 Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankar IAS Academy for the date 25th of January 2020. The news articles taken up for today's discussion is displayed here along with the page numbers of five different editions. The handwritten notes in the PDF format and the time stamping of all the news articles taken up for today's discussion is available in the description section and also in the comment section for the benefit of the smartphone users. Let us now start our discussion. This news article is related to the National Security Act. It says that the National Security Act has been imposed in Delhi. It has been imposed from 19th January 2020 till 18th of April 2020 and the notification to this effect was issued on 10th of January. Now why this act was imposed in Delhi is because there are widespread protests that is happening across Delhi against the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019. So in this context, let us see the important features of the National Security Act of 1980. The syllabus that is relevant to the analysis of this news article is given here for your reference. See the National Security Act is a legislation that provides for preventive detention of persons. When we say preventive detention, this refers to detaining or arresting a person with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicial to the security of the state and some of the grounds. We will see the grounds later. Now know that the detained person who is under this preventive detention is called as a detainee and this act applies to the whole of India. Earlier if you see this act was not applicable in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir but if you see this National Security Act was amended by the Jammu and Kashmir Organization Act of 2019. So as a result, now this act is applicable to the whole of India including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh. Now let us see who has the powers to make orders to detain certain persons under this act. Both central and state governments can make an order to direct that such a person can be detained. Here with respect to the Union Territory, the state government refers to the administrator of the concerned Union Territory as defined under this act. So it can be administrator in case of certain Union Territories and left-man general in case of certain Union Territories. Now let us see some of the grounds on which a person can be subjected to preventive detention. The first ground is that if any person may act in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India or to the relations of India with foreign powers or the security of India, then he or she can be detained. Secondly, if any foreigner is in India and the foreigner's presence in India has to be continuously regulated, then the foreigner can be subjected to preventive detention. Then if you see a foreigner can be detained, provided arrangements are being made for the expulsion of foreigners from India. In addition to all these grounds, if the central government or the state governments are satisfied that a person has to be detained to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services that are essential to the community, then an order can be issued to detain such persons. So it is based on these grounds, a person can be detained under the National Security Act of 1980, either by the orders issued by the state government or by the central government. Next, this act also states that the district magistrate or the commissioner of police can exercise the powers of a detaining authority and this power will be delegated by the concerned state government if there are circumstances or if some circumstances may prevail in their jurisdictions. Here the word circumstances means the scenario where persons may act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state or in any manners that we just saw above. So when there could be such circumstances, if the state government is satisfied that it is necessary to detain someone, then it may direct the district magistrate or the commissioner of police by order in writing. So this direction is to exercise the powers of the detaining authority for such period as may be specified in the order. Now if you see this power is based on subsection 3 under section 3 of this act. So it is this provision which you should relate to today's news article. So the lieutenant governor of Delhi has exercised his powers under subsection 3 of section 3 to direct the commissioner of police of Delhi to exercise the powers of detaining authority under subsection 2 of section 3 of this act. So the commissioner of police will now have this power for a period of three months from 19th Jan 2020 till 18th of April 2020 as you can see in this picture. So why three months? This is because section 3 states that the period specified in an order made by the state government shall not exceed three months in the first instance. That is first when an order is issued, it will be valid only for a period of three months. But if you see the state governments may amend such order if it is necessary to amend. Here when we tell state governments, it also includes the union territories. Just remember this. So this amendment of the issued order is to extend the period from time to time. By extending it can be extended by any period not exceeding three months at any single extension. So if a state government or union territory decides to extend it, again it can extend only for three months. So it can keep on extending. So this is why you can see in this news article the period of three months. Next let us see the provisions related to the disclosure of grounds of order of detention to the persons affected by the order. When a person is detained in perseverance of a detention order, the grounds on which the order of detention has been made has to be communicated to him as soon as possible within five days from the date of detention. But in exceptional circumstances, the communication has to be made within 10 days from the date of detention. In addition to this, the authority making the order shall give opportunity to the detainee to make representation against the order of the appropriate government. Now if the authority feels that if it has to disclose some facts which are against public interest, then the authority may not disclose such information to the detainee. So this is one thing. Next the most important part of this act is the constitution of advisory boards. See section nine of this act states that the central government and each state governments shall whenever necessary constitute one or more advisory boards for the purposes of this act. So such advisory boards shall consist of three persons. It can be the present judges of high court or they might have been judges of high court or who are qualified to be appointed as judges of high court. So three such persons shall be appointed by the appropriate government. So the appropriate government shall place the grounds of detention order and the representation of the detainee before this advisory board. And this has to be done within three weeks from the date of detention. Now if the advisory board has reported that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person, then the appropriate government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such a period as it thinks fit. So in any case where the advisory board has reported that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, then the appropriate government shall revoke the detention order and it shall make sure that the person concerned has to be released. Next let us see the maximum period for which any person may be detained in perseverance of any detention order which has been confirmed by the advisory board. See the maximum period of detention can be 12 months from the date of detention. Note that the concerned government can revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time. So these are some of the important features of this act. That is the National Security Act of 1980 that you need to know. Now we saw that the left-hand governor of Delhi has directed the commissioner of police of Delhi to exercise the powers of detaining authority for a period of three months. That is from 19 January 2020 to 18 April 2020. So this action of the left-hand governor has been questioned by various sections of society as actions against free speech and expression and the right to dignity. Then it has also been considered as a measure to curtail the peaceful democratic actions that are taking place in the capital against the recent amendment which was made to the Citizenship Act of 1955. And then also against the national population register and the national register for citizens. So a petition was filed in Supreme Court to give a complete ban. That is a blanket ban on the order of the left-hand governor. But if you see the Supreme Court has refused to ban the order of the left-hand governor as it felt that a ban would restrict or tie the hands of the government from taking actions if some activities or untoward incidents are prone to happen. But the court has said that the petitioners will have the liberty to approach the court for the detention of individuals by misusing the powers under the National Security Act of 1980. So these are some of the things that you need to know from the analysis of this news article. To summarize our analysis, we saw about the National Security Act of 1980 and the silent features of this act in detail. Like who can issue orders? What are the grounds for making a detention order? Then we saw about the advisory boards, then the maximum period of detention. And we also saw in what provisions the left-hand governor of Delhi has made the recent order to give detaining powers to the commissioner of police of Delhi. Now have a look at the practice question. Let us move on to the next news article. This editorial is related to the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice on Rohingya issue. Before discussing this editorial, first let us see about the order that has been given by the International Court of Justice. The syllabus that is relevant to the analysis of this editorial is given here for your reference. First, let us see for what case the International Court of Justice has given this order. If you are a regular viewer of our analysis or if you are regularly reading the newspaper, you can remember that in November 2019, Gambia filed an application on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation against Myanmar in the International Court of Justice. This application by Gambia was concerning the alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, which is in short known as the UN Genocide Convention. And if you remember, we have discussed in detail about this convention and about the Rohingya issue on 21 November 2019, the Hindu News Analysis. So we request the viewers to have a look at it for better understanding. Now, let us see what are the allegations of Gambia on Myanmar where? In its application, Gambia blamed that Myanmar has committed genocidal acts against members of the Rohingya group and it continues to do the same. We know that Rohingyas are distinct ethnic, racial and religious group who reside primarily in Myanmar's Raking State. Now, Gambia's alleged that Myanmar's military and security forces and persons or entities that are acting on the instructions of military and security forces are those who are under its direction and control have been responsible for the killings, rape and other forms of sexual violence, which also includes torture, beatings, cruel treatment of the Rohingyas. And it has also alleged that they are responsible for the destruction or denial of access to food, shelter and other essentials of life to the Rohingyas. So Gambia's alleged that all these inhumane acts have been done with the intent to destroy the Rohingya groups. In addition to these allegations, the application made by Gambia also contained a request for the indication of provisional measures to be given by the International Court of Justice for preserving the rights of the Rohingya group in Myanmar under this 1948 Genocide Convention. So now, let us see whether the International Court of Justice can give such provisional measures or not. Yes, the International Court of Justice can give such provisional measures. The court may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the applicant appear to be prima facie. That is, if it thinks there is a case to indicate provisional measures. And it appears to have a basis on which the court's jurisdiction can be founded. Here, prima facie means based on the first impression. It means the allegations are accepted as correct until it is proved otherwise. Now for providing any provisional measures, the court must also satisfy itself that the rights whose protection is sought are at least credible. And there is a link between those rights and the measures that have been requested. Further, the court also has powers to indicate the provisional measures will be exercised only if there is a real and imminent risk because of which irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights that aren't dispute before the International Court of Justice gives its final decision. So based on all these conditions, the court can indicate provisional measures. So in this case, the International Court of Justice has agreed that at least some of the acts alleged by Gambia are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention. This is the reason why the International Court of Justice took up this case. So regarding the allegations and provisional measures, the International Court of Justice has observed that the Rohingyas in Myanmar appeared to constitute a protected group within the meaning of the Genocide Convention. If you see the provisions of the Genocide Convention are intended to protect the members of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group from acts of Genocide or any other punishable acts under the convention. Further, if you see the International Court of Justice refer to the report of independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar which was established by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. In this report, the fact-finding mission has indicated that since October 2016, the Rohingyas in Myanmar have been subjected to acts which are capable of affecting their right of existence as a protected group under this Genocide Convention. Now, some of the acts which have been mentioned in the report are mask killings, then widespread rape, then other forms of sexual violence, as well as beatings, then destruction of villages and homes, then denial of access to food, shelter and other essentials of life. So this fact-finding mission concluded in September 2019 that the Rohingya people remained at serious risk of Genocide. So based on this report, the International Court of Justice agreed that the Rohingyas in Myanmar remain extremely vulnerable. So the court unanimously indicated the provisional measures for the protection of the rights of Rohingyas. So now let us see the provisional measures which have been given by the International Court of Justice. The first measure is that in relation to the members of the Rohingya group and its territory, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall take all measures within its powers to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article 2 of Genocide Convention. As you can see here, and in particular, Myanmar has to prevent killing members of the group, then it has to prevent the causing of serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group, then it also has to prevent the acts that deliberately cause physical destruction to the group in whole or in part, or it has to prevent the imposing of measures that are intended to prevent births within the group. So this is the first measure. The second measure which Myanmar has to take us to ensure that it's military, as well as any irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by Myanmar, plus any organizations and persons which may be subject to the control, direction or influence of military of Myanmar shall not commit any acts that is described in the first measure. Also Myanmar has to ensure that it's military and other related associations do not conspire, that is, do not plan to commit genocide or attempt to commit genocide. So this is the second measure. Now if you look at the third measure, Myanmar has to take all effective measures to prevent the destruction of evidence related to the allegations of the acts and it has to ensure the preservation of such evidences. So this is the third measure. Now the final measure, if you see, Myanmar has to submit a report to the International Court of Justice within four months. This report should mention all the measures that have been taken by Myanmar to give effect to the order of the International Court of Justice. Further such report has to be submitted after every six months to the International Court of Justice until a final decision on this case is being given by the court. So these were the provisional measures which were indicated by the court for the protection of the rights of Rohingyas. But remember that the International Court of Justice has given its order regarding the provisional measures sought by Gambia and it has not given any final order regarding the allegations of genocide. So remember the difference between provisional measures and the final order. Now a question may arise if the orders and judgments given by the International Court of Justice are binding. If you consider International Court of Justice, its judgments have binding force and there is no appeal for the parties which are involved in a particular case for which the judgment has been given by the International Court of Justice. So the parties cannot appeal to any other court for the judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice. So it is the legal responsibility of Myanmar government in this case to take the indicated measures and to prevent the Rohingyas from further abuse and torture. So these are the events that has happened in the International Court of Justice based on the allegations made by Gambia against Myanmar. Based on these events, this editorial has been written by the author. So now let us come to the editorial. In this editorial, the author has mentioned Myanmar's foreign ministry comments on this ICJ ruling. Firstly, the foreign ministry of Myanmar has rejected the ruling and further it has accused the rights groups for presenting a distorted picture of the situation that is prevailing in Myanmar to the International Court of Justice. Not only it has this accusation, even in a statement if you see Myanmar defended the military's action saying that it was a legitimate response. So according to Myanmar, the military's actions are legitimate response to the violations of law by the insurgent Arakhan Rohingya Salvation Army in short ARSA. See this Arakhan Rohingya Salvation Army is a militant group of Myanmar which has attacked on police and army posts of Myanmar. So the Myanmar government had declared this ARSA as a terrorist organization. Based on this, now the Myanmar government is claiming that the actions of its military are legitimate response to the violations committed by ARSA. By this we can say that Myanmar is justifying the actions of its military rather than condemning it. Even author agrees to this if you see. Here the author has noted that this claim of Myanmar is in conflict with the findings of Independent Commission of Enquiry or ICOE which was established by the Myanmar government itself. See this Independent Commission of Enquiry was tasked to investigate the allegations of human rights violations and related issues following the terrorist attacks by the Arakhan Rohingya Salvation Army in Rakhine state. See it was established with a view to seek accountability and for formulating the recommendations on the steps that has to be taken to ensure peace and stability in Rakhine state. So based on this, on 20th January, this Independent Commission of Enquiry submitted its final report to the government of Myanmar. Now let us see some conclusions of the Independent Commission of Enquiry based on its findings. It has concluded that war crimes, serious human rights violations and violations of domestic law have taken place during security operations which were conducted between 25th August and 5th September, 2017 in the Rakhine state of Myanmar. This commission has noted that although these serious crimes and violations were committed by multiple actors, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the members of Myanmar security forces are also involved in these crimes and violations. And it even agreed that ARSA's attacks provoked the response by Myanmar's security forces. Then if you see this commission also concluded that the killings of innocent villagers and destruction of their homes were committed by some members of Myanmar security forces through disproportionate use of force during the internal armed conflict. But it mentioned that no evidence have been found. So this suggested that the killings or acts of displacement were committed in pursuit of an intent or a plan to destroy the Muslim or any other community in the northern Rakhine state. So now there is insufficient evidence to argue that the crimes committed were undertaken with an intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. So here Myanmar is trying to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that the crimes which were committed accounted to international crime of genocide. So as a whole we can say that the independent commission of inquiry agreed that the military has done the atrocities and crime in the Rakhine state but it has denied the genocidal intention behind this. So based on these reports, orders and events the author notes that the ruling by international court of justice is an important victory for the Rohingya refugees. That is why this editorial is titled as justice for Rohingya. Further if you see this ruling also empowers the United Nations Security Council to prevail upon Myanmar in order to take appropriate measures for the rehabilitation and repatriation of the displaced Rohingya communities. So as a way forward the author is suggesting that China could play a constructive role to ensure a speedy return of normalcy in its neighborhood Myanmar. So this is all about the discussion of this editorial. In this editorial we saw about the background behind the allegations that were made by Gambia on behalf of OIC in the International Court of Justice and the provisional measures that have been given by ICJ and we also saw how Myanmar has not accepted the allegations made against it in the International Court of Justice. So in this case you can see that India has played a very limited role. If you remember during 25th January there was an editorial on Myanmar's growing dependence on China. See the Chinese premier visited Myanmar and inaugurated a slew of infrastructure projects and Myanmar is moving more close towards China. And if you see China has also strategic plans in Nepal, Sri Lanka, apart from Myanmar. Also China has good relations with Pakistan. So from all these events we can see that India's diplomacy in South Asia is facing some setbacks and it faces serious challenges. If you see in your main general studies paper to syllabus we have a portion India and its neighborhood relations. So always try to have an idea about the events that are happening in India's neighborhood. So it is important to know this editorial from this perspective. Now have a look at the practice question. Let us move on to the next news article. Next, let us see some news articles regarding India-Brazil bilateral relations. We saw during our 22nd January 2020 the Hindu news analysis in depth about the India-Brazil bilateral relations. And we told that for the next one week or so we'll be getting more news articles and editorials regarding India-Brazil bilateral relations because the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is in India as a chief guest for India's 71st Republic Day celebrations. So in this context let us see two news articles today. Now if you look at this first news article it is related to the concerns raised by farmer groups in India against a complaint registered by Brazil at the World Trade Organization. See in 2019 Brazil along with few countries complained against India at the World Trade Organization stating that India's sugar-pricing policies were against the norms in agreement on agriculture. So in this context let us discuss in detail about this agreement on agriculture, its provisions and the present issue that has been discussed in this news article. The syllabus that is relevant to the analysis of this news article is given you for your reference. First let us see about this agreement on agriculture. See agreement on agriculture is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization. It is one of the many agreements which were negotiated during the Uruguay round off trade negotiations of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. In 1995 when World Trade Organization replaced this general agreement on tariffs and trade the agreement on agriculture also came into force. So what is this agreement on agriculture? See it aims to reform the trade in agriculture across the world by establishing a fair and market oriented trading systems. Also it aims at progressive reductions in agricultural support and the protection that are provided by the governments to their farmers. So this would result in correcting and preventing the restrictions and distortions in the world agricultural markets. Because if one country tries to protect their farmers by giving subsidies then the other country might be affected because of the policies of the first government. So this agreement on agriculture is trying to bring in a balance between the trading systems of the world. Especially in the field of agriculture. So this agreement is focused on three broad areas of agriculture and trade policy which are market access, domestic support and export subsidies. So the first pillar is the market access. Now let us see this market access. It simply means ensuring equal market access to the member countries by removing hurdles such as tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. So the first step is called as tarification. It means that all non-tariff barriers such as quotas, minimum import prices, then discretionary licensing, et cetera all need to be abolished and converted into an equivalent tariff. So there should not be differentiating tariffs for different countries. Instead that should be an equivalent tariff for all the countries. So there are some tariff limits which have been set as per this agreement which differs for the developed countries and the developing countries over different time periods. So this is about the first pillar which is the market access. Now let us look at the second pillar of this agreement on agriculture which is the domestic support. It simply means domestic subsidies that are given by a particular government within its country. Here the World Trade Organization has classified subsidies into three categories based on their ability to distort the overall trade. They are green box, amber box and blue box subsidies. Now if you look at green box this includes subsidies that do not distort the trade or at most cause minimal distortion to trade. For example, if a government is funding for food security or for environmental conservation and research programs then if it funds for disaster relief then if it funds for farmer training programs pest disease control programs which does not distort trade or which causes minimal distortion to trade then all these come under green box subsidies. So there is no limit on the governments for giving these green box subsidies which you need to know. Next let us look at the amber box. This includes subsidies that distort international trade. So if a country is giving so much subsidies on a particular agricultural product and say if another country is not giving such subsidies then if the country which gives so much subsidies to its products exports those agricultural products to another country in the international market then it will have an advantage. So the other country will be affected because of the act of this first country which gave subsidies. So we can tell that it distorts international trade. For example subsidies on electricity subsidies on seeds fertilizer and even minimum support price can encourage excessive production in a particular country and this can distort trade balance. So there are some limits prescribed by the World Trade Organization on these subsidies. So this is all you need to know about amber box. Now next let us see blue box. This includes subsidies that aims to limit the production. Now how it does is it tries to limit the production quotas or it asks the farmers to set aside a part of their land so that production can be limited. According to World Trade Organization blue box is the amber box with conditions designed to reduce the distortion by limiting the productions. So the aim is to limit the production quotas. Now if you see some countries want to keep the blue box because they see it as crucial means of moving away from distorting amber box subsidies. So the farmers will not affected by the move of the government by giving blue box subsidies. At present if you see there is no limit on blue box subsidies. So these are the three types of subsidies under domestic support, green box, amber box and blue box. Now let us see the third pillar of this agreement on agriculture which is the export subsidies. See export subsidies aim to encourage the export of goods through measures such as loans at low interest then providing tax relief to the exporters, et cetera. So this agreement requires the member countries to reduce the export subsidies. Similar to the first pillar market access WTO has mentioned some guidelines which differ for developed countries and developing countries over different time periods. So try to remember this aspect. So these are the three pillars of agreement on agriculture. We can say that the agreement on agriculture of this World Trade Organization mainly commits the member countries to limit the domestic support which they give to the farmers and the exporters were involved in exporting the agricultural products. You need to know these commitments are binding on the member countries. So if these commitments are violated then the agreed countries can approach World Trade Organization's dispute settlement body. So based on this in early 2019 countries such as Brazil, Australia and Guatemala have dragged India into the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement mechanism. See these countries allege that the domestic support measures and the export subsidy measures provided by India towards sugar cane farmers and exporters were in violation of agreement on agriculture. Following this complaint by these three countries the World Trade Organization set up a panel to look into the complaints. So today's news article is related to this complaint. Now let us discuss the news article. We saw during the start that Brazilian president is the chief guest for India's 71st Republic Day celebrations. In this context several farmer groups across India have demanded Indian government to push Brazil to withdraw its complaint at the World Trade Organization. Know that at present India has a foreign remunerative price system for the sugar cane farmers. This is nothing but a minimum price which the sugar mills have to pay to the sugar cane farmers. So this foreign remunerative price ensures that the farmers get a minimum price for their hard work. And know that the prices are determined based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices based on consultation with state governments and other stakeholders. And know that this Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices is an office which is attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Now according to the news article the farmers organizations claim that the government does not pay the sugar cane farmers or procure from them because there are very few public sector mills in the country. Instead it is the private sector which procures the sugar cane from the sugar cane farmers. And the government announces only the foreign remunerative price that has to be paid by the sugar mills to the farmers. So it cannot be treated as a violation of the World Trade Organization norms on domestic support commitments. So this is the claim made by the farmers organization which you need to know. This news article also says that in 2018-19 India overtook Brazil to become the world's largest sugar producer. But if you see in the global sugar exports market Brazil's share is more when compared to India because Brazil has a share of 35% out of the total global sugar exports. Whereas India enjoys only a 5% share in the global market. So we can see that most of the sugar which is produced in India is consumed domestically. This news article tells that Brazil is now open to find a non-litical solution to the matter without compromising their concerns and India's development goals. So we need to wait and watch how this issue will proceed further. We can hope that this issue would be solved amicably as soon as possible so that nearly 5 crore Indian sugarcane farmers will be relieved. This is all about the discussion of this news article. In this news article, we saw about the concerns raised by the farmers organizations in India against Brazil's complaint at the World Trade Organization. In this regard, we saw in detail about the agreement on agriculture of the World Trade Organization and the three pillars of this agreement on agriculture. Now have a look at the practice question. Let us move on to the next news article which is also on the India-Brazil bilateral relations. We know that Indian Brazil entered into a bilateral strategic partnership in 2006. It is based on a common global vision, shared democratic values and a commitment to improve the economic growth with social inclusion for the welfare of the people of both India and Brazil. And we saw that Indian Brazil are expected to upgrade this strategic partnership with an action plan during the upcoming events. So a comprehensive strategy would be designed for future relations between India and Brazil. And it is also expected that India will sign a bilateral investment treaty with Brazil. We know that bilateral investment treaties are agreements that are signed between any two countries. The main aim of these bilateral investment treaties is reciprocal promotion and protection of investments in each other's territories by individuals or companies which are situated in either of the countries. Now in this news article, if you see, the Brazilian Foreign Minister is of the opinion that India is one of the main partners of Brazil in its new international strategy. This is mainly because both countries share common values like democracy, then a worldview with emphasis on their national values and traditions and so on. So both countries believe that they can be efficient, liberal and productive economy without compromising their national values. It means that both countries are a part of globalization without compromising their social and cultural values. Now if you see, Brazil and India are a member of several regional and international platforms like BRICS, then G20, then G4, which includes Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, then international solar alliance and also in the larger multilateral bodies such as United Nations and World Trade Organization. Here know that both India and Brazil have shared similar views regarding the reforms in United Nations Security Council and also on balancing ties with USA and China and such other views. So the Brazilian Foreign Minister is of the opinion that both countries can work together to leverage their positions in international fora such as United Nations Security Council. See this question is in form of an interview. In the interview, a question was asked if India-Brazil relations are likely to be South-South centric. Here, South-South centric or South-South cooperation refers to the political, commercial and technological cooperation between the developing countries of the world is generally called as South-South cooperation. For this question, the Brazilian Foreign Minister said that India-Brazil bilateral relations are unlikely to be South-South centric because he believes that countries such as United States and China can play a positive role for Brazil. And if you see India's foreign policies also in the similar lines because USA is India's strategic partner and apart from this over the last few years, India has also achieved several milestones in our relation with US such as the India-US nuclear deal, then agreements like general security of military information agreement, then logistic exchange memorandum of agreement, then communications capability and security agreement and so on. And apart from this, India is also trying to engage with China because China is an important neighbor and two informal summits between India and China were held, one at Wuhan in 2018 and the other at Mamalapuram in India in 2019. So we can see that India is also equally engaging USA and China. So the Brazilian Foreign Minister is of the view that instead of a South-South cooperation, we can expect a North-South cooperation in the future. So this is all that you need to know about from this news article. In this news article, we have seen in brief about the views of the foreign minister of Brazil on India-Brazil bilateral relations. Now let us move on to the next news article. This news article presents the opinion of an associate professor who's working at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research about Mandrega Program. See, this institute is located at Mumbai, it has been established by the Reserve Bank of India to carry out research on developmental issues from multidisciplinary point of view and it is fully funded by the Reserve Bank of India. So in this news article analysis, let us see in brief about this Mandrega Program and then we shall see the news article where the associate professor has expressed her opinions about this Mandrega Program. The syllabus that is relevant to the analysis of this news article is given here for your reference. Now, let us see the Mandrega Program. See, Mandrega stands for Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. A program was envisaged by this act. This program name is Mandrega Program. See, this act came into force on 2nd of February 2006 and the mandate of this program is to provide at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year. So a guaranteed wage employment will be provided to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. So they can come and do some unskilled manual work for which they'll get wages. Now, let us see the core objectives of this program. As we saw, one is providing not less than 100 days of unskilled manual work as a guaranteed employment in a financial year to every household in the rural areas. So this employment will be as per the demand and this program aims in creation of productive assets of prescribed quality and durability. For example, if a particular pond has to be cleaned, then the local body can provide employment to the rural households in order to clean the pond. So in one way, it will help in creating productive assets of particular quality and durability. And at the same time, the rural households will also get employment and wages as a result of employment. So this is called as Demand-Ribbon Wage Employment Program. Here the demand refers to the demand for employment in every state. Here you need to know that the transfer of financial resources from the center to the status based on the demand of employment in every state. So this is one of the core objectives, providing employment as per demand. Now, if you look at the next core objective, it is to strengthen the livelihood resource base of the poor. Then if you see, this program also aims to proactively ensure social inclusion and it also aims to strengthen Panchayatiraj institutions. That is the local bodies which represent the grassroots levels of Indian democracy. Now, let us see the goals of this program. One is to achieve social protection for the most vulnerable people who are living in rural India by guaranteeing them wage employment opportunities. Secondly, to enhance livelihood security of the rural poor through generation of wage employment opportunities and works that lead to creation of durable assets. Thirdly, to rejuvenate natural resource base of the rural areas, like for example, cleaning a pond which we saw earlier. Then to create a durable and productive rural asset base. Then if you see, one goal is to empower the socially disadvantaged sections through the processes of rights-based legislation. Here, by socially disadvantaged section, we refer to the women, schedule casts, and the schedule tribes. Then if you see the next goal is to strengthen decentralized participatory planning through convergence of various anti-poverty and livelihood initiatives. So here, the entire work will be decentralized. It happens at the villages, and the villagers will participate. So it ensures participatory planning. And if you see, the final goal is to deepen the democracy at the grassroots by strengthening the Panchayatiraj institutions. So these are the major goals of this Mandreka program. Keeping all this basic information in mind, now let us come to the news article. See, we have been recently seeing that India's growth projections are down for this financial year. One of the main reasons is the weak rural consumption demand. If you remember, during our 21st January 2020 Hindu news analysis, we saw the World Economic Outlook Update released by the International Monetary Fund, which said that India's growth has decreased because of weak rural consumption demand. It means that the people at the rural areas have no disposable income to spend for various consumption activities. So we can also tell that the rural economy has lesser purchasing power parity. So in such a situation, and for various other reasons, the speaker, who is an academician, calls it as a rural economic emergency. So the speaker is of the view that this Mandreka program is an effective instrument to address this rural economic emergency. That is, through this program, employment can be easily generated. The rural consumption demand can be revived. And in turn, this will help in India's economic growth. See, in this news article, it is mentioned that initially there were some apprehensions regarding this Mandreka program. In one of its early years, that is, in the year 2009, the World Bank called this program as a barrier to India's development. However, various implementation issues were resolved by the government of India, and later, the same World Bank in the year 2014 called this Mandreka program as a stellar example of rural development. So we can see that if the government is committed to implement a program on a huge scale, like Mandreka program, definitely it can set standards for the world in terms of social development. So we can see that this program has been recognized at the international level, but here the speaker is telling that, despite this recognition, the expenditure on this program by the government has never exceeded 0.4 percentage of India's GDP. Usually, if you see it as around 0.33 percentage of India's GDP. So in this news article, the speaker calls for increase in the government spending for this Mandreka program. Finally, if you've seen this news article, the speaker presents the three-point rationale for Mandreka about its relevance and its ability to address the rural economic emergency as termed by the speaker. Let us look at this three-point rationale. See, the first rationale is a theoretical rationale or a rationale that is based on logic. It states that the workforce of wages is a crucial part of comprehensive social protection, and these wages serve as a safety net for those people who are most vulnerable in the society. So the first rationale behind this program is social protection for the vulnerable sections of society. Now, if you look at the second rationale, it is an empirical one. That is, it is experimental. This rationale states that Mandreka has delivered on its promise from the perspective of addressing deprivation despite some of its shortcomings. So how this Mandreka program has addressed deprivation? If you remember, when we saw the objectives of the program, one of the objective was to strengthen the livelihood resource base of the poor. When the resource base of the vulnerable sections are increased, then they come out of deprivation. So in this case, this Mandreka program also ensures social inclusion of such sections of society. So this is the second rationale, which is from the perspective of addressing deprivation. Now, if you look at the third rationale, it is in recognizing the larger contribution of Mandreka where this program acts as a focal point for organizing around the rights of the rural workers and also its capacity for transformative economic politics. This is because this Mandreka program is a bottom-up, people-centered, demand-driven and rights-based program. Now, how we tell it as rights-based is because it provides a legal guarantee for wage employment by providing allowances and compensation. So if there is failure to provide work on demand and if there is a failure or delays in payment of wages, then those persons who are employed under this Mandreka program have a legal guarantee. So this program acts as a focal point for organizing around the rights of the rural workers. So these are the three rationale which the author has mentioned regarding this Mandreka program. This is all about the discussion of this news article. In this news article, we have seen the opinion of the associate professor who has shared views on Mandreka program as a speaker. In this regard, we saw about the objectives and the goals of this program and finally, we saw the opinion of the speaker. Now, have a look at the practice question. Let us move on to the next news article. Before seeing these news articles throughout our discussion today, we requested our viewers to look for the previous Hindu news analysis. Now, why we reiterate this statement again and again during our daily analysis is because the current affairs topics are evolving topics. See, there might be many news articles that may appear in the newspaper which has relevance for exam preparation and we might not have covered the entire list of news articles or if you see, we might have covered some news articles just one or two days ago or one or two weeks before or some news articles a couple of months before. So we advise you to read such news articles at least once in the newspaper if you are daily viewing our Hindu news analysis. It is really interesting to know how the events evolve over time. So make sure whatever you learn is fun and always try to link the current events with similar such events. When we tell static portion, for example, today there is a news article where Nepal has pitched in for an informal SAC summit. In this news article, the somewhat dialogue then about the SAC summit has all been discussed. We just discussed all these issues in our yesterday's news analysis. One more example is the brew refugees issue which we discussed during 17th January analysis. We discussed in detail about how the brew people left Mizoram and they came to Tripura and how they're not willing to go back to Mizoram. So there is a news article on brew settlement today that a forum in Tripura is actually opposing the brew settlement. Now, if you look at the next news article which is about the novel coronavirus which is spreading from Wuhan in Hubei province in China. So here you need to connect this topic with the coronavirus outbreak like SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome that is the MERS which spread across the world in the previous decade. And in this context, you should also know what is meant by the World Health Organization's concept of public health emergency of international concern. For example, if you remember in our July analysis, we saw that Ebola disease was termed as a public health emergency of international concern whereas the same World Health Organization is still thinking to declare this novel coronavirus outbreak as a public health emergency of international concern. So this is how you link the events and link various current affairs. So you'll get an overall idea by the time when you approach for the next pillants exam. So always do not see one news as a separate news article. Instead, try to link the facts, try to link the events so that you get an overall idea about a particular subject. So in this context, try to approach all these three news articles which are displayed here. Now let us move on to the practice questions discussion session. Now look at the first question which is about the International Court of Justice. Four statements have been given and you need to choose the correct statement out of the four given options. Now look at the first option, Option A. It tells that ICJ is a principal organ of United Nations and it is situated in New York, USA like all other principal organs of United Nations. See, International Court of Justice is a principal organ of United Nations but it is not situated in New York, USA unlike all the other principal organs of United Nations. The headquarters of the International Court of Justice is located at the Hague, Netherlands. So the first option that is Option A goes wrong. Now look at Option B. It tells that judgments that are delivered by the court in disputes between individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity are binding upon the parties concerned. Know that the judgments that are delivered by the International Court of Justice is binding on the parties but the twist here is only states that is only the countries are eligible to appear before the court in any contentious cases. So the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. It cannot provide them with any legal advice or even help them in their dealings with national authorities. However, a state that is a country may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another state the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter. Such disputes then become the disputes between two states. So here the second statement goes incorrect. So Option B is wrong. Now look at the third option which is Option C. It tells that the International Court of Justice gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by an authorized United Nations organ and United Nations specialized agencies. See the International Court of Justice as a two-fold role. First, to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes between the states that are submitted to it by them. And second is to give advisory opinions on legal matters that are referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. So this makes the third option that is Option C, a correct option. So the correct answer to this question is Option C since you need to choose the correct statement. But let us also look at Option D, why it is wrong. Look at this option D tells that the Permanent Court of International Justice is the predecessor of the International Court of Justice and the judges are elected by the United Nations General Assembly and UN Secretariat. See the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice which is the predecessor of the International Court of Justice was provided for in the Covenant of the League of Nations. It held its first sitting that is inaugural sitting in the year 1922 and then it was dissolved in 1946. So this part of the statement is correct. The Permanent Court of International Justice is the predecessor of the International Court of Justice. But if you see the judges to this International Court of Justice are elected by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council it is not the UN Secretariat. So this is where this option D goes wrong. Know that this International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is not the UN Secretariat. So the correct answer to this question is option C. Now let us look at the next question which is on agreement on agriculture. The question is the agreement on agriculture which has recently been in news refers to which of the following. Four options have been given and you need to choose the correct option. C agreement on agriculture is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization. It was one of the many agreements which were negotiated during the Uruguay round of trade negotiations of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The World Trade Organization replaced this GATT that is the general agreement on tariffs and trade. This agreement on agriculture entered into force in 1995. The overall objective of this agreement is to reform the trade in agriculture across the world by establishing a fair and market oriented trading systems. It aims at progressive reductions in the agricultural support and protection that are provided by the governments to their farmers. So this would result in correcting and preventing the restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets. And if you see this agreement is focused on three broad areas of agriculture and trade policy which are market access, domestic support and export subsidies. And under domestic support, you have three kind of subsidies which are green box subsidies, amber box subsidies and blue box subsidies. So this is all you need to know about this agreement on agriculture. So it is basically an international treaty of the World Trade Organization to prevent restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets. So here option C is the correct answer. Now look at this next question which is again on the green box subsidies and amber box subsidies which we just saw. Two statements have been given and you need to choose the correct statements. The first statement tells that World Trade Organization has imposed a limit on member states on green box subsidies as they can distort international trade. And the second statement tells that there are no limits imposed on the member states on amber box subsidies as they do not distort international trade. Here know that green box subsidies do not distort international trade and amber box subsidies distort international trade. So if you know this logic, you can arrive to a conclusion that both the statements are wrong. So the correct answer to this question is option D neither one nor two since you need to choose the correct statements. Now look at the next question which is about national security act 1980. Two statements have been given and you need to choose the correct statements. Now look at the first statement. It tells that if the advisory board reports sufficient cause for the detention of a person, then the appropriate government shall confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned. The report of the advisory board is not binding on the appropriate government. So it is up to the appropriate government that if it considers fit to release the detainee then it can revoke the order. So it is not shall confirm, it is may confirm. The word shall means it needs to be abided whereas the word may means it is up to the authorities to abide by it or to not abide by it. So here it is not binding on the government so it is may confirm, it is not shall confirm. See this provision has been made in such a way that there shall be more room for liberty rather than restriction under preventive detention. So the first statement goes wrong. Now look at the second statement. It tells that if the advisory board reports no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate government may revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released. So here the condition is that the advisory board has reported that there is no sufficient cause for a person to be kept under detention. So if such a report is given by the advisory board, then it is binding on the government to revoke the detention order and make sure that person has to be released. So it is binding on the appropriate government in this case. So it is shall revoke, it is not may revoke. So the second statement also goes wrong. Now you need to choose the correct statements, the correct answer here is option D. Neither one or two since both the statements are wrong. Now let us look at one more question which is regarding this National Security Act of 1980. Again, two statements have been given and you need to choose the correct statements. Look at the first statement. It tells that only the central government can make an order directing that such person be detained as per the provisions of the act. This statement is wrong because both the central government and the state governments and also union territories can make an order which directs persons who can be detained as per the provisions of this National Security Act. So the first statement goes wrong. Now look at the second statement. It tells that in case of union territory with legislative assembly, it is the chief minister who makes an order for the detention of persons or detention of a person under this act. See for any union territory, whether with a legislative assembly or without a legislative assembly, it is the administrator of the union territory who can also be a left-hand governor of a particular union territory who makes an order for the detention of persons under this act. So that is the reason that despite the presence of a chief minister in union territories like Delhi or Puducherry, it is the left-hand governor who issued the order under subsection three of section three under this act wherein the left-hand governor of Delhi in this case gave the power of detaining authority to the commissioner of police of Delhi because recently in Delhi, this national security act was enforced from January till April for a period of three months. So this is based on the definition given in the act where section two E of this act states that the state government in relation to a union territory means the administrator thereof. It means the administrators of a union territory. The designation can be administrator or left-hand governor in case of union territories. So the second statement also goes wrong. It is not the chief minister but the administrator. So the correct answer to this question is option D neither one nor two since both the statements are wrong. Now let us move on to the practice main question. The question is very simple. Mandrega program is an effective instrument to address rural economic crisis discuss. You need to answer this question in 150 words. It contains 10 marks. Here you need to address the keywords like rural economic crisis and Mandrega program as an effective instrument to address this rural economic crisis. So in this background, try to explain the rural economic crisis that is currently happening in India with some facts. For example, you can quote the recent economic world outlook update issued by the International Monetary Fund where it has told that the rural consumption demand is slowing in India. So try to mention some statistics to address this part of the question how India's rural economy is in a crisis. Then address the next part of the question where we have to discuss if Mandrega program is an effective instrument to address rural economic crisis. Try to provide some reasons why it can be an effective instrument in addressing the crisis. For example, we discussed three rationals in our today's discussion. You can also try to link with the objectives and the goal of this Mandrega program and try to conclude this answer in a positive note. Please post your answers in the comment section. We shall review and give you appropriate feedbacks and suggestions in the next seven to 10 working days. With this, we come to the end of the analysis of all the news articles taken up for today's discussion and also the practice questions discussion session. If you like the video, press the like button, comment and share and do subscribe to Shankar IAS Academy YouTube channel for latest videos and updates. Stay focused and motivated friends. Thank you.