applies. So in case of India government mandates the private parties to acquire sugarcane from the farmers at a determined price that is the FRP. FRP means fair and remunerative price of sugarcane. So in this case also the de minimus limit of 10 percentage applies. Now this de minimus rule is an issue for India definitely but it is an issue because of the external reference price. So what is this external reference price? It is an average price based on the base years 1986 to 88. So that means while calculating the de minimus level the price level is fixed at external reference price that is the price in the year 1986 to 1988. And this is the cost of concern for India. Here let us take an example to see why it is a cost of concern. Assume that at present India's rice production capacity is one lakh tons. And let us also take that the ERP of rice is $50 per ton. So that means de minimus level should be 10 percentage of the total value of production of that product. So 10 percentage of rice production capacity is 10 percentage of one lakh tons which will be 10,000. So the de minimus level is 50 into 10,000 that is $5,000,000 or $500,000. So if India provides $10,000,000 as MSP then India is providing $5,000,000 in excess of the de minimus level. And that is why it should be limited. So here we assume that the ERP of rice is 50 per ton based on the 1986 to 1988 level. But presently the price of one ton rice has increased to $120 per ton due to inflation. So if this price is actually used to calculate the de minimus level, then India will not breach the de minimus level. Let us see how. See the 10 percentage of total production capacity is again 10,000. So that means 120 into 10,000 will be $12,000,000. So here the de minimus level has increased to $12,000,000. So if again India provides the same subsidy at $10,000,000 that means India here did not breach the de minimus level. This is the actual issue which India is rising at the WTO. See India is asking WTO to revise the ERP level to present price level. And this is asked by India to provide a permanent solution to this issue. But developing countries are stalling India's claim. Now India is asking for this permanent solution because India claims that it has to feed its population through PDS, that is public distribution system. And for that MSP is required. Now in a way to give what India asked for, WTO came up with the peace clause and India signed this peace clause. So that means without any permanent solution to the issue India signed this peace clause. So what is this peace clause? See it forbids bringing any legal challenges against the price support based procurement for food security purposes. Even if that price support based procurement breaches the limit on domestic support. But however the peace clause is subject to several conditions. For example, it can be availed by developing countries for the support provided to traditional staple food crops to pursue public stock holding programs for the food security. So in case of India, peace clause will not be applicable in case of crops that are not part of food security program. That is the crops which are not food crops will not come under this peace clause. So that means the crops which are not food crops they do not come under the peace clause. So the prohibition of bringing legal challenges against the schemes under them is removed in that case. So India has MSP for cotton, groundnut, sunflower seed also but these are not food crops. So the MSP for these crops could be challenged. So after signing this peace clause there is no other go for India. Therefore India should recalibrate its agricultural support programs to make use of the flexibilities available in the agreement on agriculture. That is India must provide agricultural subsidies under the green box or the blue box like the developed countries. So based on all these factors the author of the editorial has asked India to move away from the price based support in the form of MSP. Rather he is asking India to move towards the income based support. Because income based support is not trade distorting under the agreement of agriculture. But here we should remember that such income based support should not be linked to production. And in our country we already have schemes like that that is the schemes which provide income support but not linked to production. For example we have the Raithu Bandhu scheme of Telangana and we have the Kalya scheme of Odisha. These two are income support schemes and they have already shown positive results. And even the central government formulated the scheme of PM Kisan based on these two schemes. But the amount provided under PM Kisan is quite low. So government can think about increasing the amount provided under PM Kisan because as of now Rs. 6000 is provided in three installments. Which is far lesser than what is provided by the state governments under these two schemes. So central government can take examples from these successful models and implement them at the national level. This is what author concludes. So in this discussion we saw about MSP. We saw how it is related to agreement on agriculture of WTO. We saw what is the issue in that agreement of agriculture. And while discussing that we saw about the green box, blue box and the amber box. And we saw how MSP is placed under amber box. And why India has an issue with the MSP being placed under amber box. And then we also saw the peace clause which was signed by India. And why India was having an issue with the peace clause. So with these points in mind now let us move on to the next discussion. So now let us take up this news article which talks about a strike by the public sector bank unions. See the public sector banks have announced strike to protest against the privatization of banks that is being proposed under the Banking Laws Amendment Bill of 2021. So the protesters want the government to withdraw the Banking Laws Amendment Bill which is to be introduced in the ongoing winter session of the parliament. This is the crux of the news article. So to understand the issue let us first see the issues in the public sector banks and we will see the issues with the Banking Laws Amendment Bill. See basically banks in India can be classified into various types. But with respect to ownership also they can be classified. So based on the ownership banks are classified into three types. They are public sector banks, private sector banks and foreign banks. Now in case of public sector banks majority stakes are owned by the government or the central bank of the country. And that is why the term public is included here. On the other hand in case of private sector banks majority stakes are owned by the private organization or it is also owned by an individual or a group of people. So what about foreign banks? So these are the banks which have their headquarters in foreign countries but they have branches in our country. So based on the ownership classification we have three types. They are public sector banks, private sector banks and foreign banks. Now in our country presently there are 12 public sector banks. As you can see in this list from Bank of Baroda to State Bank of India we have 12 public sector banks. But there are certain issues which are plaguing the public sector banks in our country. Let us see them now. The main issue that is faced by the public sector banks are the NPAs that is non-performing assets. See overall even the banking system itself is overburdened with non-performing assets in our country. But the majority of these NPAs lies with the public sector banks and that is why it is an issue for the PSBs. The next issue is the dual control of PSBs. See the public sector banks are controlled by both RBI and also by the central government through the finance ministry. RBI exercises its control through the RBI Act of 1934 and the finance ministry exercises its control through the Banking Regulation Act of 1949. Now this is a cause of concern because in case of such dual control RBI does not have all the powers over public sector banks like it has over the private sector banks. And this is also one of the reasons why public sector banks are performing poorly. The next issue is the issue of autonomy. The issue is that even now the bank boards are not adequately made professional in case of public sector banks. The government still decides board appointments. This is because the bank bureau board is not fully functional. So therefore it creates an issue of politicization and interference in the normal functioning of the public sector banks. So overall it reduces the bank's ability to make decisions independently. And finally even the structure of public sector banks is designed in such a way that it does not offer incentive for innovation. So this makes the public sector banks lag behind the private sector banks in various areas like customer service and innovative products. Now since these issues are present with public sector banks we can assume that various commissions would have been instituted to look into these issues and recommend solutions. On those lines various committees were instituted. For example from the committee on banking sector reforms which is also called as Narciman Committee 2 of 1998 to the PJ&I committee of 2014. We have many committees which have looked into this issue and majorly they have recommended the limited role for the government in case of public sector banks. So one of the way of addressing the challenges in the public sector banks is privatizing the public sector banks according to these committees. So based on the recommendations of these committees only the government decided to bring banking laws amendment bill of 2021. This bill is aimed at privatizing two public sector banks. And according to the draft bill governments share would be reduced in these two public sector banks. It will be reduced from 51% to 26%. But since the bill is only in the draft stage let us wait and see for more information regarding this bill. But as of now just know that it aims to privatize two public sector banks and in that government's stake will be reduced to 26%. And that is why now the public sector banking unions they are protesting for the withdrawal of this bill. So in this discussion we saw the issues in the public sector banks and also about the banking laws amendment bill of 2021. Now let us take up the next news article. So now let us take up this news article and let us see what it says. It mentions that Supreme Court has decided to conduct hearing expeditiously for the case law regarding one year reservation quota law. So Supreme Court has ordered that in the meantime no fresh appointments and admissions under this quota should be made. See we are often seeing this one year quota issue in news. So today let us see what this issue is. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. First let us understand what do you mean by one years. See one years are a community. They are found in the northern part of Tamil Nadu. They are one of the largest and most consolidated backward communities in the state. See the term one year is also spelled as one year and they were formerly also known as Palli. And note that one years are traditionally agricultural laborers and now it is said that they own 50% of the lands of traditional landowners. Now with respect to classification of this community earlier note that this community was on the list of backward classes in the state. And then a separate reservation was demanded by the community in 1987. At that time the organization representing this community called the one year Sangam. They launched an agitation which demanded 20% each separate reservation for one year community. And this demand was partially granted in 1989 itself. So overall in the state of Tamil Nadu the backward community quota was set at 50% age at the time by providing reservation to this community. Now here you should note that the backward communities quota in the state is subdivided into many segments and a 20% segment is allocated for most backward classes and denotified communities which is called referred as MBC slash DNC. So after this division the one year community were placed on the list of the most backward classes. But note that along with the one year community 109 other cars were also present in this MBC DNC category. And this is where the issue started because when this reservation was provided one years expected that they would be the primary beneficiary of this 20% reservation segment. But what originally happened was along with one years several other cars were also given reservation in this 20% segment. And that is why we said the demand of 20% separate reservation was partially granted. Now in addition to this fact the community also have a grievance that their community does not have adequate chances or adequate opportunities in relation to their population. That is they argue that their population is not well represented and they do not have enough reservation to represent their community. So as a result of their continuous demand the state government of Tamil Nadu finally enacted the law in February 2021. That is this year to provide a separate reservation for the one year community. See under this law the category which we just saw MBC slash DNC that is most backward classes and denotified communities category was further divided into three parts. We saw that this category had 20% reservation so among this 20% the largest share of 10.5% reservation was exclusively provided to the one year Kula Shatria community and also to its various subcasts. Now in the remaining part of 20% reservation the denotified communities subdivision was given 7% reservation and the remaining 2.5% was meant for the rest of the most backward classes in the state. So overall this 2020 law provided 10.5% reservation to the one years in the jobs in public services and also in the seats in educational institutions. So on what basis this reservation was provided? See the primary justification given for this reservation percentage is the population of the community. If you see the data regarding the population of this community we can look into the second backward classes commission's report. According to this report the one year population was at 65 lakhs in 1983. That is there were 13.01% of the den total population. In addition to this based on the statistics the den chairman of the state backward class commission also suggested reservation of 10.5% for this community in 2012 itself. So based on the population data and suggestion by the chairman of state backward class commission it was determined that this internal division of 10.5% could be included in the MBC quota. But what happened was after this law was enacted it was challenged in the high court of the state. And as a result last month that is on November 1st the Madras High Court declared this act as unconstitutional that is the act which provided 10.5% reservation to the one years. So now let us see what are the reasons due to which this law was declared unconstitutional by the high court. See the first reason stated is that this exclusive quota for one particular community was implemented just keeping the election benefit in mind. This is one of the most argued reasons because the assembly elections in the state happened in April 2021. But this law was enacted in February 2021. So we can understand that elections were one of the reasons for enacting this act. Now second reason given is that the government has acted hastily in particular to the one year issue. This is because few months earlier that is few months earlier to enacting this act the state itself appointed a commission headed by a retired high court judge. Now this commission was appointed to compile quantifiable data on all castes in the state in order to justify the 69% total reservation in the state. You know that Tamil Nadu has 69% total reservation as opposed to the 50% reservation proposed by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sohani case. But before the state could get the report of this commission it drafted this legislation. And that is why it said that this legislation was enacted hastily. Now third reason for declaring this law as unconstitutional was because the assembly of Tamil Nadu lacked legislative authority to approve this law on the date of enactment of this act. Why it lacked legislative authority? See we saw that this act was enacted in February 2021. But we know that in February 2021 the 102nd amendment to the constitution came into effect. And what this amendment did this 102nd amendment it granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes. And it also enabled the president to notify each state's backward classes list. Which means this amendment act removed the power of the states to identify socially and educational backward classes under their territory for granting reservation quota in jobs and admissions. So based on this only even in the Maratha reservation case Supreme Court ruled that this 102nd amendment took away states ability to notify or identify OBCs. But in this time period only the law granting 10.5% reservation to the Mania community was also enacted. And that is why they are saying the state assembly of Tamil Nadu lacked legislative authority at the time when the legislation was enacted. But here you should also remember that the power which was taken away by the 102nd amendment was restored by the 105th amendment act. And through this 105th amendment it was again made clear that states have the right to amend their OBC lists so they can identify socially and educational backward classes in their territory. Now other than these three reasons another argument made by the High Court was that this special reservation for one caste was discriminatory to all other castes in the same most backward communities group. And it also argued that the state government provided no evidence to support its argument that one years were so far behind the other communities on the list that they merited special treatment. So in absence of such information the court concluded that this law was just based merely on caste rather than on the fact that the members of the caste formed a separate class. So overall the High Court in November concluded that the legislation was in violation of articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Indian constitution because it treated one caste differently. So these were the reasons as to why the law was declared unconstitutional by the High Court. But again this verdict of High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court and now in this case only Supreme Court has decided to look into the matter expeditiously because the verdict regarding this issue had implications for the future of a large number of students and government employees in the state of Tamil Nadu. So in the recent times we have been seeing many issues regarding reservation for communities in our country. For example we had the Maratha's reservation issue and now we have this one year's reservation issue. So you can take note of these examples. So if a question is asked in means as to whether you agree that 50 percentage limit said by the Indra Sohani cases justified or not. Then in such a question you can mention these issues as example and you can make your point. So in this discussion we saw about the one year population of Tamil Nadu. We saw what was the one year quota issue and we saw why the law which granted separate reservation to one year community was declared unconstitutional by the Metra's High Court. So let us wait and see what Supreme Court decides in this matter. With these points in mind now let us move on to the next discussion. So now let us take up this opiate article and let us see what it says. So it is about a discussion between three experts about the moral, legal and political issues surrounding the contentious legislation of AFSPA that is Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958. If you remember AFSPA is in spotlight again because last week 14 civilians were killed in Nagaland by the Indian Armed Forces under this AFSPA Act. So we have discussed about AFSPA in detail on our December 8th, 2021 Hindi News Analysis. Viewers can view that analysis to understand the basic details about this legislation and also to know about the special powers provided to the armed forces under this act. So basically the experts have discussed the issues in this legislation. Let us see what they have to say. The syllabus relevant to this discussion is given here. See basically the discussion here begins with the topic of whether AFSPA is counterproductive or not as noted by the Santosh Hegde Committee and that is why to understand what others are saying we are going to see about this committee first and also the recommendations made by this committee about AFSPA. So you can easily understand that the Santosh Hegde Committee was primarily appointed for looking into AFSPA. It was appointed in January, 2013 by the Supreme Court. It appointed a three-member commission headed by the retired Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde. So Supreme Court appointed this committee in response to the public interest litigation. This litigation sought investigation into the 1,500 cases of alleged extrajudicial executions that were committed in the state of Manipur between the period 1978 to 2010. So the commission was established to determine whether six cases identified by the court were actually encounter deaths. That is they have to verify whether security forces fired in self-defense against the members of armed groups or they were just well-planned extrajudicial executions. Or in other words they were just well-planned encounters. So along with determining this fact the committee was also mandated to evaluate the role of security forces in Manipur. So finally the committee submitted its report in April, 2013 and the commission found that all the seven deaths in the six cases were actually extrajudicial executions only. And it also concluded that the AFSPA Act was widely abused by the security forces in Manipur. Along with this the commission also found that the security forces in Manipur have been operating beyond the legal boundaries in their counter-insurgency operations. Now because of this fact the commission observed that the prolonged implementation of AFSPA in Manipur has created nothing but a mockery of the law. And while saying so the commission also agreed and highlighted a 2005 statement by the G1 Ready Committee. This committee stated that AFSPA had become a symbol of oppression and object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness. So overall the commission found out the atrocities committed by the army using this AFSPA Act. See here we can totally agree with the commission. There is no doubt that insurgency in Manipur state is a reality. Even though AFSPA has been in effect in Manipur for decades it appears that there is no impact or there is only little impact on the situation. But on the other hand these fake encounters are extreme examples of abuse of AFSPA. This was even noted by the committee in its first line of recommendations. And even the authors or the experts whose discussion is provided in this article agree with this fact. See it is true that even today there are 32 active militant organizations in Manipur. So vividly it is clear that the Act actually failed in its aim. That is it has failed to confine the insurgents. Apart from Manipur, Navarland also faces the same problem. And all of this is happening because the Act gives broad powers to the security forces. It gives them the ability to murder a suspect without even the fear of prosecution. So on one hand it provides this capability to the security forces. But on the other hand it doesn't provide any safeguards for the civilians against any potential exploitation of this Act by the armed forces. See if the power which is given is more then the restrictions must also be tougher and the system must also be more stringent to prevent the misuse or abuse of such power. But it is not happening. And according to the authors one of the example of misuse or abuse of this Act is around the disturbed area clause. See according to the Act disturbed area is any area which is for the time being declared as disturbed area under Section 3 of the Act. See according to the Supreme Court only a serious breach of law and order occurred in a region then it can be proclaimed as a disturbed area. But what happens most of the time is this Section 3 is misused. So many regions are being proclaimed as disturbed area and that too without any time limit. So now the question is what needs to be done or what can be done? Now for this question we can take answers based on the recommendations given by the committee and also the suggestions of the author based on those recommendations. So let us see them now. See for taking the first step in this matter it should be first understood that terrorism in India, particularly today terrorism is more about unemployment than ideology even though the militancy is based on ideological factors. Why we are bringing unemployment factor here is that even the commission has noted that terrorism generates a lot of jobs. According to the committee report terrorism generates jobs not only in underground groups of militancy but also in police and other anti-terrorist organizations. So even though we are saying this jokingly but we should not ignore the graveness of this issue. So what is needed here is proactive inclusive administration which can bring some social stability among the rising hostile and youthful population. So we need a proactive inclusive government at the state level. Now secondly we must also determine why the act is necessary that is the AFSPA act is necessary. We must determine whether the law is still relevant to the state or not. Here author sides the example of Tripura. See even in Tripura AFSPA was being implemented but in the year 1997 Tripura withdrew this act. So according to the authors same can be analyzed for other states also. And thirdly they also suggest to you know gradually denotify more parts of the states which are brought under AFSPA act. And along with this even if there is any extension of the provision of AFSPA then according to the commission it should necessarily be placed before the state legislature. See the commission is suggesting this based on the emergency provision under article 356 clause 3 of Indian constitution because the proclamation made under this article of constitution is presented before the houses of the parliament. So similarly the experts are suggesting that if there is an extension of the provision of AFSPA in any areas then it should be placed before the state legislature for their scrutiny. And next the commission has suggested that the dos and don'ts of the army headquarters should be given statutory status. See in the case law regarding Naga people's movement for human rights Supreme court ruled that the dos and don'ts of the army headquarters are binding and any violation of such dos and don'ts shall be prosecuted under the army act. So the commission suggested that this verdict could be given statutory status. Now apart from all these there is a need to clearly define the role, duties and responsibilities of the commandos in the armed forces. According to the commission and the experts there must be a clear command and control structure in place and the commandos operation must be regularly monitored by the district superintendent and even by the high ranking officers in the police department's hierarchy. This is necessary because currently there is no evidence that such an event is taking place. And this was one of the reasons why last week army was able to conduct its botched operation. And then as always the final suggestion is regarding the police and policing. It is suggested that the police and policing have to be made more people friendly. So overall a sensitive, proactive and responsive governance along with community friendly enforcement will help in normalizing the situation in the northeastern states and it will restore the public trust according to the experts and the commission. So these were some of the recommendations of the commission as well as the experts. So in this discussion we mainly saw about the Santosh Hedde committee report and its major suggestions and we saw authors' viewpoints on these suggestions also. Majorly they agreed with the suggestions of this commission. So overall we can say that central government can implement the suggestions of this commission first. So with these points in mind now let us move on to the next discussion. So our last discussion is going to be based on this news article which is with reference to the data protection bill of 2019. Now again this bill is in use because yesterday the joint parliamentary committee on this bill has submitted its report to the parliament. And this report was a long pending report because it provides an analysis of the data protection bill and it also recommends the changes needed in the bill. So today let us see some of the committee's observations and recommendations regarding the data protection bill. The service relevant to this discussion is given here for your reference. So first what is this data protection bill? It is a bill that seeks to provide protection of personal data of individuals. Along with this it also aims to establish a data protection authority. See basically this bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in the year 2019 and after that it was referred to the joint parliamentary committee. And note that we have discussed this bill in detail on our 13th November Hindi News Analysis discussion. I request the viewers to view that analysis first to understand this discussion. Here also I have given the important provisions in this bill. You can also go through these provisions now. But our focus today is on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee. So today let us see three recommendations because we cannot see all the recommendations in a single day. Anyway in the coming days we are going to see many editorials and news articles regarding these recommendations. And as and when it comes we will discuss those recommendations. Now today let us see the major three recommendations first. See the first observation of the committee is that it is impossible to distinguish between personal data and non-personal data. The committee is saying that when mass data is collected or transported it is impossible to distinguish between these data. But actually the bill deals only with the personal data. So that is the issue. And we also know that this bill is a result of Supreme Court's judgment in 2017 which declared right to privacy as a fundamental right. So privacy was a major factor for having this bill. So due to this the committee is of the opinion that if privacy is the concern then the bill should also deal with non-personal data along with the personal data. We have already discussed non-personal data and personal data on the 13th November in the news analysis. If you have listened to that you will know what do we mean by these terms. Now along with this observation the committee has also recommended that a legislation for non-personal data should be formulated under this bill itself. And more importantly all the data has to be dealt by the single data protection authority. Because separate authorities dealing with personal data and non-personal data will be an issue as it could lead to contradiction, confusion and mismanagement of data. That is why the committee has recommended for a single data protection authority that will deal with personal data as well as non-personal data. So this was the first recommendation. Now the second recommendation is regarding the precautions to be taken in case of data breach. See the committee has expressed concern over the forms and procedures that are provided in the bill for reporting of instances of data breach by the data fiduciary. When we say data fiduciary it refers to the entity which controls the storage of the data. So what the bill says regarding data breach so it is covered under section 25 of the bill and under clause 5 section 25 even the notice of a data breach is received by the data fiduciary then it is the DPA that is the data protection authority which determines whether such breach should be reported by the data fiduciary to the data principle or not. Here data principle and nothing but the people whose personal data is being protected by the bill that is we are the data principle. So here the authority lies with the data protection authority to decide whether such breach should be reported to us or not. And therefore in this scenario the authority may take into account the severity of the harm that might be caused to the data principle. And it should also consider whether some action is required on the part of the data principle to mitigate such harm. So this is the section 25 clause 5 of the bill. Now regarding this the committee has recommended some changes. According to the committee there should be specific guiding principles that is to be followed by the data protection authority while framing regulations regarding the instances of data breach and such regulations should include three important factors. The first factor is that the privacy of the data principles should be protected. This should be ensured by the authority while posting the details of the personal data breach under this clause. See the committee is of the opinion that if there is a data breach then the authority can mention in the public domain that data has been breached. But there need not be any necessity to mention all the details of the data which is breached because such details might contain the personal data of the data principle. Now the second factor is regarding the responsibility taken by the data fiduciary in reporting of the data breach. The committee wants to mandate that if there is a data breach but if the data breach has been reported to the data principle only after some time then because of that delay if the data principle suffers any immaterial or material harm then in such a scenario the data fiduciary should be able to prove that the delay was a reasonable delay and there was certain reasons for such delay. So the burden of proof regarding the delay should lie with the data fiduciary according to the committee. Now thirdly, the authority should also ask the data fiduciaries to maintain a log of all the data breaches according to the committee. Here the authority is the data protection authority and such a log should be reviewed by the authority periodically. So this was about the second recommendation. Now the third recommendation is with respect to data localization. Now for this the committee has recommended to amend section 33 and section 34 of the bill. See the section 33 deals with the sensitive personal data that is transferred outside India but the clause also specifies that even in the event that such personal data is transferred outside India it should also be stored locally. And clause 34 mandates that data transfer outside India can happen only after explicit consent is given by the data principle. Now regarding these two sections the committee has recommended some changes. Here the committee is of the opinion that India should not compromise its national security just for promotion of businesses. Therefore the committee has recommended that for cross border transfer of data under section 33 and 34 some concrete steps must be taken by the central government. So what are the steps needed to be taken by the central government? It should ensure that a mirror copy of the sensitive data or critical personal data is mandatorily brought to India in a time bound manner. Note that these are the sensitive and critical personal data which is already in position of the foreign entities. So according to the committee it should be mandatorily brought to India in a time bound manner. And for this to happen there must be a proper infrastructure and there must be an establishment of data protection authority first. And more importantly it should be the duty of the central government that data localization provisions are followed in letter and spirit by all the local entities and foreign entities. So by doing this India must move towards data localization gradually. Now we are only planning to get a mirror copy but in the future the data should only be stored in India according to the committee. So these are some of the important recommendations of the committee regarding the data protection bill. The first recommendation was a single authority for both personal data and non-personal data. Now the second recommendation was handling the data breach and the steps to be taken in case of a data breach. And the third recommendation was with respect to data localization. So these are the important facts that you need to remember regarding data protection bill of 2019. Now let us move on to the next session which is the practice questions discussion session. So now let us take up this first question. It asks which of the following acts need to be amended to privatize the public sector banks in India. The options given are banking company is acquisition and transfer of undertakings act of 1970 banking company is acquisition and transfer of undertakings act of 1980 banking regulation act of 1949. See the correct answer to this question is option D all of the above because all of these acts have to be amended to privatize a public sector bank in our country. And even the banking law amendment bill of 2021 proposes to make amendments to all of these acts. Now this next question is a direct question. It asks armed forces special powers act of 1958 provides special powers to the members of the armed forces in the disturbed areas of which of the following options given are Anujal Pradesh Assam Nagaland Sikkim Jammu and Kashmir. Now this question deals with the 1958 act and we know that this act is also known as the armed forces Assam and Manipur special powers act of 1958. So that means two should definitely be in the answer. So we can eliminate option A four and five only. Now from the remaining options we can definitely say that one, two and three are present. So now we have to deal with four and five which are Sikkim and Jammu and Kashmir. So whenever we discuss about AFSPA we mention that there are two AFSPAs in our country the one which deals with the northeastern states and the other one which deals with the Jammu and Kashmir region. So the one that deals with Jammu and Kashmir region is called as the armed forces Jammu and Kashmir special powers act of 1990. It was enacted in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and now after the reorganization of this state into two union territories now it is operational in both the union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and note that this act is under the administration of Ministry of Home Affairs of Government of India. So five should not be in the answer so we can eliminate option D also. Now what about four Sikkim. Sikkim should also not be in the answer because this act deals with all the northeastern states except Sikkim. So the correct answer to this question is option B, 1, 2 and 3 only. Now this next question is a previous year question it was asked in there 2016. This question is an example of how problems questions can be framed on the terms which are often in use. So the question asks in the context of which of the following do you sometimes find the terms amber box, blue box and green box in the news. Options given are WTO affairs, SARC affairs, UN FCC affairs, India-EU negotiations on FTA and the correct answer as we know is the WTO affairs. We saw about these amber box, blue box and green box these are under the agreement on agriculture which is signed by the countries with WTO. Now this next question is also a previous year question it was asked in 2015. It asks the terms agreement on agriculture, agreement on application of sanitary and phytosanitary measure and peace clause appear in the news frequently in the context of the affairs of Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change, World Trade Organization, United Nations Environment Program. And here also the answer is same which is option C, World Trade Organization. We saw agreement on agriculture and peace clause today. So you should remember that regarding these agreements and important terminologies we can expect questions in the prelims. And from today's discussion you shall also remember the terms aggregate measurement of support and then de minimis rule and then the external reference price. These are also related to WTO only particularly it is relevant to the agreement on agriculture. So with these prelims practice questions discussion we are moving to the mains practice questions session. Now here I have three main questions and fortunately all these three are based on GS paper three but all these three are on different areas. Here this one deals with the MSP issue and this one deals with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and this question deals with the data protection bill. So viewers take this opportunity and write answer to these questions and you can pose those answers in the comment section. And since mains is nearing the more you write the more you'll have points for examination. So with this we have come to the end of today's Hindi news analysis and as usual if you like this video don't forget to like comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar IS Academy's YouTube channel for more updates related to civil services preparation. Thank you.