The Indo-French meet and Make in India

The off-the-shelf purchase of 36 Rafale jet fighters from France by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his trip to France is a clear detraction from the 'Make in India' initiative. After much negotiations with Dassault, the company manufacturing Rafale, PM Modi took the decision of buying 36 Rafale jets in fly-off condition. Dassault's reluctance of becoming partners with the state-run Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is speculated to be one of the reasons why Dassault did not consent to manufacturing the jets in India which could have provided a major impetus to PM Modi's Make in India campaign. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has hinted at further deals with Dassault keeping in line with the 'Make in India' campaign. FDI in defence set at 49%, the remaining 51% will be invested by a consortium of private companies with HAL rather than HAL itself. This opens up the lucrative defence sector open to private players.
When it comes to defence, India is the largest arms importer in the world. It is thus absolutely imperative that India must reduce its defence procurement and strive to manufacture domestically.
The current 'Make in India' campaign has laid much emphasis on investment which will create jobs and increase tax revenues and GDP but not much attention has been given to technology sharing.
The 'Make in India' campaign encourages companies to manufacture in India in the hope of bringing in investment as well as job creation and skill enhancement. But it can be much more than just an investment based campaign. Valuable technology and expert technical knowledge from foreign companies will be essential for India to make itself self dependent in the defense sector. It is thus, important to strike up a deal with Dassault so that the remaining jets are manufactured in India which will bring much needed investment along with technology that can help domestic companies to manufacture defence equipments without foreign aid.
PM Modi may have not got what he planned regarding the Rafale but a lot of other things went in his favour. A supplementray deal, was struck involving french company Areva and L&T, to produce heavy forging metal casing for nuclear reactors in India. This is a major step in localizing some of the expensive parts in India. The six nuclear plants will be set up at Jaitapur, Maharashtra. Prime Minister Modi is looking to strengthen the nuclear power producing capability of India as he also signed a deal with Canada to buy 3000 tons of Uranium from Canada over the next few years.
Other things discussed at Indo-French meet are preservation of heritage, development of Chandigarh and Puducherry as smart cities, construction of semi high speed railway lines, cooperation on a space mission to Mars, discussing anti terror training, tackling climate change through renewable technologies and robust nuclear partnership.

What is all this fuss about Net-Neutrality?

The Internet has been one of the greatest inventions of mankind and though only a few decades old, it has grown in size exponentially, finding its way to the remotest of villages and the busiest of boardrooms. Technological advancements in the field of telecommunication and the fact that human beings are inherently an information-hungry species, have led to the internet's growth. Easy access has been one of the major factors which has appealed to the people and with a host of services and applications which can be availed for free, the Internet has become a powerful tool in the hands of the public. For a country like India, which has a sizable rural population, the Internet can play a very useful role by providing for easy access of information, banking facilities, connectivity with the rest of the country and most important of all, spreading awareness of their rights and the programs launched by the government. Apart from that, the average urban Indian is very well acquainted with the Internet and it can be said that the Internet has become a part of their daily lives. With mobile phones and tablets equipped with browsing applications, access to the internet has become all the more easier and hassle free.
The openness of the Internet has always appealed to its users. Anyone can access any site, page or information as long as it is legally available. This is where the term net-neutrality comes in. Net-neutrality has been defined as the guiding principle of the Internet among all the other definitions that exist. In simple terms, 'net-neutrality' refers to the equal availability of all content on the Internet not subjected to blocking or discrimination of certain content by the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) or the government. Indian telecom companies made a lot of money in the last two decades as more and more people used their services but now with the advent of applications like WhatsApp, Facebook and YouTube which make millions riding on their back, the telecom companies want to charge us differently. In simple words, the telecom companies want to charge the consumers more for over-the-top applications such as WhatsApp, YouTube, Skype etc. In making such a demand the telecom companies argue that they spend billions of dollars in setting up infrastructure and bring themselves under regulatory scrutiny while numerous applications ride on their backs for free. So is it really for them to decide for us which applications are free and which are to be charged?
First of all, ISPs are not the creators of the content on the Internet nor do they own the internet. Their services are required for accessing the Internet. As of now, if a person buys a data pack from a telco, it is totally upto him, how he spends it but with the demand for net-neutrality different applications and websites will be charged differently based on their popularity. Violating net-neutrality could also have adverse effects on start-ups. Many Internet giants like Google and YouTube had humble beginnings, with hardly any resources or capital. But innovative ideas and the openness of the Internet helped them grow to become success stories. Telecom companies, if given the power to violate net-neutrality will charge big companies like Google and YouTube to make their applications free on the Internet or priced at lower rates. On the contrary, start-ups which do not have enough capital will not be able to compete with big, established companies and their content will not be accessed by consumers owing to higher rates set by the ISPs.

 The TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) has released a 117 page document listing the reasons why telecom companies should be allowed to break net-neutrality and also asked for the opinion of the general public to help take a decision. You can mail your views at 'advqos@trai.gov.in'. It must be noted that the US, Chile, Netherlands and Brazil have already ruled in the favour of net-neutrality. The Internet is a very valuable resource and laws should be made to ensure that the ISPs do not monopolise the Internet or discriminate between applications so as to reap profits.

How India stands to benefit from the Iran Nuclear Deal

 The Iranian foreign minister and the P5+1(Security council and Germany), also known as E3+3(Europe 3+US,Russia and China) announced that they had reached a 'framework agreement' to take forward their twin objectives of reducing Iran's nuclear capabilities for civilian use only, while lifting the financial sanctions imposed on it by US, UN and the European Union. As per the agreement, Iran will limit Uranium enrichment to only one facility (Natanz). It has consented to redesign the plutonium heavy-water reactor at Arak so it cannot produce weapons-grade usable fuel while the enrichment site at Fordo will be converted to a research facility and production of medical isotopes. Uranium stocks will be also brought down from ten thousand kilograms to three hundred kilograms LEU(Low Enriched Uranium). While Saudi Arabia has decided not to comment on the developments, Israel has vociferously opposed the move on the grounds that any type of nuclear development facility in Iran will be used for developing nuclear weapons and a nuclear equipped Iran is a threat to world peace. 

The lifting of financial sanctions will give a boost to the Iranian economy which has been lagging since the imposition of these sanctions. Iran has been one of the major oil suppliers to India, and before the imposition of the sanctions Iran was the second-largest supplier of crude oil to India. The financial sanctions were a setback to India as much as it was for Iran. Though India still kept importing oil from Iran despite the financial sanctions, transactions became difficult as India had to pay Iran through Turkey and Russia. Iran, on the other hand, had to accept the payments in Indian currency and consequently has large reserves of unused Indian rupees. The agreement is a welcome move for India and there is already news of some Indian companies planning to import oil from Iran. The agreement will once again revive India's trade with Iran which will be economically beneficial to both the nations. India will also use this opportunity to bring up the Chabahar deep-sea port which will be a major breakthrough as it can become an important transit point for trade between India, Iran and Afghanistan. The Chabahar port will facilitate trade between India and Iran by totally bypassing Pakistan. With so many trade opportunities opening up for India, it stands to gain a lot from this agreement.

Independence of Judiciary in Danger?

The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha in August 2014 by the then minister of Law and Justice, Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad got the President's assent in December and now has become the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act effecting a constitutional amendment (99th amendment act). It has added an article 124 A to the Constitution which deals with the composition and the procedure for appointment and transfer of judges.
Before this law was passed, judicial appointments to the Supreme Courts and the High Courts were made by the President of India who was to do so in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, who himself would consult a collegium of the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court (as opined by the SC in third judges case,1998). Even if two judges gave an adverse opinion regarding an appointment, the recommendation would not be sent to the government.
With the passing of the NJAC bill, the government has made key changes in the method of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and high Courts. The Act provides for the establishment of a National Judicial Appointments Commission which will recommend names to the President for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The NJAC will comprise of the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Law Minister and two eminent experts. The two experts are to be selected by the Chief Justice, the Prime Minister and the leader of Opposition and one of them must be from a scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, minority community or a woman. As per normal procedure, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court will be chosen as the Chief Justice of India and all other appointments will be made as per the recommendations by the NJAC. If any two members of the NJAC disagree on a nomination, his/her recommendation will not be made to the President. The President has also been given powers to ask for the reconsideration of the recommendations made by the NJAC, but if NJAC makes a unanimous decision recommendation after such reconsideration, President must make the appointment accordingly.
The bill has faced strong criticism from several sections, some even calling it unconstitutional as it encroaches upon the power of the judiciary in matters of appointment. There is growing concern that with the inclusion of the Union Minister of Law and Justice in the Commission, the government may try to influence the decisions of the NJAC so as to appoint loyalists as judges to the apex court. Many are of the opinion that the judiciary should be independent of the executive, which has been an important feature of the judiciary of India and the establishment of the NJAC will be a stark violation of the principles on which the Supreme Court of India has been established.
On careful examination of the law, one realizes that the position of the courts are not in danger.
First of all, the system which existed was not too different from the one proposed now. With the inclusion of the Union Law Minister and two experts in the commission, the law has provided for the representation of the 'government' as well as the 'people' in the body. Since the previous procedure of appointments was proposed to curtail the absolute power of the Chief Justice of India in making recommendations, this comes as a welcome move as it curtails the absolute power of the judges (including the CJI) and takes in consideration the views and opinions of the Executive as well as experts. The law has also provided that the two experts should not be selected arbitrarily by the government but will be selected by the PM, the leader of Opposition and the CJI thus nullifying the argument that the government could create its own lobby within the commission.
The matter is still being discussed and debated upon, in the public domain, while the Supreme Court has constituted a bench to decide upon the 'constitutionality' of the law. Watch this space for more.