 Dear viewers and aspirants, greetings from Shankarayesh Academy. We thank you for actively participating in the current affairs test series 2020. So far we have conducted two current affairs tests and results are already out. As promised, we are announcing the top three rankers in the first two tests, who will receive the full reimbursement of Rs. 1000. The top performers in test 1 are Ms. Tirupavai, Ms. R Sathya and Ms. Ankita. In test 2, the top performers are Mr. Rameshwar, Mr. Sachin Kumar and Mr. Yuvraj. Congratulations on behalf of Shankarayesh Academy and all the best for your prelims examination. The top performers would have received a confirmation email or will receive a confirmation email within one or two working days. The third current affairs test starts today that is 5th September 2020. So aspirants are requested to be prepared well and to win a chance to get the cash back or reimbursement. Note that the registrations are open till 4th October 2020. For more details and for registration visit the link given in the description box and also in the comments section. Now let's move on to the daily news analysis source from the Hindu newspaper. These are the list of news articles taken for today's analysis and the page numbers and different editions of the newspaper. The link for the handwritten notes in the PDF format and the time stamping of the discussed articles are provided in the description and also in the comments section for the benefit of mobile phone viewers. Now let us move on to the analysis of first news article. This editorial is based on the recent statement made by the Chief of Defense Staff, General Bipin Rawat on Quad. In this discussion we will see what the statement means and whether India's stand has changed towards Quad. The syllabus relevant for the analysis of this editorial is highlighted here for your reference. In yesterday's discussion we saw that Chief of Defense staff has told that India wants the Quad to become a system to ensure freedom of navigation and freedom of navigation operations in the Indian Ocean and around. As you know, Quad is an informal dialogue mechanism among four countries, India, United States, Japan and Australia. And freedom of navigation operations is a tool by which the United States challenges the maritime claims which it considers or deems as excessive under the international law. In short, through freedom of navigation operations, United States conducts military patrols in the oceans. We discussed about freedom of navigation and freedom of navigation operations in detail in our yesterday's analysis. Now coming to the statement, what Chief of Defense staff meant was Quad will be a good mechanism to ensure freedom of navigation operations in the Indian Ocean and the surrounding oceans including the Indo-Pacific. That is Quad conducting military patrols in the oceans like the United States of America. Now this is what is referred by saying militarization of Quad. If Chief of Defense staff really meant this, then it could refer that India is now prepared to join Quad military patrols. But this stand points at departure from India's earlier stand of restraint or reticence regarding militarization of Quad. Because earlier, in many instances, Indian leadership meant otherwise. That is not making Quad as a strategic mechanism. Here militarization of Quad would mean using Quad for strategic strength. For example, Indian Prime Minister in the year 2018 has told that India sees the Indo-Pacific as a geographical concept and not as a strategy or a club of limited members. And as we know, Quad is an important grouping in the Indo-Pacific and militarizing Quad means using Quad as a strategic mechanism. Now by this we can say that the assertion of Chief of Defense staff is that the Quad operations are needed to ensure that there is no fear of any other nation which is unilaterally or singularly trying to dominate the oceans and obviously he is referring to China. Now currently we can see Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Now one of the reasons as to why CDS took this stand might be the tensions and clashes along the line of actual control between India and China. Now even though initially China agreed for disengagement along line of actual control, now Chinese army is refusing to implement border agreements. But still India continues to engage with China at the diplomatic level and Indian officials have already spoken about the importance of resolving this issue through talks. But that does not mean that India should not have other options. Actually such stand of China has only mandated and also convinced Indian officials that India needs new strategies to deal with China and one such new strategy is militarizing Quad and safeguarding Indo-Pacific region from the Chinese aggression. Now another strategy is strengthening India's ties with global powers such as the United States which could also be done through Quad. In a way we can also find the members of Quad around the same boat when it comes to issues with China at various levels and various dimensions. Now the new strategies it is clear that India is going to use these strategies because India is planning to host a ministerial level meeting of the Quad next month. Experts expect that this meeting will possibly coincide with India-United States 2 plus 2 meet or dialogue of foreign ministers and defence ministers. So India will use this chance to strengthen itself strategically therefore we will know for sure about India's stand regarding Quad and militarization of Quad next month. However regarding the change of stand of India about Quad, author of this editorial urges Indian government to remember why initially India had restrained or reticence in terms of militarizing the Quad. According to author the reason for India's initial stand was that India is the only country in the Quad that shares a land boundary with China and already we are facing tensions along the border with China. So if Quad is militarized in Indo-Pacific waters China could see this as a threat and it may increase or it would increase the territorial clashes or threats with India which is the only country in the Quad grouping that shares a land boundary with China. So this means Quad militarization may not alleviate or reduce the threat for India from China. So because of this reason author finally asks the Indian government to provide clarity on the statement made by chief of defense stuff and also clarity on India's current stand in Quad before matters go out of hand with respect to China. So these are some of the important information with reference to the analysis of this editorial article. We saw the meaning of the statement made by chief of defense stuff. We saw how India sees militarization of Quad as a new strategy possibly to deal with China and also we saw the change of stand with respect to Quad from the Indian side. Now let us move on to the analysis of next news article. This editorial article is written in the wake of recent ban of Chinese apps in India. In this discussion let us understand why India had to ban these applications and what will be the consequences of such a move while we are having high tensions with China along the line of actual control. We have been seeing articles assessing the strategies adopted by India to deal with China. This is also one such article. There are always pros and cons of such strategies adopted by us. The assessments help us to take advantage of the pros and help deal with the negatives or associated challenges. The syllabus relevant for the analysis of this editorial is highlighted here for your reference. We all know that the ministry of electronics and information technology has blocked 118 mobile applications most of which are from China. This is a recent development that was announced three days ago that is on 2nd September 2020. The government invoked its power under section 69 capital A of Information Technology Act and under relevant provisions of Information Technology Rules 2009. The ministry has blocked these mobile applications because they are engaged in activities that are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, prejudicial to defense of India, security of state and public order. Of section 69 capital A of the IT Act, it provides power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource. Now this can be done by the government or through the authorized officer if they are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so based on six reasons. One is in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, then in the interest of defense of India, then for the security of the state, then for friendly relations with foreign states for maintaining public order to prevent incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to these things. I know that this is not the first time Indian government has banned applications that are mostly from China as similar order blocking 59 applications was issued in June 2020 as well and later 47 clones or 47 similar apps of these banned or blocked 59 applications were also blocked in India. In this context the author says that Indian government is leveraging its position as a massive market for technology in dealing with potentially dangerous geopolitical issues. Here by dangerous geopolitical issues the author refers to the tensions along line of actual control. Now the timing of the order is what is used by the experts to say that this is one of the ways by which India deals with such tensions. Even when the first order banning 59 applications was announced there were high tensions along the line of actual control and so far more than 200 applications were blocked or banned in the country. Many experts have said that this would deeply hurt China and its ambitions of tech superpower. Here are the questions that would such a ban is effective as a counter in a geopolitical fight and how far can India go on banning these Chinese tech giants who are well entrenched in the global tech supply chain won't this tech side ban have a side effect on India's growth. Now these questions have to be carefully deliberated and addressed for the best interests of the country. Now in this context author also brings the attention to the absence of data protection law in India. See government has banned these applications for stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users data in an unauthorized manner to servers that are located outside India. In this context author points out strong need of data protection law. See if we had a data protection law taking such actions would be considered legitimate at the international arena. Now then the author is also of the opinion that such ban or block of mobile applications does not go well for India which has aspirations of global leadership in the field of technology. Here note that China for years has enforced widespread censorship of information and has blocked many applications. For example there is no Google no Facebook in China. Ironically China has found a rare chance to take the moral high ground and accuse India for banning its applications. Now even in the past China has accused India of violating world trade organization rules for banning Chinese applications. It has also criticized India's move accusing it of abusing the concept of national security. But as we know similar criticisms are also leveled on China. We can say with reference to national security law in Hong Kong. But here author says that technology is an industry that thrives on global networks and global rules. So India certainly needs a more considered approach to tech regulation so as to achieve its aspiration of global leader in technology. And that is why the editorial is named as appropriate strategy. You can take this editorial in this way or in another understanding while India takes these steps say for example blocking access of these applications such steps or strategies should be adequately prepared to deal with the associated challenges at the domestic level national level and also at the international level. So these are some of the information with reference to the analysis of this editorial. Now let's move on to the analysis of next news article. This news article talks about a proposal of ministry of railways to amend some of the provisions of the railway act 1989. Through these amendments the railway ministry is planning to decriminalize certain acts and to rationalize the penalties under the provisions of railway act 1989. This comes at the backdrop of the plans to make modifications in Indian laws to ease the burden on courts. In this context let us discuss some important provisions of the railway act and the amendments proposed for those provisions as mentioned in the news article. First let's discuss in the context of beggary. See section 144 subsection 2 of the railway act deals with begging. Subsection 2 states that if any person begs in any railway carriage or at railway station he shall be liable for punishment which is imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year or fine that may extend to 2000 or both. But now the proposed amendment to subsection 2 states that no person shall be permitted to beg in any railway carriage or upon any part of the railway. This means now the severity of punishment is considerably reduced and we can say that there will be no punishment for begging in the railway carriage or at railway stations. In this regard with reference to legislation related to beggary you should know that states have laws related to beggary in their local jurisdictions and of all the state enactments the Maharashtra Prevention of Begging Act 1959 which was called as the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1959. This law had been in the public attention as for us discussions on anti-beggary laws are concerned. This is because of its application in the metropolis of Mumbai and the subsequent extension to the Union Territory of Delhi in the year 1960. The extension was done through the Union Territory's Laws Act of 1950 that provides for the extension of laws to certain union territories. But the Delhi High Court in a landmark judgment held that the Maharashtra Prevention of Begging Act 1959 is unconstitutional on grounds that it violates Article 14 and Article 21. Criminalizing begging it violates the fundamental rights of most vulnerable people in our society and it ignores the reality that the poorest of the poor are forced to beg as the last resort because of various socio-economic conditions. Now secondly let's come to the offence of smoking. Here section 167 subsection 1 of railway act states that no person in any compartment of a train shall smoke if objected to by any other passenger. According to subsection 2 railway administration also has the power to prohibit smoking in any train and whoever contravenes the provision shall be punishable with fine that may extend to 100 rupees. But now the proposed amendment states that provided that if the person liable to pay the fine under this section is willing to pay such fine immediately the authorized officer may compound the offence by charging the maximum fine payable under the section concerned and the sum so recovered shall be paid to the railway administration. Provided further that the offender against whom the offence is compounded shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him or her in respect of such offence. So here this amendment is to facilitate compounding of the smoking offence. So what is compounding? There are two broad categories of offences compoundable non-compoundable. Now compoundable offences are those offences that can be compromised that is the complainant can agree to take back the charges levied against the accused. In such case there would be no further legal action once compounding is done. So in compounding offences the parties can affect a compromise whereas non-compoundable offences are more serious offences in which parties cannot compromise. So these are some of the information with reference to the analysis of this news article in connection with the proposed modifications in the context of begging and smoking in the railway act of 1989. Now let us move on to the analysis of next news article. This news article talks about Turkey's blame on Greece for rejecting the dialogue for military de-confliction. Know that de-confliction means avoiding a potential clash or accident that involves non-enemy military operations in a particular combat area. Now this blame by Turkey comes after Greek Prime Minister who said that NATO brokered talks to reduce tension in eastern Mediterranean ocean could only be held if Turkey stops from making threats. In this context let us have a brief understanding of NATO. See NATO is a political and military alliance. We say it is political because NATO promotes democratic values and it enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security related issues so as to solve problems build trust and in the long run to prevent conflict. It is a military alliance because NATO is committed to peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail it has the military power to undertake crisis management operations. Now these are carried out under the collective defence class of NATO's founding treaty. They are referring here as Article 5 of Washington Treaty. Or they can also undertake collective defence under a United Nations mandate alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations. NATO was created in the year 1949 by United States, Canada and several western European nations. Now we know that most part of Europe was devastated politically and economically by the World War II and at this time the ideology of communism supported by the Soviet Union started to take root in Europe so that then United States Secretary of State George Marshall proposed a program called as European Recovery Program. This program was also known as Marshall Plan. This plan was proposed in the year 1948. It is this plan which was the catalyst information of NATO. So NATO was formed with the signing of NATO Treaty which is also called as the Washington Treaty. Now this alliance is strategic as it is considered to deter or to discourage Soviet expansionism or to counter the spread of communism. It also had the strategic objective to have a strong North American presence in Europe to prevent or to prohibit revival of nationalist militarism in Europe. See national militarism means a belief that a strong military is essential for a nation so that it can be used aggressively to expand its national interests and values. Now one another objective of NATO was to encourage European political integration. The fundamental goal of NATO is to safeguard the freedom and security of allies by political and military means. The Collective Defense Clause is the most important principle of NATO. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or the NATO Treaty states that an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies. So when one ally is attacked the member countries would stand together and counter the adversary. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time after the 9-11 terrorist attacks against the United States. Now that the NATO headquarters is located in Brussels, Belgium and the North Atlantic Council is the principal political decision-making body within NATO. This council oversees the political and military process relating to security issues affecting the NATO alliance. Now at present this alliance consists of 30 independent member countries. The latest members to join NATO include Montenegro which joined in 2017 and North Macedonia which joined in 2020. And note that any European country which is in a position to further the principles of Washington Treaty or the NATO Treaty and which can contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the NATO alliance. With this we come to the end of analysis of this news article we discussed about NATO in this analysis. Now let's move on to next part of the discussion. This news article presents the recent development over what we have discussed on August 7, 2020. On that day we discussed in detail about priority sector lending. RBI announced that it has been reviewing the PSL guidelines to align it with emerging national priorities and to bring sharper focus on inclusive development. Yesterday RBI press release stated that the comprehensive review is completed and it has revised the priority sector lending guidelines. The revised priority sector lending guidelines will enable better credit penetration to credit deficient areas. It will increase the lending to small and marginal farmers and weaker sections. It will also boost credit to renewable energy and health infrastructure. Three new areas have been included as fresh categories eligible for finance under the priority sector. One is bank finance to startups up to 50 crore then loans to farmers for installation of solar power plants for solarization of grid-connected agriculture pumps then loans for setting up of compressed biogas plants. So from this you can understand that these are emerging national priorities that require priority sector lending. Now the salient features of the revised priority sector lending guidelines is given here for your reference. Now let us move on to next part of the discussion. This news article states that the Puducherry chief minister clarified that the ICMR had not informed the Puducherry government about any scientific findings that suggest 95% of people in the union territory are susceptible to COVID-19. Now this is a response to the earlier action from Lyftman governor's office stated that 95% of the people in the union territory are susceptible to the virus. While this is criticized as a part of never-ending saga between the Lyftman governor of the union territory and the chief minister and we also in the recent weeks have covered a lot on the tussle between Lyftman governor and the chief minister while one of them that is the Lyftman governor is the unelected nominee of the central government and the chief minister being elected leader with reference to the union territories of Puducherry and Delhi. In today's discussion we'll have a brief recap on ICMR in the prelims perspective. See Indian council of medical research is headquartered in New Delhi. It is the apex body in India for the formulation coordination and promotion of biomedical research. It is one of the oldest medical research bodies in the world. One of its mandates is to translate medical innovations into products or processors and to introduce them into the public health system. It also conducts coordinates and implements medical research for the benefit of the society. Now note that ICMR manages the clinical trials registry of India which was launched in the year 2007. It manages the registry through one of its permanent institute called as National Institute of Medical Statistics which is in New Delhi. The present ICMR came into existence from its precursor which was Indian research fund association IFRA which was set up way back in 1911. In the year 1949 Indian research fund association was re-designated as Indian council of medical research and at that time its scope of functions were expanded considerably. This ICMR is funded by government of India through department of health research of ministry of health and family welfare. Note that it is not a statutory body and from the exam point of view we should have a clear understanding of ICMR, central drug standard control organization and national pharmaceutical pricing authority. See national pharmaceutical pricing authority was constituted as an attached office of department of pharmaceuticals of ministry of chemicals and fertilizers through a resolution. It is an independent regulator for pricing of drugs and also to ensure availability and accessibility of medicines at affordable prices. While central drug standard control organization works under ministry of health and family welfare, NPPA functions under ministry of chemicals and fertilizers. So these are some of the information with reference to the analysis of this news article. Now let's move on to next part of the discussion. We have come to the last session the practice questions discussion session. Now this question is with reference to Bahrain. This question is framed with reference to this news article which talks about Bahrain. The news article states that Bahrain has followed the steps of Saudi Arabia in allowing United Arab Emirates flights to and from Israel to overfly the Bahraini kingdom. Though Bahrain has no official diplomatic relations with Israel, it's decision to allow overflights. It marks a sign of cooperation with the Jewish state that is Israel. Now come to the question. It is a three statement question. They're asking which of the above statements are correct. It is a landlocked country. Now this statement is incorrect. It is not a landlocked country. So you can eliminate options A and D. The second statement states it shares border with Israel which again is also incorrect. So the correct answer for this question is option C. It is a member of Gulf Cooperation Council. See Gulf Cooperation Council was established in May 1981. It consists of six member countries. Bahrain is one among them along with Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. Now see this question. Consider the following countries which of the above countries are involved in Quad and Malabar exercise. Now we know that Quad consists of four members India, Australia, USA, Japan. So China is not there. So any option that has China should be first eliminated. Thereby you can eliminate options A and B. Now with option C and D there is only one doubt whether Australia is part of Quad and Malabar. Because anyway both options are saying that India, USA and Japan are part of both the exercises. Now note that Australia is not either part of Malabar exercise. So the correct answer for this question is option D, one, four and five only. Now this question is with reference to North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Two statements are given which of the statements are correct. Any country can become a member of NATO at an invitation of North Atlantic Council. We can logically say that this statement is incorrect. See NATO is related to North Atlantic area or Euro Atlantic area. So any country in the world cannot become the member of NATO as of now. But any European country that is in a position to further the principles of NATO treaty or the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in Euro Atlantic area can become a member of the alliance at the invitation of North Atlantic Council. First statement is incorrect. So you can eliminate options A and C. Now second statement Montenegro was the latest member to join NATO. This statement was correct before March 2020 because at that time Montenegro was the latest member which joined NATO in 2017. But the most recent and the latest member to join NATO is North Macedonia which joined NATO in the month of March 2020 as the 30th member. Now see this question it is a previously asked question. Priority sector lending by banks in India constitutes the lending to agriculture, micro and small enterprises, weaker sections all the above. The correct answer for this question is option D all of the above. Now this question again is with the recent development in relation to PSL which of the following were added as fresh categories eligible for finance under priority sector as per the recent comprehensive revision of priority sector lending guidelines. Bank finance to startups up to 50 crore, loans to farmers for installation of solar power plants, for solarization of grid connected agriculture pumps, loans for setting up compressed biogas plants. See all the three are added as fresh categories. So the correct answer is option A one, two and three. See this question. Consider the following statements. Two statements are given which of the above statements are correct. Compuntable offenses provide for the parties to affect a compromise in accordance with the provisions of law. This statement is correct. Second statement. Compuntable offenses are those offenses for which the police may arrest without warrant. This statement is incorrect because it is the definition for cognizable offense. Correct answer option A one only. Now see this question. Consider the following pairs they have given organizations or bodies on one side and functions under or funded by on another side and they're asking which of the pairs given above are correctly matched. Let us see the first pair Indian Council for Medical Research under Ministry of Science and Technology is incorrect because it is funded by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The moment you find this pair is incorrect you can arrive at the correct answer option C two and three only because you can eliminate options A, B and C as these options say first pair is correctly matched. See this mains question in GS Paper 3 discuss the recent ban on the mobile applications in the context of data profiling and data mining. It's a 10 mark question you're asked to write within 150 words. You may post the written answers for this question in the comment section and we will give you appropriate feedback within a reasonable time frame of one week. Note that you have to write the answer in the context of data profiling and data mining. With this we come to the end of today's the Hindu News Analysis. If you like the video, click the like button, comment, share it among your friends and those who are in need of such resources and subscribe to Shankarai's Academy YouTube channel for more updates and content on civil service exam preparation.