 Good evening aspirants. Welcome to the Hindi news analysis by Shankar Ayes academy for the date 18th and 19th August of 2019. These are the list of articles chosen for today's analysis. It has been given along with the page numbers of Chennai, Bengaluru, Delhi and Tiruvannathapuram Medicines. The link for the handwritten notes and the time stamping for the displayed articles is provided in the description box below. And for the benefit of smartphone users, the time stamping is also given in the comments section. Let us move on to the first article analysis which has been taken from 18th August newspaper. This news article is with respect to the recent developments in the UN circles about an internal matter of India. The syllabus relevant to the analysis of this news article has been highlighted here for your reference. Recently, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations held a closed consultation on August 16, 2019. This meeting has been reportedly sought by China at the request of its ally Pakistan. Here, we are referring to a meeting held by the United Nations Security Council, which is one of the six principal organs of United Nations. The meeting was held to discuss the developments and the present situation in Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan were not allowed to participate in this closed consultation. Here, remember that, as of now, both India and Pakistan are not members at the United Nations Security Council. Now, when we say the developments in Kashmir, we refer to the recent removal of special status to the erstwhile status of Jammu and Kashmir, then reorganizing the erstwhile state into two union territories, then the imposition of restriction of movement of local people, then restrictions on freedom of speech, then restrictions for the media in the state, then keeping the mainstream political leaders in custody or under house arrest and some other restrictions. These are the issues we mean when we say the developments and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Now, the news article mentions that, after December 1971, this is the first time the United Nations Security Council has taken the India-Pakistan question for a discussion. The December 1971 was the time at which there was the Bangladeshi Liberation War, where India and Pakistan fought, which eventually led to the creation of a new country called as Bangladesh. There was a meeting on Kashmir in UNSC, even during the time of 1965 Indo-Pakistan War. At one point, the news article even mentions that, the discussions on Kashmir were a prominent feature in UN Security Council since 1948 till 1971, especially when both countries clashed. So, after 1971, according to this news article, this was the first time there was a consultation on Kashmir in the UNSC. The comments of India about the closed consultation were given by India's ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Syed Akbaruddin. He mentioned that the issues around the abrogation of temporary provisions of Article 370 and the removal of special status to Jammu and Kashmir were an internal matter of India. He also added that the remarks made by government of Pakistan or the government of China are only national statements and these statements should not be manipulated as the bill of the international community. This is because no other country except Pakistan and China has openly commented against the internal action of India in Jammu and Kashmir. Then the news article talks about the time when the issue of Kashmir was first discussed at the United Nations Security Council. This was immediately after independence in August 1947. In the month of October 1947, the then government of Pakistan has sent tribesmen and camouflaged soldiers into the then independent territory of Kashmir. They started to invade Kashmir. At that time, Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh. He acceded the territory of Kashmir with India on October 26, 27 1947. This was done through the instrument of accession. So the moment the instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, the princely state territory of Jammu and Kashmir became an Indian territory and the people sent by Pakistan resorted to violence on the local population and they also damaged the infrastructure of the state. Now these incidents were the foundations upon which the Jammu and Kashmir question was created at the UNSC. This title was changed to the India-Pakistan question on January 22 1948. Initially, a resolution was passed by the UNSC on 20 January 1948. This resolution is called as the Resolution 39. Under this resolution, the UNSC set up a commission called as the UN Commission for India and Pakistan or in short UNCIP. The news article mentions that there was disagreement between India and Pakistan and as a result of this disagreement, this commission failed to materialize that is it failed to actually happen. This is because this commission is said to be composed of representatives of three members of the United Nations. One of them is to be selected by India then one of them is to be selected by Pakistan and the third member is to be designated by the two members selected already by India and Pakistan. So, there could have been a possible disagreement in the selection of the third member and the commission failed to materialize. This resolution 39 did not talk about conducting a plebiscite. One of the tasks given to it is to investigate all the facts mentioned in the letter of allegation given by India in its letter dated January 1 1948. Then also to investigate the letter given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan which was dated 15 January 1948. After this, the UN Commission was finally reconstituted with five members on 21st April 1948. This happened as per the UNSC resolution 47. This resolution mandated the commission to plan a mechanism to ensure the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It also said that a nominee of the Secretary General of the United Nations will be appointed as the plebiscite administrator. So, here we have to know what do we mean by plebiscite. Plebiscite means that the people in Jammu and Kashmir are to be asked whether they want the territory to be exceeded to Pakistan or they want the territory to be exceeded to India. Now, here note that no such plebiscite has been conducted so far. So, we can say this resolution 47 increased the membership of the commission from 3 to 5. Then the Security Council resolution 47 also talked about two more things. One is it ordered Pakistan to withdraw the tribesmen and the Pakistani nationals who are normally not residing in Jammu and Kashmir and those who have entered in Jammu and Kashmir for fighting and it also asked both India and Pakistan to restore peace in Jammu and Kashmir. This means to stop the war between the two countries and to withdraw the troops from the territory. Now, after this resolution 47 Pakistan gained upper hand because it did not withdraw its people or the tribesmen or its soldiers. But it agreed for a ceasefire line which was called as the line of control. Now, way back in that time itself because of the raid by the tribesmen and Pakistani soldiers in 1947, Pakistan has occupied around one-third of Jammu and Kashmir. This territory is called as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Note that while the UNSC asked Pakistan to leave the territory, it did not leave the territory. But it demanded that a plebiscite has to be conducted. Now, later the UNCAP also passed a resolution on January 5, 1949. This is for holding plebiscite in Kashmir. But till date the plebiscite was not conducted because Pakistan has not withdrawn its population or soldiers or the tribesmen from the Pakistan occupied area of Jammu and Kashmir. Now, this withdrawal is required to conduct a democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. But now the condition in Kashmir is widely altered by the spread of terrorism and insurgency and separatism which was caused by Pakistan through frequent infiltrations. One of the main objective of this infiltration from Pakistan is to brainwash Indians in Jammu and Kashmir to extend support to Pakistan or to become independent and also to alter the demography in Jammu and Kashmir and thus to change the public opinion in favour of Pakistan. Now, these things are being done by Pakistan because if someday a plebiscite is conducted, things should go in its favour. These are the reasons why India has been objecting for a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir in such a situation. Then at one point the news article mentions that while India took the issue of Kashmir to U.N. for prompt and effective action, big powers ensured that the issue lingered on and they also made it as a part of global concern on conflicts. This is because imagine that somehow the dispute between India and Pakistan is resolved. But this will not be in the interest of big powers because they want their defence production business to go on. That means somehow there has to be conflicts and wars so that they can sell their defence products, arms and ammunition. If there is no conflict or if there is a resolving of conflict, then there will be no business for their companies. We also know that India is one of the top arms importer and Kashmir issue is one of the main reason for it. So, even if the big powers mediate, they will ensure that the conflict is alive. This is for the business reasons of their defence deals or they may even widen the present conflict between India and Pakistan or they may even take sides with Pakistan unfairly to arrest the growing clout of India in international arena. When we say big powers in the present times, these are the nations that are the permanent members of UNSC. More importantly, the USA, the Russian Federation and the China. Then the news article also talks about the relevance of Shimla Agreement to the Kashmir issue. Now, this Shimla Agreement is a bilateral agreement that was signed by the Indian Prime Minister and the President of Pakistan on July 2, 1972. One of the main principles of this agreement is that there shall be a mutual commitment to the peaceful resolution of all issues through direct bilateral approaches. The agreement also says that the two countries resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means that is either through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means that are mutually agreed between them. Then the Shimla Agreement also said that either India or Pakistan should not unilaterally alter the issues with respect to Jammu and Kashmir and the line of control. This was agreed by both the nations by the agreement. But in 1973, then Pakistan Prime Minister unilaterally announced that the territory under its occupation can never be given an independent status. After that, he offered three choices to the area. One is to remain as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Second is to give partly provincial status. And thirdly, a full-fledged province of Pakistan. These options were reportedly given to the region of Pakistan occupied Kashmir, which is called by Pakistan as Azad Kashmir. As we saw earlier, it was decided to solve issues bilaterally in 1972 by the Shimla Agreement. But Pakistan chose to highlight the issue to the Islamic countries by hosting the Islamic Summit of 1974. These are some of the violations of the Shimla Agreement by the Pakistan. If we take into consideration the official attempts that were made by the UN and the bilateral attempts, then the violations by Pakistan in Kashmir constitutes legal problems. That is why the news article mentions that Kashmir as a legal problem appears far more difficult to solve rather than solving it as a political problem. Finally, the article talks about the ground situation of both sides of line of control. It says that under the present situation, UN handling the issue will be very difficult. This is because plebiscite cannot be conducted in the present day scenario, as both India and Pakistan have continued the process of assimilation or integration of respective areas into their national governments. Another reason why UN cannot intervene is that both the nations have already agreed to solve the issues bilaterally. And even if there is UN mediation or any other peaceful means, it has to be mutually agreed by both sides. So, today in this discussion, we saw about the closed consultation of UNSC held on August 16th. Then we saw about the UNSC commission on India and Pakistan, then the UNSC resolutions 39 and 47. And we also saw why plebiscite could not be conducted. Then we saw the relevance of Shimla Agreement to the Kashmir issue. And finally, we saw the reasons why there could not be a UN mediation on the matter. With this, we come to the end of this article discussion. This article is about the controversies around the appointment of Mr. P.S. Gole as Chief Minister of Sikkim. The discussion can be linked to the syllabus that is given here for your reference. Recently, in the last week of May 2019, Mr. Prem Singh Tamang, allies P.S. Gole of the Sikkim Krantikari Mocha was appointed as the Chief Minister of Sikkim. He was appointed as CM by the Governor of Sikkim. This appointment was largely disputed because he was disqualified from contesting election. He was disqualified because of his conviction and sentence in corruption charges and he was also disqualified from contesting for an additional period of six years after his release also. Now know that the general elections to the Legislative Assembly of Sikkim was conducted in April 2019. And Mr. Tamang did not contest the elections as he was barred or prohibited from electoral contests after being convicted in 2016. He was convicted for the charges of corruption. He completed his prison term only in August 2018. That means till 2024, he cannot contest in elections. But his party SKM and its legislators suggested Mr. Tamang as the Chief Minister. Actually, Mr. Tamang was held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. His sentence was also upheld by the Sikkim High Court in 2016 and thereafter he served one year imprisonment. His sentence was completed in August 2018 only. But here you have to note that the representation of people act of 1951 says that a person convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act is not eligible to contest an election from the date of conviction and he shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. Now this provision is given under Section 8 Clause 1 sub-clause M of the Act. So, according to the law, Mr. Goli or Tamang is barred or prohibited from contesting polls until 2024 because his prison term ended in 2018. But then also he was appointed as the Chief Minister by the Governor of Sikkim. Now in this context, the Supreme Court judgment in the case law of BR Kapoor versus State of Tamil Nadu becomes important. At that time, Ms. Jay Lalitha was appointed as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. She was appointed despite her disqualification from contesting elections. This was because she was convicted under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988. She was also sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years. Now according to the Section 8 Clause 3 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, a person shall be disqualified if he or she is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years or more. Therefore, the Supreme Court ordered to unseat or remove her from the Chief Minister's office. The Supreme Court observed that she was disqualified under Article 191 Clause 1 sub-clause E of the Indian Constitution, which was read with Section 8 Clause 3 of Representation of the People Act of 1951. Now here know that the Article 191 Clause 1 sub-clause E states that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if the person is disqualified under any act of the Parliament. Considering this, the author says that Mr. Goli should not have been appointed as Chief Minister. If you see in both the cases of Tamil Nadu and Sikkim, the disputed Chief Ministers were elected as leaders of their respective parties which won the elections. Actually, the lawyers of the disqualified Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu argued that the Governor was bound to appoint the person elected by the party that enjoyed majority in the House. Also, for at least six months, a non-member of the House could continue as a Minister until a question arises about the eligibility of the Minister to contest an election. The Supreme Court has rejected these arguments. Supreme Court said that the non-legislator when she or he is appointed as Chief Minister should be qualified to contest for the election. That means a person who is disqualified to contest cannot be appointed as Chief Minister even for the period of six months. That is only a person who is eligible to contest can be appointed as a Minister if she or he is a non-member to the State Legislative. So, how can a person who is not a member of Legislative Assembly be appointed as a Minister? This is done in accordance with the Article 164 Clause 4 of Indian Constitution. According to this article, a person who is not a member of the Legislature of the State can be appointed as a Minister for a period of six consecutive months. After this period, the person cannot be a Minister as a non-member of the Legislature. But the party to which the Sikkim Chief Minister belongs to brings an unusual argument to support the appointment of Mr. Gholia as Chief Minister. They cite the Repealing and the Amending Act of 2015. This Act had repealed several redundant and unnecessary laws. Actually, the Section 8 Clause 1 sub-clause M was added to the Representation of People Act of 1951 through an Amendment Act, which is called as Representation of People Amendment Act of 2002. Now, this Repealing and Amending Act of 2015 says that it has repealed several acts including the Representation of People Amendment Act of 2002 also. So, the Sikkim Krantikari Mocha Party cites this reason for the legality of the appointment of their Chief Minister. But the author says that the 2015 Repealing Act has made it clear that provisions that were incorporated through the 2002 Amendment Act have become part of the Parent Law, that is the Representation of People Act of 1951. And these amended parts will continue to be in force. This means only the amended Act was repealed. Whatever amendments that was made by the Act were not repealed. Also, the Section 4 of the Repealing and Amendment Act of 2015 says that the repeal by this Act shall not affect any act in which such enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to. So, the author says that the disqualification for corruption conviction is now a part of the Representation of People Act of 1951. And the 2002 amending law was repealed only because it was no more needed. So, the appointment is still disputable under Section 8 Clause 1 sub clause M of Representation of People Act of 1951. But recently, the Sikkim Chief Minister has approached the Election Commission of India for a waiver of the remaining period of his disqualification. So, how can he knock the doors of Election Commission? This is because of the provision in the RPA Act of 1951. The Section 11 of the Act says that the Election Commission may for reasons to be recorded remove any disqualification or reduce the period of any such disqualification for certain offenses, including Section 8 of the Act. If Election Commission gives a waiver, it will surely set a new procedure for the disqualified persons to regularly get waiver after a sentence or conviction, so that they can contest elections. And if such waiver is given, then it will also have a close connection with the criminalization of politics. So, we have to just wait and watch what the Election Commission is going to decide. If Election Commission does not give a waiver, then the Sikkim CM has to resign by the last week of November 2019. If he did not resign, he will no more be a minister and he will not be a member of state legislature like he is now, according to Article 164 Clause 4 of Indian Constitution. With this, we have come to the end of this article discussion. The displayed practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next article discussion, which is about the recent Supreme Court order on Char Dham project in Uttarakhand. The discussion can be linked to the syllabus that has been given here for your reference. In 2016, the Union Government had announced an ambitious Char Dham or four shrines project. Its purpose was to connect the four holy Hindu pilgrimage sites which are situated in Uttarakhand. The connection will be through all-weather highways and all-weather highway is a highway that is trafficable or the vehicles can travel in all-weather conditions. This means a highway that is constructed in such a way that excessive rain does not cause it to be flooded or soaked and so that the vehicles that are traveling over that highway are not stuck on that highway. So, now let us understand brief about the Char Dham project. This project aims to improve the road network connecting four pilgrimage spots in Uttarakhand. The four pilgrimage sites are Yamunotri, Gangotri, Kedarnath and Badrinath. The project will cover 900 kilometer road network. The estimated budget for the project is rupees 12,000 crore. The project also proposes the widening of a single lane roads into double lane roads by up to 10 meters. It proposes the development of highways in Uttarakhand and thereby improving access to the four shrines. But this project was opposed by a group of environmentalists to the National Green Tribunal or NGT. The group argued that the project was proceeding without environmental clearance and the debris produced during the work is being disposed haphazardly or it is being disposed dangerously. As we saw earlier, the project aims at the widening of the highways that are connecting the pilgrimage sites. So, the environmentalists argued that for this project there was an indiscriminate cutting of the Himalayan hill slope because this indiscriminate or thoughtless cutting can create environmental problems such as landslides, soil erosion, etc. So, it poses a great environmental threat. But in September 2018, the NGT ruled that an environmental clearance was not required for this project. So, NGT allowed the project to continue with certain caveats or conditions. It then ordered a seven-member committee to ensure that the project adheres to environmental management plan. This committee included environmental experts and a former judge of Uttarakhand High Court. But after this, Supreme Court state this permission given by NGT for the project and in the latest judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the project to continue under the assessment of an independent committee. The independent committee will be a high-powered committee. This high-powered committee will be headed by Ravi Chopra, who is the director of a Dehradun-based NGO that is working for environmental cause. Hence, this committee is also called as the Chopra Committee. This committee will also have the representatives from the Department of Space, Wildlife Institute of India and the Ministry of Defense also. It is called an empowered committee because it will take a view on whether the Center's ambitious project needs to be revised or not. This is to minimize its ecological damage. The committee would consider the impacts of the project on the Himalayan ecology and it will submit a report within four months to the Union Road Transport Ministry because this project is undertaken by the Union Road Transport Ministry. The Supreme Court also said that this committee will have the prerogative or privilege to give directions to conduct environmental impact assessment to the supporters of the project. So, now let us see what were the actual concerns that were raised by the environmentalist. Firstly, the work on the highways has made the mountain slope as unstable and it has made the mountain slope to be critical landslip zones, which means the mountains are prone to landslides and also the road widening activity is a major trigger for landslips or landslides. Then the project involves cutting the base of a steep mountain slope and trees like Devdhar, Tone and Kail and the cutting of the trees for the project loosens the soil and it makes the slopes unstable. And one another reason given by the environmentalist is that there have been flash floods in several parts of Uttarakhand, like in the Alaknanda valley and in Bagirathi valley and earthquakes in Chamoli and Uttarkashi also. Here by the word flash flood, we mean a sudden local flood which is caused due to heavy rain. So, these are the reasons given by the environmentalists for opposing this Char Dham project. With this, we have come to the end of this article discussion. This practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next article which is about the earth station in Thimphu built by a Bangalore based company. The discussion can be linked to the syllabus that is given here for your reference. Recently, the Prime Minister of India has inaugurated a satellite earth station in Bhutan's capital that is Thimphu. Here know that an earth station is a ground based system for transmitting or receiving signals from the satellite. It is a part of the satellite communication system. It is a centralized hub with radio frequency system to operate the applications of the satellite. The earth station in Thimphu is a part of the South Asia satellite which in short is called as SAS. This earth station was set up by a Bangalore based company. As a part of regional diplomacy, India made a promise to extend the advanced space technology for the cause of growth and prosperity of the people of South Asia. For this, the government of India had offered the service of a dedicated communications satellite to its neighbors such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka. So, to fulfill this promise, ISRO launched the SAS in 2017. The South Asia satellite or SAS is a communication satellite. It is also known as GSAT-9 that is it is a geostationary communication satellite. It was built by ISRO as we saw earlier. It was built to provide a variety of communication services over the South Asian region. For this, it is equipped with KU band transponders. So, the primary objective of GSAT-9 is to provide various communication applications in KU band with coverage over South Asian countries. Here know that the KU band is the portion of electromagnetic spectrum in the microwave range of frequencies from 12 to 18 gigahertz. It is primarily used for satellite communication. Next, even though Pakistan is our neighbor, Pakistan is not a part of the project as it refused to accept the promise of India. The initial proposal to name the satellite was SARC satellite but it was changed to South Asia satellite after Pakistan refused the proposal. The SAS is meant to promote teleeducation, telemedicine, television broadcasting, weather forecasting, disaster monitoring, mapping of natural resources and it will also assist with banking services and governance among the participating countries. Then, it will also strengthen the cooperation among the people of the seven countries that is India and India's six neighboring countries. The Bengaluru based company won the contract in 2018 to execute the KU band SAS earth stations in all the participating countries and also in India. The article says that earth stations in Bhutan and Maldives are completed and the one which is in Nepal is under construction and the same will be continued in other countries also. Now, also know that the network of earth station in Thimphu includes remote VSAT terminals. These VSAT terminals will be put up at 110 locations across Bhutan and a receiver terminal will be placed at 50 locations. Here, VSAT means very small aperture terminal. It is a two-way ground station that transmits and receives data from satellite. This data can be redirected to other remote terminals in the planet also. So, these terminals can ensure communication even in the remotest locations which is the primary objective of this GSAT-9 or South Asia satellite. With this, we have come to the end of this article discussion. This practice question displayed here will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next article discussion which is based on an editorial that appeared in today's newspaper. It is about the recent developments with respect to the no first use policy in the Indian nuclear doctrine. The analysis of this news article will be relevant under the highlighted parts of the syllabus that is given here for your reference. This article talks about two important and foundational pillars of India's nuclear doctrine. One is that India would maintain a credible minimum deterrent and the other is about the India's posture of no first use policy. Now, in this credible minimum deterrent, when we say minimum, we mean having minimum number of required nuclear weapons. India chose to have minimum because the nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction. It constitute the gravest threat to humanity and it is a threat to the peace and stability of the world. So, now what do we mean by credible? This means that the minimum number of nuclear weapons will be in such a way that it will have an effect of credible or sound deterrence on the adversary or elimination who may attack India using the nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons. In this context, the Indian statement is that if there is any major attack on India or its forces using the biological or chemical weapons, then India will retaliate with nuclear weapons. Now, if you see as on June 2019, according to US Department of State and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that is CIPRI, India is the seventh nuclear armed state among the nine nuclear armed countries in the world. This is in terms of the number of nuclear warheads. According to their assessment, even Pakistan has 20 nuclear warheads more than India. India said to have around 140 nuclear weapons. Only two nuclear states have more than 6000 nuclear warheads. The states are USA and Russia. All the remaining seven countries have warheads less than or equal to 300 only. Now, recently we have seen the remarks of the defence minister about the no first use policy in Twitter. The minister has implied that India may adopt first use of nuclear weapons if there arise enough circumstances in the future. The author mentions that this announcement has altered the no first use policy of India with respect to the use of nuclear weapons. The statement made by the defence minister therefore can also be seen as a significant revision of India's nuclear stance and this revision of stance has been announced without any prior structured deliberation or consultation. The announcement has also made experts to think that it leaves some ambiguity in the nuclear doctrine. See, ambi means two. So, ambiguity means double-mindedness, lack of clarity, inner confusion, cat on the wall scenarios etc. This ambiguity is because the minister just said what happens to the no first use policy in the nuclear doctrine in the future depends on the circumstances. So, what could be these circumstances? Why such a statement now? There is no clarity or explanation that in what circumstances India may adopt first use policy of nuclear weapons. Now, such ambiguity can also lead to miscalculations in various circles, such as among various neighbouring countries, among international institutions, among the institutions where India has been given membership etc. For example, if we take because of lack of clarity the member countries say in missile control regime may put pressure to revoke Indian membership etc. Similarly, there could be miscalculations even though India had strictly adhered to the no first use till now. Now, there is also a question as what has changed in India's security environment so that there is a need to review the nuclear doctrine. Now, we know that India has become a full-fledged nuclear state after testing nuclear weapons in May 1998. This test was carried out in Pokhran in the state of Rajasthan and within some days in the same month Pakistan also conducted nuclear tests to show that it is also having the capability to inflict casualty using nuclear weapons. Now, after this test India has released a draft nuclear doctrine on 17th August 1999. This was done at the release of a draft report on India's nuclear doctrine. This draft report was prepared by the First National Security Advisory Board or NSAB. According to the author, this board consists of 27 individuals and they were from various fields such as strategic analysts, academics, retired military and civil servants. And Mr. K Subramaniam was the convener of the First National Security Advisory Board which was constituted in the year 1998. Then after the release of draft on 17th August 1999, there was a time of no discussion on the matter till the beginning of 2003 as some criticisms were raised on the draft nuclear doctrine itself. After 1999, there was also Operation Parakram where Indian military was mobilized against Pakistan between December 2001 and October 2002. This is to compel Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. The Operation Parakram was the Indian response to the terror attack on Indian parliament on 13th December 2001. After this, all of a sudden there was an abrupt introduction of official nuclear doctrine of India on 4th of January in 2003. This was the doctrine we are referring to whenever we say nuclear doctrine of India. This doctrine was publicly adopted by the government of India and this public adoption shows the Indian commitment to restraint and Indian commitment to be a responsible nuclear power. The restraint here means that India will restrain itself from using nuclear weapons at the first instance. Only after being attacked by another entity by using nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, India will retaliate by using nuclear weapons. This is the meaning of restraint. But some experts including a member from the first NSAB, Mr. Bharat Karnat has objected to this restraint. This is because by exercising restraint, India may become the first casualty. That is only after becoming a casualty, India will respond according to this no first use policy. But exercising restraint and being a responsible nuclear power and the proclamation of no first use policy has become a basis for India's claim for the nuclear mainstream. When we say nuclear mainstream, we mean the countries who are called as nuclear haves according to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Now, since India is also having nuclear weapons, it is also a nuclear weapon state. But by using restraint and by using no first use policy as basis, India also claimed membership into the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the year 2008. But India has not yet joined the group. India wants to be a part of this group so that it can access the benefits of nuclear commerce. Even though India did not get membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India's nuclear doctrine has tipped the scales in favour of India in getting membership in missile technology control regime, the Wasiner arrangement and the Australian Group also. So, any change in the present nuclear doctrine may have an impact of India's relationship with these groups also. Here the Wasiner arrangement was formally established in July 1996. It is a voluntary export control regime where its members exchange information on the transfers of conventional weapons and they also exchange information on the transfers of dual use goods and technologies. India joined this arrangement on 8th December 2017 and the Australian Group is a informal arrangement which aims to allow exporting countries to minimize the risk of assisting chemical and biological weapon proliferation. In this way, it controls the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. India joined this group on 19th January 2018 and this missile technology control regime or the MTCR is an informal political understanding among certain states who seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and missile technology. India became the member of MTCR on June 27th 2016. In addition to nuclear suppliers group, all these four mechanisms multilaterally work to prevent and address the proliferation of nuclear weapons. They also prevent the transfer of technology that helps in making the nuclear weapons and they collectively prevent the transfer of such systems that are capable of delivering the appropriate weapons. So, being a member in all these groups as a nuclear armed state means that India has been recognized as a nuclear power at the global level and also that India has been made part of the global non-proliferation architecture. Then the author also talks about the India's understanding of nuclear weapons so far. India has considered nuclear weapons as a tool only to deter or to discourage an adversary from attacking India. These weapons are not seen as war fighting armaments and they are to be used only as a last resort but the author concludes that all these understandings of India about the nuclear weapons has to be revised according to the statements made by the defense minister recently. With this we have come to the end of this article discussion. This practice question displayed here will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next article discussion which is about the Chilika lake and the Ansupa lake of Odisha. The discussion can be linked to the syllabus that is given here for your reference. This news article states that the Odisha wetland authority has approved the implementation of an integrated management plan. This integrated management plan is for the Chilika lake and Ansupa lake. It is a five-year integrated management plan. This five-year management of lakes is intended at strengthening the livelihood of thousands of fishermen who are relying on the two water bodies. Also it will help to promote tourism and it will also help in the conservation of ecology. The news article states that during past two years the Chilika development authority has managed to make the lake free from encroachment. Now this effort has resulted in a 20% increase in fish catch. If there is an increase in fish catch then the fishermen will be benefited. So this integrated management plan is also aiming to achieve this only. So now let us see in brief about this Chilika lake and Ansupa lake. The Chilika is a shallow brackish water lake. It lies in the districts of Puri, Khurda and Ganjam on the eastern coast of Odisha and it is the Asia's largest brackish water lake. Here brackish water we mean the water that is saltier than freshwater but not as salty as seawater. This Chilika lake is roughly pier shaped and it is fed by 52 rivers and rivulets. Also an interesting feature of this lake is that the area of the lake varies in the dry and wet seasons. It varies between you know 560 to 1,000 square kilometers and it is about 32 kilometer wide at its broadest. This Chilika lake was formed due to silting action of the Mahanadi river which drains into the northern end of the lake. This Chilika lake is also known as a shallow lagoon which was formed due to the northerly currents in the Bay of Bengal which created a sandbar along the eastern shore. Now here a lagoon is a shallow body of water that may have an opening to a larger body of water but it is protected from the larger body of water by a sandbar or a coral reef. This lake is divided into an outer channel with a narrow neck leading into the sea and the main body of the lake has a muddy bottom which is rich in organic matter. So due to the varying degrees of salinity in different parts of the lake the fauna or the animals in the region is interestingly diverse and a variety of animals are adapting to the marine or riverine existence so as to survive in the different parts of the lake. Now the animal life that is recorded in the lake ranges from plantonic microorganisms to a vast variety of fish which together sustain the migratory birds population in the winter. Chilika lake is one of the hotspot of biodiversity because some rare vulnerable and endangered species that are listed in the IUCN red list of threatened species inhabit in this lagoon for at least a part of their life cycle. Now also know that the Ayuravadi dolphins are also found in this Chilika lake and as per the population estimation that was carried out in 2013 there are 152 number of dolphins in this lagoon and therefore it is considered as the largest lagoon supported dolphin population of the world. The Ayuravadi dolphins has been listed as endangered by the IUCN red list and it is also listed in Sites Appendix too. So lakhs of tourists visit the lake to watch this endangered Ayuravadi dolphins and they also visit to watch the migratory birds during winter. Also about 151 villages around this lake carry out fishing because fishing is the principal livelihood to lakh families that live in that region. This is also one of the reason why the government is spending 158 crores for the lakes development. Now also know that on the account of its rich biodiversity and ecological significance Chilika was designated as the first Ramasur site of India which means it is the wetland of international importance. Next if we consider the Ansupa lake it is located 50 kilometer from Katak. It is situated in the middle of the state highway that is connecting Athagar and Bunky blocks of Katak district. This Ansupa lake is spread across 382 kilometers. Also know that Ansupa is the largest freshwater lake in Odisha. The lake derives its name from its shape because it is shaped like a horseshoe. This Ansupa lake is also the wintering ground for 32 species of migratory birds. Its calmness, scenic beauty and forest coverage attract the visitors. The news article states that Ansupa is famous for its sweet water fish especially the labyobata which is locally known as Pohala. So we can say that this lake is also rich in fish. So the investment by the government will benefit around 250 fishermen of two villages who live around the lake. With this we have come to the end of this article discussion. This practice question will be discussed in the last session. Moving on to the next article discussion which is about the award conferred by United Arab Emirates to our Indian Prime Minister. The discussion can be linked to the syllabus that is given here for your reference. The news article states that the Indian Prime Minister will visit the United Arab Emirates or UAE on August 23rd and 24th. There he will receive the Order of Zayed. The Order of Zayed is the highest civilian award of UAE. This award was conferred to the Indian Prime Minister in April 2019. It was conferred in recognition of the distinguished leadership of our Prime Minister for giving a boost to bilateral relations between the two countries. This award is given in the name of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. He is the founding father of UAE. This award acquires special significance or it is important because it is awarded to the Indian Prime Minister in the year of the birth centenary of Sheikh Zayed. That is 2019 is the 100th birth anniversary of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. So, now in this context you should also know some other global awards given to our Indian Prime Minister. First one is the Champions of the Earth Award. It was given by United Nations. Then the Prime Minister has been conferred with various honours including the highest civilian honour of Saudi Arabia which is the Shash of the King Abdul Laziz. Then he has also been conferred the top award of Russia which is the Order of the Holy Apostle Andrew I. Then he was also conferred the top award of Palestine which is Grand Caller of the State of Palestine. Then comes the Amir Amanullah Khan Award which is awarded by Afghanistan. And finally even Maldives conferred an award to our Prime Minister which is the Rule of Nishan Izzuddin Award. Then also remember that in 2018 our Prime Minister received the prestigious Seol Peace Prize. This was given for his contribution to peace and development. With this we have come to the end of this article discussion. Moving on to the last session for the day that is the practice questions discussion session. If you look at this question three statements have been given and we have to choose the correct statement. Now the first statement states a non-legislator can be appointed for the office of Chief Minister in a state if he or she is qualified to contest elections. Now during our discussion we saw that the Supreme Court has said that the non-legislator when she or he is appointed as CM should be qualified to contest for the election. So that means a person who is disqualified to contest cannot be appointed as Chief Minister even for a period of six months. That is only a person who is eligible to contest can be appointed as a Minister if she or he is a non-member to the state legislative. So this makes the statement one as the correct statement because it states a non-legislator can be avoided for the office of Chief Minister in a state if he or she is qualified to contest elections. Then if you look at the second statement it states a person convicted for corruption under prevention of corruption act of 1988 cannot contest election ever. Now during our discussion we saw that according to section 8 clause 1 sub clause M of representation of people act of 1951 the person who is convicted under the prevention of corruption act is not eligible to contest an election from the date of conviction and he shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. So this means after the release the person is disqualified only for a period of six years not ever. So this makes this statement as incorrect statement. If you look at the third statement it states ECI is not empowered to remove or reduce the term of disqualification of a convict. Now if you look at the third statement it states ECI is not empowered to remove or reduce the term of disqualification of a member of the state legislative assembly. Now this statement is wrong because according to section 11 of representation of people act of 1951 the election commission may remove any disqualification or it can also reduce the period of any such disqualification for certain offenses. Here it is stated as election commission is not empowered so this statement is wrong. Here the question asks for the correct statements here statement one is the only correct statement. So the correct answer to this question is option A1 only. Then this next question is based on Char Dham project. The first statement is given as it is implemented in Uttarakhand. Yes this statement is correct because this project is being carried out in Uttarakhand only. Now if you see the next statement it states it connects Yamanothri, Gangutri, Kedarnath and Badrinath. Now this project is named as Char Dham project. In Hindi Char means four. So remember it will connect four pilgrimage and those pilgrimage are Yamanothri, Gangutri, Kedarnath and Badrinath. So this statement is also correct. Then this third statement states it aims to improve the road network connecting the pilgrimage sites. This is the objective of this project. So this statement is also correct. Here all these statements are correct and the question asks for the correct statement. So here option D123 is the correct answer to this question. This next question is based on South Asia satellite. Three statements have been given. We have to choose the correct statement. The first statement states it is also called as PSLV9. Now remember that PSLV stands for Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. So PSLV is a launch vehicle. It is not a satellite by itself. So automatically this statement is wrong and remember that South Asia satellite is also known as GSAT9 and not PSLV9. Then the second statement states it is operated by ISRO for all SARC countries. To answer this question first you should know which are all the SARC countries. The SARC comprises of eight member states and they are the neighbors of India including India such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and obviously India. Now this question states that it is operated by ISRO for all SARC countries. Now during our discussion if you remember we said that Pakistan did not accept the proposal of India for the South Asia satellite and even the initial proposal to name the satellite was SARC satellite but it was changed to South Asia satellite after Pakistan refused to accept the proposal. So this means Pakistan is not included in this project. So this means statement two is incorrect because all the SARC countries are not a part of this project. Then the third statement states it is a geostationary communication satellite. Now this statement is correct. The South Asian satellite was built to provide a variety of communication services over the South Asian region. So this statement is correct. Here statement three is the only correct statement. So the correct answer to this question is option C3 only. Now this next question is based on Chilika Lake. Here four statements have been given. The first statement states it is a largest brackish water lake in Asia. Now this first statement is correct because as we know from our discussion that Chilika Lake is the largest brackish water lake in Asia. The second statement states it is the only Ramsar site of Odisha. Now during our discussion we saw that Chilika Lake is the first Ramsar site of India. But this statement states it is the only Ramsar site of Odisha. Now we can say this statement is partially correct only because Chilika Lake is in Odisha and it is a Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention which means it is a wetland of international importance. But the question states that it is the only Ramsar site of Odisha which is wrong because Bittarkhandika mangroves of Odisha are also listed as Ramsar site. The third statement states it is listed in the Montreux record. Now this third statement is also wrong because in 1993 Chilika Lake was listed in the Montreux record because but it was removed from the list in 2002. It was removed because it was successfully restored by the Chilika Development Authority. Now here Montreux record is a threatened list under the Ramsar list and initially Chilika Lake was included in the Montreux record due to the change in the ecological character of the lake ecosystem. But it was removed in 2002. So this means this statement is wrong now. Then the fourth statement states it has the largest lagoon supported dolphin population of the world. Now this fourth statement is also correct. We discussed during our article discussion that Chilika Lake has the largest lagoon supported dolphin population of the world which has Ayuravadi dolphins. Here statement 1 and 4 are the correct statements. So the correct answer to this question is option C 1 and 4 only. If you look at this next question it states India has joined in which of the following groupings. Four groupings have been given and we have to choose the correct answer from this. The first one is Wasan Air arrangement, second is Australian group, third nuclear supplies group, fourth missile technology control regime. Now during our discussion we clearly mentioned that India is not a member of nuclear supplies group as of now. So if you know this clearly you can directly eliminate option A and D because it has three in its option. Now India has not joined this group because of the opposition from China. China opposes using the card of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty which says that only five nations in the world can have nuclear weapons and these five nations are the permanent members of UN Security Council. Since this treaty is discriminatory India has not signed it yet. So that is why China is opposing India to join the group. Now the other three groups if you see the Wasan Air arrangement the Australian group and the missile technology control regime we discussed all these three in detail in our discussions today. And we also saw that India has gained membership in all the remaining groups like India joined the Wasan Air arrangement in the year 2017 and it joined the Australian group in 2018 and it joined MTCR in 2016. So MTCR 2016 Australian group 2018 and Wasan Air arrangement 2017. So this means the final answer should contain 1, 2 and 4. So the correct answer to this question is option C 1, 2 and 4 only. With this we have come to the end of today's Hindi news analysis. If you like the video don't forget to like comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for more updates related to civil service examination preparation.