 Dear aspirants, we are happy to inform you that Shankar A.S. Academy is conducting free all India online mock tests for UPSC Prelims 2020 on 20th September and 27th September. The registration link for the same is given in the description as well as in the comment section. Use this opportunity to get yourself prepared for the upcoming Prelims examination 2020. Welcome to the Hindu News Analysis by Shankar A.S. Academy. The list of topics chosen for today's discussion along with the page numbers is given here for your reference. Here is the first news article. This news article is about Streets for People Challenge and Climate Smart Cities Assessment Framework 2.2. Know that both the initiatives are launched by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. See firstly we all know that in the last decade the frequency of cyclones, floods, heat waves, water scarcity and drought-like conditions has increased and caused adverse impacts on many of our cities. So to address this problem, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in 2019 launched Climate Smart Cities Assessment Framework. This framework intends to inculcate a climate-sensitive approach to urban planning and development in India. Also, it incentivizes a holistic climate-responsive development in 100 smart cities under smart India mission. The objective of this framework is to provide a clear roadmap for Indian cities towards combating climate change. And this framework was revised based on the experience of Phase 1 and CSCAF that is Climate Smart Cities Assessment Framework 2.2 has been launched. The framework has 28 indicators across five broad categories, first one energy and green buildings, second urban planning, third green cover and biodiversity, fourth mobility and air quality, and the last one water management and waste management. And note that the Climate Center for Cities under National Institute of Urban Affairs is supporting Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in implementation of Climate Smart Cities Assessment Framework. And yesterday, government has come up with Streets for People Challenge. So what is the need for this Streets for People Challenge? See post-lockdown, our cities may face many challenges in providing safe, affordable and equitable modes of transport while maintaining social distancing. And in this context, the key issues which must be addressed are limited public transport options, narrow crowded sidewalks, particularly in market places. So the crucial steps to mitigate these issues are the pedestrianization of streets for walking and creating public spaces. So the Smart Cities Mission, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has launched the Streets for People Challenge. So this challenge aims to create flagship walking initiatives in cities which focus on place making and livability. To make it simple, the challenge aims to inspire cities to create walking-friendly and vibrant streets through quick, innovative and low-cost measures. All cities participating in the challenge shall be encouraged to use a test-learn scale approach. The interventions under this challenge include creating pedestrian-friendly streets in high-footfall areas, reimagining under-flyover spaces, revitalizing dead neighborhood spaces and creating walking links through parks and institutional areas. And this SOP challenge is not limited to smart cities, even the cities with population of over 5 lakh and capital cities can also participate in this challenge. Know that the Fit India Mission under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, along with the India Program of Institute for Transport Development and Policy, have partnered with Smart Cities Mission to support the challenge. So this is all about the discussion of this news article wherein we have talked about Climate Smart Cities Assessment Framework 2.0 as well as Streets for People Challenge. Let us move on to next news article discussion. Let us take up this OPED column and editorial from today's newspaper. These news articles are in with reference to the India-China standoff. In this OPED column, the author tries to explain how the recent India-China standoff resembles the scenario before 1962 Indo-Sino war. The relevant syllabus is given here for your reference. As we all know, India and China are on a four-month-long standoff along the line of actual control. Some important points of contention include Pangongksu Lake, Galwan Valley, Demchok, Debsong Plains, Choshul, etc. The longest standoff has made the author to conclude that the situation along LAC resembles the one before 1962 war. So let us try to understand how the current scenario is resembling the 1962 war. Firstly, at that time, India and China had a friendly relationship and to maintain peace on India's northern border, India supported China in international arena. Even India accepted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Because of this, according to author, Prime Minister Nehru and Defense Minister Minan were very confident that China would not attack India. Even Nehru professed that Indians and Chinese were Asian brothers. They also expected that China would respect the boundaries as per McMohan line in the India's eastern border. This expectation proved to be very disastrous for India, resulting in India-China war in which India was badly defeated. And now if you see, the current border dispute is same in 2020 as it was in 1950s and 60s. The first similarity can be seen in the border clash of 1959 in Longzhu. Longzhu is in Arunachal Pradesh and located south of McMohan line. So what happened was in 1959, the first border clash between India and Chinese troops happened in Longzhu. Then both India and China blamed each other for starting the clash. The same scenario is happening now wherein both countries are blaming each other of crossing LAC and firing first shots after a period of 45 years. So in 1959 what happened later was, Nehru asked Chinese troops to withdraw from Longzhu. In return he assured that India will not re-occupy the area and also proposed that both sides to pull back from disputed Aksai Chin. Actually by then China had already unilaterally built a strategic highway in Aksai Chin. Even today the Aksai Chin is under control of China. But China rejected this Nehru's proposal and made a counter offer. So China said that it will recognize McMohan line in the east if India recognizes Chinese sovereignty over Aksai Chin. It means you take east, we take west. This is also referred to as east-west swap deal. Obviously India rejected the Chinese offer because it would mean that India is abandoning its legitimate claims over Aksai Chin. And later Nehru ordered his forward policy in November 1961. So this was a form of military pressure on China opted by India. So according to forward policy India sets up patrol posts along the LAC and by 1962 small numbers of lightly armed Indian infantry established several such forward posts deep inside unoccupied but disputed border areas. So because of this many forward posts Chinese were outraged and in October of 1962 China invaded India. So with respect to Nehru's forward policy we can see a second similarity as forward move has been made by Indian army on the southern banks of Pangangso last month. And as of now India is controlling many such heights which were not under control of both India and China before April. Along with the above reasons Tibet factor also played a major role in the clashes resulting into 1962 war. The India soft corner towards Tibet and Dalai Lama's refugee in India has also triggered clashes between India-China and also increased mutual suspicion between India and China. But now in 2020 there is no Tibet factor but what happened is a Tibetan origin person serving in special frontier force of India martyred last week and a public funeral was happened in India which is said to have many repercussions in Tibet of China. So China is worried about Tibet's pro India stand. So according to author the border conflict looks similar to what it was in 1950s and 1960s. So even today the border has not been demarcated further China has not recognized the McMohan line as border between India and China on the eastern side and India has not accepted China's control over Aksai Chin. So here author notes that India should carefully evaluate the China's moves and motives and should not repeat the same mistakes India did in 1962 war. And there is a news article in page 1 as well as editorial regarding 5 point consensus reached by foreign ministers of India and China. So yesterday the foreign ministers of India and China met during RIC meeting and reached a 5 point consensus regarding border clashes. It is a diplomatic solution under which both sides agree that the troops should disengage, maintain proper distance and ease tensions. So the 5 point plan is following the consensus between PM Modi and Xi Jinping of China not to allow differences to become disputes and disengaging quickly to ease tensions, abiding by existing border protocols and avoiding escalatory action as well as continuing the dialogue between special representatives that is NSA Ajit Doval and Mr. Wang and also working for new confidence building measures. So this is a welcome move as thousands of troops from both countries remain deployed along the border and tensions across LAC are too high. But the problem here is the agreed 5 point consensus outlines the same points which were previously affirmed by both sides since June. Even though the similar consensus was arrived even as back as in June 2020, the tensions have not eased even today. And the consensus plan did not address the key question of whether both sides will return to status quo prior to China's transgressions, which means whether both sides will return to positions prior to standoff in April 2020. Third, both sides have issued differing statements on 5 point consensus. For example, India's statement stressed that peace on the boundary was essential for ties and recent incidents had impacted the broader relationship. On the other hand, Chinese statement emphasized the importance of moving the relationship in the right direction and keeping the border in a proper context. And there is this news article which says that China is downplaying the border tensions. For example, Chinese officials said that it is normal for two neighboring countries to have differences and the two sides should move on from current standoff peacefully. While this was immediately countered by Indian delegation, saying that the situation along LAC is very serious and dangerous. So we can understand that even though the foreign ministers have arrived at a 5 point consensus, there are differences among the statements given by India and China. And there is this news article which talks about the brigadier level talks between India and China. Even though the foreign ministers have arrived at some kind of consensus, it is the army persons on the ground who have to further negotiate to ease out the tensions. And currently the brigadier level talks are happening at Chuchul and it is even said that the COPS commander level talks will be scheduled in the coming days. So this is all about the discussion of this news article wherein we have talked about the similarities between 1960s and 2020s and the 5 point consensus reached by foreign ministers of India and China. And despite that, there are divergence in the 5 point plan accepted by both India and China. Let us wait and see how border clashes progress in the future. Let us move on to next news article discussion. Let us take up this news article which mentions the term net present value. So what is net present value? We will try to understand it now. Here in this context, NPV is the net present value of the forest land diverted. So what it means? It is a scientific method of calculating the environmental cost and other losses caused due to diversion of forest land for non forestry purposes. So this NPV represents the net value of various ecosystem services and other environmental services in monetary terms which the forest would have provided if the forest is not diverted or destroyed. Simply put, it is the economic value of loss of ecosystem services due to diversion or destruction of forests. And this NPV is a Supreme Court mandated fee. As Supreme Court in its 2002 order directed that NPV of diverted forest land is to be collected from the user agency in addition to money is collected for compensatory of forestry. Here user agency means any person, company, department, even government which makes a request for diversion or denatification of forest land for non forest purpose or using forest land for non forest purpose. So whenever any user agency wants to divert any forest land for non forest purpose it has to pay the net present value of forest land which is to be diverted along with the compensatory of forestry fees. The NPV fee is calculated on the basis of services and ecological value. There are prescribed formulae for calculating this amount which depends on location of the forest, nature of the forest and type of industrial enterprises which are going to replace that particular forest land. In addition to that, Supreme Court also directed to set up a body to manage funds which are received for the diversion of forest land for non forest purposes. This body is named compensatory of forestry fund management and planning authority. Later to utilize the money is deposited under Kampa government has brought in Kampa Act of 2016. This body manages the money collected for compensatory of forestry, NPV and any other money recoverable under forest conservation act of 1980 for non forest uses of forest land. Simply put whenever any body wants to divert a forest land for non forest purposes it has to pay some amount of money to the government. It includes NPV, compensatory of forestry fee and other fees described under forest act of 1980. This is all about the discussion of this news article. Let us move on to next news article discussion. Let us take up this opiate column. This opiate was written in the context of a very significant Supreme Court order in MC Mehta versus Union of India case. So, we will be discussing the order in brief then the alleged right violations associated with the Supreme Court order. The relevant syllabus is given here for your reference. See, first we all know that article 21 is one of the most important fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. The article says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. And very importantly we already know that this is a very far stretching right which covers many implicit rights like right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to shelter, right to decent environment including pollution free water, pollution free air etc. And article 39 which is a direct to principle of state policy says that citizens, both men and women equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. So, this basic background is required for proper understanding of this opiate column. Coming to the judgment given by Supreme Court, it ordered the removal of 48,000 slum dwellings around 140 kilometers of railway tracks in Delhi in the next three months. Most importantly the Supreme Court said that there shall be no political interference or stay order from any court with respect to removal of encroachments. Which means no court should give any kind of stay or no political interference will be allowed in removing these slum dwellings. So, according to author this Supreme Court judgment is flawed and it basically violates three important principles which are the principles of natural justice, the judicial precedence on the right to shelter and state policies governing evictions. Evictions means removing slum dwellers from their current rest in places which are also called slum dwellings. Now, we will try to understand how this judgment violates these three important things. First of all, the Supreme Court order violates the principles of natural justice and due process. This is because the court ordered the removal of slum dwellers without hearing the affected party. So, who are the affected parties here? The slum dwellers. Just by listening to one party of the case, the Supreme Court gave the order for eviction of these slum dwellers. But Supreme Court didn't give an opportunity to slum dwellers to explain their stand. Also, Supreme Court ignored the judicial precedence on cases where the Supreme Court upheld the right to livelihood and shelter. Here, we should note that a landmark judgment was delivered in 1985, Volga-Tellis versus Bombay Municipal Corporation case. In that case, the Supreme Court held that right to life also includes right to livelihood. Also, no eviction shall take place without hearing those who are affected. So, this 1985 judgment basically recognizes two things. First one is right to livelihood is implicit under Article 21 and eviction can be carried out only after giving an opportunity to the affected people, that is slum dwellers. And in 1995, one more judgment was given in Chamele Singh versus state of UP case. In this case, Supreme Court clearly observed that right to shelter is an inseparable component for meaningful right to life. So, if you are not having right to shelter, which means no residence, how can you lead a dignified life which is guaranteed under Article 21? The Supreme Court also held that right to residence and settlement is a fundamental right under Article 19. So, this Article 19 guarantees right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and is inseparable from meaningful right to life under Article 21. Supreme Court also said that the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter are basic human rights known to any civilized society. And the Supreme Court order which we are discussing today also failed to consider the state policies governing eviction and rehabilitation in Delhi. An example is the Delhi High Court judgment in Sudama Singh case of 2010. The High Court observed that prior to eviction, the state shall conduct a survey of all persons facing eviction and carry out a rehabilitation exercise in consultation with them in a meaningful manner. This judgment led to the Delhi slum and JJ rehabilitation and relocation policy of 2015. Also, the Delhi High Court in Ajay Mekhan case of 2019 invoked the concept of right to the city. It is the right of all inhabitants present and in future to occupy, use and produce just inclusive and sustainable cities, which are defined as a common good essential to the quality of life. Which means every inhabitant in the city has the right to occupy, use and produce just inclusive and sustainable cities. So, the author of this article feels that the Supreme Court failed to observe all these precedents while ordering eviction in three months. Here it is important to note that the slum dwellers are a vulnerable group of people who solely depend on informal livelihoods without sufficient social securities. Their forced eviction during the pandemic will make their life even more miserable. So, author mentions that in India during lockdown, thousands of people were evicted mainly for city beautification projects. And in today's case, the demolition drive is being led by the Supreme Court even without hearing the affected population, which is blatant violation of principles of natural justice. And this is not the first case where slum dwellers, beggars are attached with low esteem or their rights are not properly considered. For example, when Ivanka Trump came to Hyderabad, all the beggars in Hyderabad city were removed and kept in some form of shelters. And very recently when President Trump came to Gujarat, a wall named Kemchowal was built to hide the slum dwellers of the city. So, this shows that the slum dwellers are given low esteem and are seen as a blemish or a black mole on the face of the city. So, this is completely against the principles and morel of Indian constitution, which it reads every person equally and even guarantees more rights for the vulnerable people. In conclusion, we can say that it is the duty of judiciary to ensure that fundamental rights and principles of natural justice are not violated when evictions takes place under the premises of environment, city beautification and encroachment of public lands. This is all about the discussion of this news article. Let us move on to this news article from page one. It talks about the index of industrial production for the month of July 2020. In this context, we will discuss briefly index of industrial production and the other major economic indices. Let us start with IIP. See, IIP shows the growth rates in different industry groups of economy. It is a key economic indicator of manufacturing sector of the country. The IIP is released on monthly basis by CSO, which is under National Statistical Office of Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. And as you can see here, the base year taken for calculation is 2011-12. And the index is broadly composed of three major sectors which are manufacturing, mining and electricity. And as you can see in this table or column, manufacturing has 405 item groups, while mining and electricity have one item group each. Here it is very important to note that the maximum weight is assigned to manufacturing sector, which is 77.63%. And second place goes to mining, which comes around 14.37. And the least weight is attached to electricity at 7.99%. And also note that under electricity sector, electricity generation from renewable sources has also been included. And coming back to today's news, it says that IIP for the month of July has been contracted by 10.4% in a year-on-year comparison, which means compared to July 2019, the IIP of July 2020 has contracted by 10.4%. The mining and manufacturing shrunk by 13.11% respectively. And electricity generation has recovered to a contraction of 2.5%. So this is because of COVID-19, the IIP has been drastically affected and still not recovered due to weekend lockdowns and restrictions in containment zones. And there is one more index called index of eight core industries. So what is this index of eight core industries? See, these are eight core industries which are included in index of industrial production. Because of their high significance, a separate index has been created. These eight core industries have around 40.2% weightage in IIP. So this index measures collective and individual performance of production in selected eight industries which are coal, crude oil, natural gas, refinery products, fertilizers, steel, cement and electricity. Similar to that of IIP, this index is also published monthly with base year as 2011-12. Very, very importantly, know that this index is released by Office of Economic Advisor, which comes under DP-IIT of Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Why I am saying important is, the IIP is released by CSO, which is under Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. But ICI, that is index of eight core industries, is released by Office of Economic Advisor, which comes under Ministry of Commerce and Industry. And you should also note that this index of eight core industries has around 40% of weightage in IIP. And the weightage assigned to each of the eight core industries is given here for your reference. So you have to remember the order of weightage assigned to each of these eight core industries. And absolute values are not required. Just remember the order. First comes the refinery products and the least is fertilizers. So this is all about the index of industrial production and index of eight core industries. Let us move on to practice questions discussion session. Consider the following statements with reference to index of industrial production. Two statements are given here and we have to identify the correct statements. Statement one, it is released on monthly basis by the Office of Economic Advisor under Department of Promotion of Policy and Internal Trade. This statement is incorrect because the IIP is released by Central Statistics Office, which is under National Statistics Office of Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Here also note that the index of eight core industries is released by Office of Economic Advisor, which is under DPIIT of Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Statement two, electricity produced from the renewable energy sources is not included in the calculation of IIP. This statement is also incorrect because the electricity from renewable energy sources is included in the calculation of IIP. Therefore, the correct answer is option D neither one nor two. And there is one previous year question which appeared in prelims 2012. In India, in the overall index of IIP, the indices of eight core industries have a combined weight of 37 percent, which of the following are among those eight core industries. As of now, the combined weight of eight core industries in IIP is around 40 percent. So, five are given here, cement, fertilizers, natural gas, refinery products and textiles. So, here note that the textiles industry is not a part of eight core industries. So, you can eliminate options A and D. Coming to options B and C, correct answer is option C, because cement industry is a part of eight core industries. In today's discussion, we have given the decreasing order of weightage assigned to eight core industries, which is refinery products, electricity, steel, coal, crude oil, natural gas, cement and fertilizers. Next question, consider the following statements with reference to net present value of the forest land. Statement one, it represents the environmental cost and other losses caused due to diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes. Yes, the statement one is correct. But if you see here, we are supposed to identify incorrect statements. So, the statement one should not be in the options. So, if we eliminate option A, B and D, we can arrive at the correct answer that is option C, two and three only. So, statements two and three are incorrect. Statement two, it is mentioned in the Forest Act of 1980. No, the NPV is not mentioned in the Forest Act. It is mandated by Supreme Court. Statement three, it is managed by national afforestation and eco-development board. This statement is incorrect because the NPV, compensatory afforestation fee and other fees are managed by compensatory afforestation, fund management and planning authority. So, statements two and three are incorrect. So, the correct answer is option C, two and three only. Consider the following rights, right to livelihood, right to free legal aid, right to shelter, right to social and economic justice, right against bonded labor, which of the above rights implicitly come under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. So, here five rights are given. We have to identify which of the given five rights are implicitly covered under Article 21. Here the correct answer is option D. Yes, all the five rights given here are implicitly guaranteed under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. Here it is important to note that the Supreme Court in the Menaka case and in the subsequent cases has declared as many as 35 rights as part of Article 21. Some of the important rights are given here for your reference. Please take a note of it. Next question, consider the following statements regarding the climate smart cities assessment framework. Statement one, it aims to provide a clear roadmap for Indian cities towards combating climate change while planning their actions within the city, including investments. This statement is correct. Statement two, it is implemented by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. This statement is incorrect because the climate smart cities assessment framework is being implemented by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. But here we have to identify incorrect statements. Therefore, the correct answer is option B, two only. Next question, what is the correct sequence of occurrence of places often seen in news as one proceeds from south to north? So, these places are the current dispute places along line of actual control between India and China. So, four places are given Pangangso, Demchok, Debsong Plains, Galwan Valley. As you can see in this picture, if you move from south to north, Demchok comes first, then Pangangso and then Galwan Valley and then Debsong Plains. So, correct answer is option C, two, one, four, three. With this, we conclude today's news analysis. If you find this session resourceful, click on the like button, show your appreciation in the comment section, and don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel.