<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1614953193426" alt="History of Myanmar: Transformation from Military rule to Disciplined Democracy." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The military once again hold the reins in Myanmar. Citing constitutional provisions that give the military control in national emergencies, on February 1, army officers had detained government leaders, including state counsellor and popular national leader Aung San Suu Kyi. An announcement on military television said the move was in response to “fraud” during last year’s general election. A spokesman said power has been handed to the army’s commander-in-chief, General Min Aung Hlaing, who would hold power for one year, and after which there would be new elections.
<a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/3d515a59-a107-451d-8e0d-8806375eaba6/india-needs-to-be-cautious-about-china-while-dealing-with-myanmar" target="_blank">Why this event has become a geopolitical issue worth creating instability in the South Asian region? </a> Is it the debate all about military rule being ‘bad’ and democracy ‘good’? China termed the coup as ‘cabinet reshuffle’, while Biden’s statement took us back to the debate between military regimes and democracy (in American terms).
<ins>West Imposition?</ins>
President’s Biden first response in the aftermath of coup in Myanmar displays US’ historic desperation to impose, rather than peacefully propagate democracy on every nation-state present on the world map. He announced that he will sanction Myanmar’s military leaders for staging a coup in South Asian country, and said “we are going to impose strong exports controls. We are freezing US assets that benefit the Burmese government, while maintaining our support for health care, civil society groups, and other areas that benefit the people of Burma directly.”
Throughout the western world, but particularly and most obviously in the United States, political rhetoric and practice are based upon four seemingly unexceptionable propositions:
<ol>
<li>Democracy is an intrinsically good thing.</li>
<li>It has the truest democracy.</li>
<li>It is morally legitimate to impose democracy on others.</li>
<li>It can effectively do so.</li>
</ol>
What are these above mentioned propositions denote or try to convey to the world? Democracy is inherently good, but is US entitled to impose it on others? Or perhaps US thinks itself to be the truest democracy, so it has some right to dictate it to others?

Also read: <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/203170c0-7305-4852-99d5-91fe035d8189/breakdown-of-preamble-of-indian-constitution-meaning-of-democracy" target="_blank">Meaning of democracy in Indian context</a>&nbsp;

United States assumes that it represents the apotheosis of democracy when it has some basic flaws in its democratic system – citizens of the United States do not directly elect their head of the State, meaning it does not have a direct mandate of the majority; resources required to run for office effectively disbar the majority from a political career as politics is a costly business; media and corporate interests, biases, propagandas control the electoral process and outcome in American politics to a very large extent. Apparently, these conclusions stand far away from any plausible notion of rule by the people and for the people.
Democracy is a polymorphous concept which may take numerous forms and in each case be equally a bona fide instance of democracy just like gardening or teaching. Gallie (1955) long ago termed democracy as “equally contested” concept, and what constitutes a true democracy is forever open to argument.
There are no prior grounds for assuming that the particular form of democracy that takes place in the United States (or anywhere else) is ‘truer than’, ‘more democratic than’, or ‘superior to’ various other forms that it has taken historically or takes today in other places.&nbsp;
Does it mean democracy is an abstract concept floating around the world since the Athenian democratic city-state in ancient times, and since the establishment of American constitution, or with the end of French revolution in modern times?
Do nation-states politically democratised just to go with the flow because western nations adopted it? Or the economically powerful, the so-called first world, give these nation-states a chance to enter into the club?
Obviously No! There is a minimal descriptive content that sets limits on what can count as democracy, but countries like US still vouch for it, and sometimes even go to war to establish this political system.
More or less ‘democracy’ means ‘government by the people or by their elected representatives, who are accountable for their actions’. This assertion is contrasted with a government led by either an individual ruler or a minority group which in either case is not answerable to the people as a whole. It is an assumption that individual leader does not or inadequately represent the whole population, violate the rights of one community for others, curtail basic human rights to remain in the power, is not regularly accountable to public, and influences the state’s institutions maliciously.
These assumptions are arrived from historical examples in reality, and not just the perception of reality, but believing that a political system of one-man rule equates to a military regime, and one such example is Myanmar, or what US still calls, Burma.
<ins>Military Regime</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1614953862669" alt="History of Myanmar: Transformation from Military rule to Disciplined Democracy." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Military regime, in layman terms, defined as a ‘system of government governed by the military’, is a form of authoritarian rule, but is distinguished from both democracy, and other forms of authoritarianism.
Robert Dahl’s concept of polyarchy has suggested the “procedural minimum” definition of democracy which includes four key attributes – free, fair, and competitive elections, full adult suffrage, broad protection of civil liberties (freedom of speech, press and association), and the absence of non-elected “tutelary authorities” that limit the governing power of elected officials.
The political system in which militaries wield the “tutelary powers” or “reserved domains”, but still accept the democratic game can be articulated to be a “tutelary democracy”. It is a system in which no channel exist for oppositional forces to legally contest for executive power. A closed authoritarian regime evolves where democratic institutions does not exist. A hegemonic regime pertains to a system in which formal democratic institutions exist on paper, but are nothing more than a façade, and that is the category in which military regimes falls.&nbsp;
The military regimes can be distinguished on the basis of the level of intervention. In the direct military regime, military forms the government while in the quasi-civilian regimes, military holds political hegemony with a civilian window dressing.
According to Nordlinger, the extent of power of the armed forces, and their political &amp; economic goals define the level of military intervention. He distinguishes three ideal types of military rule.
<ul>
<li>Rulers – Military dominate the regime, control large segments of political and economic aspects of society, and it “intend to bring basic changes in the distribution of power by eliminating all existing power centres”</li>
<li>Guardians – Military control the government from backstage, and informally holds the governmental powers.</li>
<li>Moderators – Military does not hold important offices leaving them to civilian politicians, but maintains veto power over certain policies.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
The longevity of military rule in Myanmar is a function of regime’s preparedness to use lethal force against its opponents with total impunity, and regime’s assiduousness in rewarding its supporters along with its tight control over the economy to grant military and other elites some concessions against its own labyrinthine restrictions and rules on economic activity.
<ins>Myanmar and Tatmadaw</ins>
The Burmese army, established in 1942, also known as Tatmadaw preceded the existence of an independent state. Army became politicised during the freedom struggle against colonisers, becoming a liberating force. It could retrospectively assume the role of guardian of the Burmese state, and bulwark of national independence.
After the departure of Britishers in 1948, Burma was established as a democratic State according to its constitution, but Tatmadaw got deeply involved into civil politics. Even after accepting supremacy of a civilian government, army gradually expanded its political role. The outbreak of ethnic, secessionist, and communist rebellion triggered the institutional modernisation of the armed forces leading to the increased assertiveness of the Burmese military which out-paced the capacities of civilian arm of the government. The military took over the administrative functions, and acquired the significant chunk from national budget (one-third to half) to save the Burma from going through the process of Balkanization.&nbsp;
Late 50s witnessed the turbulent times for politics of Burma when factionalism increased within the ruling Anti-Fascist Peoples Freedom League (AFPFL). This subsequently led to a split in the party creating instability in the parliamentary system.
General Ne Win urged the civilian government of Prime Minister U Nu to temporarily transfer power to the armed forces which acted as a “Caretaker Government” from 1958 to 1960. This also developed praetorian ethos in the officer corps grounded in the belief that military functions is more effective than its civilian counterparts.
The military brought out some changes at the organisational, operational, and ideological level. It adopted new ideology which defined the role of military in broad national security terms as being responsible for the defence of the national objectives of establishing “peace and the rule of law”, “democracy”, and “socialist economy”. This prepared the groundwork for the “new professionalism” of the Burmese military. It expanded its business activities into the banking sector, construction industry, and fishing, and became the most powerful business organisation in the country.
The “Caretaker Government” handed back the power in February 1960 to the then Prime Minister U Nu, but this honeymoon period did not last long as General Ne Win staged the first Coup d'état in the history of Burma, bringing together high-ranking army officers, and eliminating their civilian counterparts once and for all.
The military was “compelled” to intervene to safeguard the nation from secessionist forces trying to disintegrate the country. Democracy allows dissent to freely propagate, looking for peaceful resolution through dialogue and deliberation, whereas the military rule do not allow this process called “democratic”.
U Nu’s decision to make Buddhism the state religion, calls by ethnic groups for greater autonomy, and secession from the union had laid the groundwork for the intervention of the military to save the country from disintegration.
After ’62, military prevented the emergence of any autonomous centres of influence through the means which termed as ‘un-democratic’. By the same means which shaped the perception that military juntas are malicious to the society, and cannot support the people’s will.
This disadvantage of military regimes, give countries like US the chance or perhaps an excuse to intervene in any country in the name of establishing democracy, or to impose sanctions if the country do not comply to democratic values.
General Ne Win formed a Revolutionary Council, abolished the 1947 constitutions, dissolved parliament, and banned all political parties to name a few “means”. The military regime nationalised the economy under the banner of the “Burmese way of Socialism”, and cut all ties to the outside world. It had also set up its own Leninist party called the Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), which ran the country unchallenged for over 25 years.&nbsp;
Military regimes thrive on repression; any unbiased examination of military regimes in any country can lead to this conclusion. It is more or less a consistent reality. Myanmar military regime was also no different which has remained in place with the readiness to swiftly and brutally supress dissent.
The coup that installed the military, for the first time, was no doubt relatively a bloodless affair as military cited national security danger, but in the intervening year the regime was quick to put down challenges to its rule with violence. Such suppression has existed as a routine part of everyday life, manifested in an all-pervasive surveillance apparatus.
As of April 2011, Human rights watch reported that there were over 20,000 political prisoners in Myanmar; most of them have been incarcerated and given lengthy sentences under biased legal proceedings and are frequently subjected to torture. Outside of the prisons, the people of Myanmar face limits to their freedom of movement, both domestically and internationally.
Meanwhile, the flow of information is greatly restricted. The press is subject to tight censorship, and the country's perfunctory education system is little more than a vehicle of indoctrination for the military's interpretation of Myanmar’s history. Myanmar's universities were broken up long ago, and their faculties were geographically dispersed to prevent student concentration and activism.
1988 events of widespread uprisings when many thousands of demonstrators were killed or imprisoned or fled the country after Military came hard-handily to suppress the dissent. The events revealed one of the most dangerous faces of military regimes through the episodes of state-sponsored military violence against its own dissenting citizens.
UIS’ (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) data centre suggested that Myanmar’s state spending on education was the lowest in the world in 2000 with a little more than 0.57 per cent of GDP. This showcased another characteristic of military regimes which democratic countries accuse them of.&nbsp;
The military returned to civilian rule only after it succeeded in designing a political system that safeguarded its own core interests. The political changes fell short of a genuine democratic transition, since the military remains fully in control of the political system after having successfully manipulated the 2010 elections. Additionally, it has managed to orchestrate this transition process at every single stage. The military has continuously restricted political space so that oppositional forces have virtually no room to manoeuvre.
<ins>Disciplined Democracy</ins>
Officially announced in the late 2003 by General Khin Nyunt, the military’s roadmap to “disciplined democracy” envisioned the installation of a new political system step by step. Beginning with the reconvening the National Convention to finalise the Constitution’s basic principles which were introduced at the 1993 National Convention. Like the first National Convention (1993–1996), the second was “marred by a lack of inclusiveness, heavy restrictions on public debate, and little input by the participants into the final product”, including the two main opposition parties – the NLD and the Shan National League for Democracy (SNLD).
The new constitution enshrined military control, codified the military’s leading role in the participation of the state which was finalised in February 2008, and was formally approved by the national referendum – apparently a highly manipulative one.
Although it established a multiparty democracy allowing for elections for national and regional assemblies, the military still maintained the dominant role in the years to come. Of all regional and national parliament seats, 25 per cent are reserved for the military, and security-related ministries like, defence, border affairs, and home affairs were also bagged by the military.
Military controls the whole security related matters, and is a fully autonomous organisation which is neither subjected to judicial and legislative control, nor accountable for its actions, both publically and judicially.
The transition to “disciplined democracy” has also been accompanied by a wave of privatisation measures where 271 state-owned companies have reportedly been sold to former head of the state, Than Shwe’s closest cronies such as Thay Zar, Zaw Zar, and Chit Khaing, the Myanmar Times reported. While the military conglomerates have got weakened in this process, Than Shwe’s informal influence has been consolidated.
Altogether, the influence of the military conglomerates in the economy remains considerable. The generals’ transition ensured a return to civilian rule without relinquishing the de facto military control of the government. The military would still remain the arbiter of power in the country, though it has created new political institutions that might develop some autonomy of their own in the future.
Even before the latest coup, the military’s withdrawal from power did not mean a retreat into the barracks, but rather a further institutionalisation of military control. The military has managed to establish a competitive authoritarian regime, in which it remained the arbiter of power.

History of Myanmar: Transformation from Military rule to Disciplined Democracy

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1613568906958" alt="China’s misadventure in the region called Central and Eastern Europe. CEE, CEEC, 17+1." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>
For the first time, Chinese Communist Party premier, Xi Jinping has chaired the virtual meeting of 17+1 Summit between Central &amp; Eastern European (CEE) countries and China, instead of his distant number two, Li Keqiang.
Chinese state media called it a “pioneering feat of great power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics”, but facts suggest otherwise. Long-delayed summit, growing division among CEE nations on Beijing’s increasing malicious geo-political activities, and frustrated CEE nations over China’s shallow promises on trade and investment are some of the instances showcasing that countries are losing confidence in China.
CEE group is facing ‘Promise fatigue’ from China on the accounts of unlevelled business playing field, and China not coming to keep up with its promises. EU claims that China may be implementing divide et impera – divide and rule – policy toward the EU through its investments in CEE nations. 12 EU nations are also a part of 17+1.
This year the summit witnessed absence from the head of states of six countries, namely Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovenia in the state-level summit which was graced by Xi himself. These countries decided to send ministers instead.
The recent 17+1 summit can be seen as a clear setback for China, which commenced with high hopes to economically develop the less-developed region of Europe against their advanced western neighbours.
Almost ten years and one pandemic later, the scholars are claiming that this region will again be the battlefield for new Cold War with the mere difference of leading countries involved. The growing scepticism towards China in CEE countries is not the entirely the result of sudden rise of expansionist China, but of failing infrastructure projects one after another in the region, China’s unkept investment promises, and the Russia factor.
This episode of another China-CEE failing relationship highlights a widening split taking place in Central and Eastern Europe where many countries have a soberer assessment of engagement with China, and are carefully positioning themselves between Beijing and Washington amid the deepening rivalry.
<ins>What is 17+1?</ins>
China-CEE or China-CEEC (Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries) is an initiative by the CCP to stimulate trade and investment relations between China and 17 countries of CEE which are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
The format of 17+1 (previously 16+1) mechanism was proposed almost 10 years ago, and was received with lot of enthusiasm &amp; hope on both the sides. China, which became the world’s largest manufacturer and second largest economy, aspired to be a great power which wanted to inject capital in the CEE region to build infrastructure, revive old factories, invest in human resources, and local projects that western investors tend to overlook.
This narrative created the competition among fellow countries to become the “China’s gateway to Europe” which paved the way for China–CEE summits. The Prime Minister-level summit aimed to fill a gap of cooperation aimed to facilitate the flow of investments and trade for the economic development of CEE nations along with establishing strategic partnership between China and regional countries was inaugurated in Poland in 2012.
China always promotes bookish definition about the 17+1 concept which seems like music whenever it falls on ears, but never has articulated its purpose. The loose and undefined concepts regarding the mechanism created numerous perspectives about the ‘purpose’.
For US, 17+1 mechanism was China’s new weapon to influence geopolitics of Central and Eastern European region through proposing lofty infrastructure projects, and using its soft &amp; hard power, together called as “Smart Power”, a term proposed by former US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. For EU, 17+1 mechanism is formed to divide the union.
Therefore, both EU and US view the mechanism as a strategic intrusion of China into united Europe which pose serious security threats to region’s countries and their national interests. Suspicion approves when countries like Greece and Hungary, receiver of most China’s investments, have been blocking unfavourable EU resolutions on the China subject from past few years, causing fear inside EU that more countries will follow the suit.
On the contrary to above perspectives, it is just an annual summit featuring a plethora of unfulfilled promises and projects.
The CEE countries were in dire need of infrastructure and investments, and China’s intentions with 17+1 mechanism was to create an economic corridor between the China and CEE countries which would develop the region, facilitate China’s presence in the Europe and, and strengthen its bilateral connections, but China failed in juggling expectations and achievements.
The majority of Chinese investments were pouring only in six countries diplomatically close to China, namely Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. This created a huge imbalance among 17 CEE countries.
Thus, the initial years of optimism changed into growing scepticism when the reality of mechanism uncovered. All those hopeful and appealing years of promises, proposals, and headlines returned back to haunt Beijing when the other countries acknowledged that investments were not arriving consistently. Discontent towards Chinese companies and regime is growing rapidly.
Chinese companies have been criticised for financing projects using Chinese loans, and employing a predominantly Chinese workforce. This causes fears about the emergence of “debt trap” policy in Europe.
<ins>Case of Serbia, Hungary, and Romania</ins>
Labelled as “Chinese highway to nowhere”, Montenegro’s European Motorway XI links the Port of Bar with Serbia, which became the first victim of debt-trap increasing its debt-to-GDP ratio to 80 percent.
Serbia, which is one of the Chinese pillars in the 17+1 community, received a series of investments in infrastructure, industry, and energy sector. Railroad between Budapest and Belgrade proved to be a landmark for 17+1. Zemun-Borca Bridge, also known as the Pupin Bridge, was constructed by China Road and Bridge Corporation, and was inaugurated by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in 2014. The bridge was nicknamed as the ‘Friendship Bridge’ was China’s biggest investment of 260 million Euros in Europe on one project.
The project characterised China’s modus operandi regarding its investment abroad – heavy loan from a Chinese bank, a workforce which is at least half Chinese, and full involvement of Chinese companies in construction.
In energy sector, Kostolac Thermal Power Plant Station and the Smederevo Steel Plant received the Chinese investments.&nbsp;
Hungary is well-known for its traditional friendship with China which facilitated such investments in the form of Budapest-Belgrade railway, and the Huawei European Supply Center.
Although Hungary has not received much foreign direct investment (FDI) from China, it boasts a lot of 'firsts' as it is the first European country to sign an intergovernmental cooperation document with China on jointly promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The first to set up a BRI working group with China, as well as the first CEE country to establish a Renminbi (RMB) clearing bank, and issue bonds in RMB.
It is also the first CEE country to host an official agency of the Tourism Authority of China, and the first European country to implement bilingual education in Hungarian and Chinese.&nbsp;
Romania was also supposed to receive an important amount of Chinese investments, but nearly all of them are stuck in negotiation or have been cancelled. The Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant, the Rovinari Thermal Power Plant, and the Tarnita-Lapuşteşti Hydroelectric Power Plant are the three most important Chinese projects, two of which are still under negotiation. The only big Chinese investment in Romania is the Huawei Regional Support Center.
China lacked a long-term strategy for developing the CEE countries. China treated all the 17 countries as one unit – which they are definitely not – like the European single market, and considered them as monolith. It did not acknowledge their diversity of visions, policies, perspectives, or backgrounds because China entered into not-so-economically viable region to eventually just gain influence geopolitically. China’s aim was to stretch its muscles of money power to gain leverage against US in the ‘great game’.
<ins>The Russian Factor</ins>
China ignored the ‘Russian Factor’ as mostly all the countries in the CEE region have a communist past under the shadow of USSR, especially those on the eastern flank. From the security perspective, these countries fear Russia, especially after Moscow annexed Crimea back in 2014, which makes them prone to side with the United States.
Many countries did not even know the proper intentions of China regarding the 17+1 mechanism, and Beijing kept everyone in dark about the ‘purpose’ as mentioned above. Lack of communication about the goals created panic among members as the trade-war took off.
China’s malicious activities in the region, and the subsequent pandemic made 17+1 economically dead. Beijing also tried to inject with its “Vaccine diplomacy”. China simply failed to deliver on its economic, investment, and trade promises which made the 17+1 attractive in the first place, but Beijing did not whole-heartedly address this problem which increased the disappointment towards China in CEE countries.&nbsp;
When launched in 2012, the 17+1 mechanism was regarded as a Chinese tool to facilitate its access to the EU market. Over time, because the mechanism has failed to bring about promised outcomes, even China’s closest CEE friends have begun to rethink their relationship with China and the United States.
The changing perspectives of some 17+1 members may assuage the EU’s concern about China attempting to divide the Union as China seems to become less important for the CEE region. At the same time, the EU is in the process of changing its voting system regarding foreign policy decisions.
If there were a New Cold War between China and the United States, many EU countries from the CEE region might take a different position. This got demonstrated when many CEE countries allied on the US’ ‘Clean Network program’ with respect to the cyber policy to safeguard the privacy and data that could compromise national security against Chinese telecommunication giant, Huawei (on its 5G global rollout).
Tensions between China and the United States will continue to deepen even if they manage to reach a trade deal in future, owing to their competing geopolitical interests. Under the US global campaign, Huawei’s technology has become central to the concern of a potential “digital iron curtain”.
China is stuck in the middle of geopolitical and military tensions between US and Russia in the region which used to known as “other side of iron curtain” which today perceive Russia as a common threat. Economic prosperity will never be prioritised over survival and security of the State in the international system, as Liberalist seems to propound, and China’s failed adventure in CEE region making prospects where countries will cut tie from Beijing.

China’s misadventure in the region called Central and Eastern Europe

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612959127830" alt="Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era. Iran Nuclear deal and JCPOA" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

After the turbulent four years of American foreign policy under Trump administration with high level of unpredictability that created havoc in the world politics, US President Biden has pledged to reverse several of the previous administration’s decisions, beginning with the Iran Nuclear Deal, popularly known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Not only Trump’s foreign policy, but also domestic policies were guided by Trumpism – a new theoretical ideology denoting Trump’s idiosyncratic actions without realising their detrimental effects. This mind-set forced the political scholars to denote the four years of trump in White House as Trump-Era, indicating that these four years caused as much damage to America’s foreign policy as it did to the established world order.
The unilateral withdrawal by former President Trump from JCPOA strained the already terrible relations between Iran and US, therefore, Biden’s path to restore the Obama-period nuclear deal would be extremely difficult.
President Biden is eyeing an urgent restoration of the Iran Nuclear Deal, while US’s new National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan has suggested that a faster timeline than the administration has previously outlined is being framed.
“We are going to have to address Iran’s other bad behaviour, malign behaviour, across the region, but from our perspective, a critical early priority has to be to deal with what is an escalating nuclear crisis as they move closer and closer to having enough fissile material for a weapon,” Sullivan said. “And we would like to make sure that we re-establish some of the parameters and constraints around the program that have fallen away over the course of the past two years,” he added.
<ins>What is JCPOA? A brief history</ins>
After the intensive and lengthy diplomatic talks for years amidst the continuous animosity between Iran and the western countries, at dawn of July 14, 2015 a news broke which everybody on either side of hemisphere were hoping. Final details of the JCPOA or Iran N-deal were finalised. The accord was notable in the history of nuclear proliferation, and the deal was considered an agreement that could change the dynamics in the Middle East.
It provided hope to citizens of the world that differences can only be resolved through diplomacy, and not by wars. One such citizen was Iran’s Foreign Minister Javed Zarif who had tweeted back in 2015, “#IranDeal is not a ceiling, but a solid foundation. We must now begin to build on it.”&nbsp;
The Iran nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is a landmark accord reached between Iran and five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), along with Germany – collectively known as P5 + 1.
It had gone into effect in January 2016, and imposed restrictions on Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program. During the regime of former monarch Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran had committed to forgo the development of nuclear weapons, and even signed the Non-proliferation Treaty sponsored by Nixon administration.&nbsp;
Though after the overthrow of Reza Shah Regime, which was an ally of US in the Middle East as per the Baghdad Pact, and the subsequent 1979 Islamic revolution, which established Ruhollah Kheominei’s Islamic clergy regime, the leaders of Iran who were hard-liners against US and western powers on the ideological basis tried to secretly pursue the nuclear technology.
Under JCPOA terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program, and open its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief. Iran has suffered from a dizzying and complex set of international economic sanctions as punishment for its nuclear development by the western powers prior to the deal. The deal in the nutshell was that the sanctions would be lifted in exchange for the tight restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. The provisions of the deal formed as such that it would make functionally impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon till the accord remains in place.

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612959313444" alt="Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era. Iran nuclear deal and JCPOA." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

<ins>Trump’s JCPOA withdrawal</ins>
Riding on the anti-Iran and anti-JCPOA rhetoric, Donald Trump campaigned on the promises to dismantle the Iran nuclear accord, referring to it as “the worst deal ever.” An electoral victory in 2016 allowed the Trump administration to fulfil its promise, and thus, it changed the dynamics of Middle East for the worse.
In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear accord, thanks to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu consistent lobbying against the deal from the beginning. Regional players like Israel and Saudi Arabia provided a strong backing to Trump administration for the withdrawal from the deal which would further weaken Iran’s influence in the region.
“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” a grim-faced Mr. Trump said in an 11-minute address from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. “It did not bring calm, it did not bring peace, and it never will,” he added.

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612959398758" alt="Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era. Iran nuclear deal and JCPOA." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

These steps in compliance with accord foreclosed the Iran’s pathways to build nuclear weapons. Trump insisted that the limits placed on the Iran’s nuclear fuel production according to the deal were inadequate. The administration presented no evidence that Iran was not complying with its obligations, but the former president called the deal as “worst deal ever” due to the couple of reasons. Firstly, Trump had a contention with the provisions of ‘sunset clauses’ – the deal is not permanent, the limits were to expire in 2030. Secondly, the deal does not address the threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles development or its malign behaviour in the region. Iran supports militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon which is principal enemy of the Israel, a known US ally.
<ins>Consequences of withdrawal</ins>&nbsp;
After withdrawing from agreement, US re-instated all the sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord. Therefore, US re-impose oil sanctions, and new sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, crippling the national economy while Iran complied with provisions of the deal and kept restricted its development of nuclear capability for next one year.
Iran accused the United States of reneging on its commitments, and faulted Europe for submitting to US’ unilateralism. The withdrawal not only increased geopolitical tensions with Iran, but also strained the transatlantic relations with European allies, undermining their positions in the deal which came into effect to hold Iran accountable.&nbsp;
Trump’s strategy to confront Iran, and bring it back to the table to negotiate the total dismantle of its nuclear program – eliminating sunset clauses – and address its malign activities was to impose maximum pressure to gain maximum leverage ahead of diplomatic discussions while avoiding a military entanglement in the future. This is popularly known as ‘maximum pressure’ strategy.&nbsp;
JCPOA provided a highly intrusive inspection regime to check Iran’s compliance with the agreement, but Trump’s maximum pressure campaign has failed to produce concessions from Iran, let alone bring it to the negotiation table for discussion on the Iran’s other malign activities.
The nuclear deal provided the P5+1 with greater inspection and accountability tools to ensure Iran is not foraging on the path of building nuclear weapons. Provisions of the deal would have made almost impossible for Iran to violate the agreement without facing serious blow from all the countries including European powers, which are still the participants in the deal. The deal would also have given greater international legitimacy to US to use hard power against Iran if the latter had resumed the nuclear program.
Pressure from multilateral sanctions successfully brought Iran to the negotiating table, but US retaliatory unilateral sanctions have failed to produce a replacement agreement or stop Iran from ramping up its nuclear program.
In response to the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, and subsequent re-instatement of nuclear and other sanctions, Iran has steadily reduced its compliance with the JCPOA.
Iran increased its uranium enrichment, advanced centrifuges, and stockpile size. Moreover, maximum pressure has failed to stop Iran from supporting proxies that further destabilise the region.
The provocations from both sides increased the tensions between Iran and US. Many political scholars had even predicted a Middle East war after the tanker blast incident in Persian Gulf in mid-2019. The list of Iranian provocations in the same year also goes long, beginning from the downing of an American drone, mine attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and a cruise missile strike on Saudi oil facilities.
On the nuclear front, Iran’s slow but steady effort to shrink its breakout timeline raises alarm bells in Western capitals without provoking an American or Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities.&nbsp;
The assassination of Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian military commander, in January 2020 was the peak of these provocations on the either side which followed the downward spiralling effect pushing the region to the brink of a catastrophic war amidst the coronavirus pandemic. Subsequently, the assassination of eminent scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November worked as a fuel in the confrontation.&nbsp;
<ins>Conclusion</ins>
Despite the welter of conflicting actions and statements coming from senior Iranian leaders in recent times, it seems that Tehran would welcome a quick return to the JCPOA by the incoming Biden administration.
However, Iran appears to be signalling that the opportunity to do so will be brief, and if the United States does not immediately resume compliance with the terms of the original agreement, that window will close quickly and perhaps permanently. Although such compliance must be verified, a US return to the JCPOA is the best way to incentivise Iran to comply with the deal.
The Biden administration’s best approach will be to pursue complementary near-term and long-term strategies simultaneously to bring Iran back into compliance with the limits on its nuclear program, while raising the stakes of Tehran’s adventurism in the region and paving the way to a follow-on agreement.
The JCPOA offers the best path for the United States to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, and it was working until the withdrawal. The reality today is much starker, and Iran is closer to building a nuclear weapon. The steps Iran has taken in violation of the JCPOA, however, are reversible — Iran can return to compliance with the deal.
The only way to achieve another agreement in the future — including one that addresses Iran’s ballistic missile program and other security threats Iran poses — is for the United States to return to the JCPOA and implement its part of the deal. Re-joining the JCPOA advances US national security, restores US credibility, and should be a top priority for the Biden administration.

Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612870880203" alt="Rs 19.7L cr needed to fund EV ecosystem, acc to Niti Aayog report called Mobilizing Finance for Electric Vehicles in India" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

In a recently released report called Mobilizing Finance for Electric Vehicles in India, NITI Aayog has stated that the transition to Electric Vehicles (EVs) will require a cumulative investment of Rs 19.7 lakh crore in EVs manufacturing, charging infrastructure, and batteries between 2020 and 2030.
The report, published by Niti Aayog and Rocky Mountain Institute, has also identified a market size of Rs 3.7 lakh crore for the financing of EVs in 2030. Right now the biggest need for a successful transition from petroleum based vehicles to EVs is infrastructure updation which further requires capital financing.
“The need of the hour is to mobilise capital and finance towards EV assets and infrastructure. As we work to accelerate domestic EV adoption, and push for globally competitive manufacturing of EVs and components such as advance cell chemistry batteries, we need banks and other financiers to step up to lower the cost and increase the flow of capital for EVs,” said CEO of NITI Aayog, Amitabh Kant.
In order to develop India’s EV ecosystem, we need to overcome some issues such as infrastructure availability, technology cost, consumer behavior, and financing. The report’s main focus is on financing, because end users currently face multiple challenges like high interest rates, high insurance rates, and low loan to value rates.
The Niti Aayog’s report recommends bringing the financing of EVs under priority sector lending and interest subvention. It also suggested increasing the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FAME) II subsidy, thus providing 50 per cent incentive to the buying consumer.
Digital lending, and development of a secondary market for increasing the resale value of EVs were also mentioned as steps to ease the transition. Furthermore, the study suggested a reduction in GST on EVs, charging components, and batteries. Overall, India looks to encourage domestic manufacturing EV and become a huge market for EV by 2030.
<ins>What was there in the budget?</ins>
The Budget 2021 presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman did not bring a good news that could directly impact the EV industry, especially like reduction in the tax slabs that was expected otherwise. However, introduction of voluntary Vehicle Scrapping policy was welcomed by the EV industry which believes that this will boost the sale of EVs.&nbsp;
Also, the tax holiday for a year has relieved many startups who were into the production of EVs, especially two wheeler. The Government’s decision to introduce 20,000 buses under Public-Private Partnership with a budget of 18,000 crore has made EV manufacturers aspiring if as much as possible of these acquired buses will be electrically powered.
Another important and game-changer move is the introduction of Production Linked Incentive scheme. GOI has announced that it will spend 1.9 lakh crore in this scheme to lure global manufactures to make India a manufacturing hub. Talking of electronic industry, an additional 40,000 crore will be dedicated to them through this scheme, thus pushing the manufacturing of EV and other instruments, components, and devices in India.
According to experts, India is poised to become the fourth largest market for EV (with approximately 70% market share, and more than 70 lakh vehicles) by 2040. India’s domestic companies like Tata and Reliance are working towards manufacturing of EVs, and setting up of charging infrastructure respectively. There are numerous startups and other companies who have made their investments in Delhi, Pune, and Bengaluru to start production of batteries (lithium ion), chargers, and other components.&nbsp;
Tork Motors, Okinawa, Revolt Intellicorp, ION Energy, and Ather Energy are introducing their two wheeler EVs in India. Tata motors and Kia are trying to become pioneers in the EV car market of India.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The entry of Tesla as Tesla India Motors in Bengaluru has further electrified the Indian EV industry. It looks like that with the Government’s helping hand, the EV industry in India is going to rise as predicted and hopefully, we are advancing to a new age where India will be possessor of cutting edge technology and become a leading global manufacturer of high tech vehicles based on clean energy.
Need for Transition to Electric Vehicles
Is the need to adopt vehicles running on electricity only based on the need to secure a better source of energy which does not cause pollution? Well, not really, because there is so much more. We take a look at it, here.
First of all, yes, electricity is a better alternative to petroleum as it causes no air pollution at all. India is a country to 22 most (air) polluted cities out of top 30 in the world, and vehicular exhaust is responsible for one-third of the total pollution caused. In the developing nation India, its rapidly urbanising population has the potential to carry these numbers to more worrying levels. Therefore, we really need electric vehicles.
Secondly, India relies heavily on oil (petrol and diesel) as its vehicular fuel which is prone to volatile market conditions, and geopolitical factors. Adding to that, India is third largest importer of crude oil in the world, and has spent billions of dollars to buy crude oil. Thus, we need to not only adopt clean energy resources like electricity, but also develop advanced infrastructure to produce it and possibly move towards becoming a global supplier of such resources in the future. This will not only secure our environment, but also save us an enormous amount of capital that can be used to for the upliftment of poor. Also, an estimate shows that adopting such measures will help generate at least 2 million jobs in India.
Lastly, something we should be concerned about the most but still do not care enough, Climate Change. What good are vehicles when we would not be there to run them? Climate change is the biggest threat looming above the human civilization, and has the potential to starve us to death, maybe leading to mass extinction. The best we can do to prevent is by reducing the greenhouse gases emission, especially that caused by vehicular exhaust. <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/environment/6f1e52b8-73cc-4044-93c0-5af1fa85ab7d/paris-agreement-can-india-keep-its-big-promises" target="_blank">India has set goals</a> to cut its GHGs emissions by 33%-35% below 2005 levels by 2030, and thus EVs will be major factor in achieving that goal.
...
Also read: <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/environment/1b99b568-8c30-441f-b55a-c44a702500e1/quest-for-a-green-future-hydrogen-energy-mission" target="_blank">India joins race to produce commercially viable Green Hydrogen</a>
...
Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PoliCharcha" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/policharcha/" target="_blank">Instagram</a>. Also join our <a href="https://t.me/policharcha" target="_blank">Telegram channel</a> for regular updates

Investment worth Rs 19.7L cr needed to fund EV ecosystem, acc to Niti Aayog report

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612792850224" alt="Uttarakhand Floods: What happened & what measures are being taken?" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

At 10:45 am on a clear day on 7th February, a bombastic sound was heard by the people of Joshimath who then rushed out to see white steam emerging out of Dhauliganga river valley. In a few seconds, they saw an enormous amount of water with thick debris down streaming with unstoppable force, ruthlessly suppressing everything on its way. Before people could understand what had happened, the deluge had caused the destruction, and all that the spectators could do was to shoot the bone-chilling scenes from their smartphones.
The calamity occurred in the Chamoli district of Uttarakhand, nearby the regions of the Nanda Devi peak, which is India’s second highest mountain peak. A major chunk of Nanda Devi glacier broke and triggered an avalanche, therefore causing sudden flood in the Dhauliganga River.
The deluge travelled down, destroying NTPC Tapovan Hydel power project and Rishiganga Hydel Power project, and taking the lives of those who were either working at these sites or were at the river bank.
According to the present figures, at least 19 dead bodies have been recovered, and about 150 people are still missing, whereas 16 labors have been rescued by the relief forces. The rescue operation is still underway as news has emerged that 34 people could be trapped inside a tunnel, and the efforts to save them are in progress day and night. The Tapovan tunnel is 250 meters long, and is covered with mud and debris, of which about 150 meters have been cleared.
The deluge also washed away 5 bridges on its way thus breaking the link between 13 villages nearby. These villages are being provided with food and other necessities via air, thanks to the Indian Army.
This is the worst natural disaster faced by Uttarakhand since the Kedarnath floods of 2013 which had claimed more than 6000 lives, and wreaked havoc in the entire valley as well as many other places located before Kedarnath.
<ins>What could be the reason behind this catastrophe?</ins>
CM Trivendra Rawat has sent a team of scientists to study the reasons behind the incident. Till now, it is being called as a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF). It happens when the boundaries of lakes are breached, causing the glacier to break &amp; fall, and thus triggering an avalanche. When such massive glacier falls into river, it causes flooding. Even though there are no lakes in this region, some scientist believe that the lakes underlying the glaciers could have been broken. Such incidents are rare, and need a study before coming to any conclusion.
What is surprising is that it was a clear day in winter with no impactful seismic activity. During the Kedarnath floods, extremely heavy rainfall was the reason behind the floods as the Mansarovar Lake had become overburdened with excessive rain water, thus leading to a breakage of its boundaries, and unleashing huge amounts of water altogether.
Reactions from all over the world have come and they are dominated by the ideas which say that this calamity is a signal of Climate Change. In fact, in 2019, a study conducted over a period of 40 years had shown that even the Himalayas, which are the world’s highest mountains, are being impacted by the global warming, and the rate of melting of glaciers has doubled since 2000.&nbsp;
The environmentalists have blamed it on the developmental activities going in the region, especially construction of several hydropower projects, along with climate change.
For right now, the Geological Survey of India has called it an event of Glacial Calving that is breaking of a huge chunk of ice-mass from a glacier. However, the scientific body has organised a committee to do proper research on the matter.
<ins>Relief Forces at work</ins>
As soon as the news emerged, the administration got alert and several teams from Indian Army, Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), National Disaster Relief Force (NDRF), SDRF, and state police force reached the site of incident to begin the relief work.
The ITBP forces were the first to reach the site and had saved 16 labourers who were alive and stuck inside a tunnel. Luckily, a labourer’s phone was working, using which he contacted people outside and called for help.
Together with these forces, two medical teams, and one engineering task force has also been sent for the emergency service. Also, two helicopters have been deployed at Tapovan.
Uttarakhand’s Chief Minister Trivendra Singh Rawat has announced an assistance of 4 lakh Rupees to families of each of the deceased.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that he is closely monitoring the situation, and “India stands with Uttarakhand at this tough time.”
...
Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PoliCharcha" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/policharcha/" target="_blank">Instagram</a>. Also join our <a href="https://t.me/policharcha" target="_blank">Telegram channel</a> for regular updates

Uttarakhand Floods: What happened & what measures are being taken?

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612749453502" alt="Quest for a green future; Hydrogen Energy Mission" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

In the budget speech this year, FM Nirmala Sitharaman has announced about launching a ‘Hydrogen Energy Mission’ in FY22. The proposed mission will find ways to produce Green Hydrogen – hydrogen generated using renewable energy resources.
“Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while speaking at the Third Re-inVest Conference in November 2020, had announced plans to launch a comprehensive National Hydrogen Energy Mission. It is now proposed to launch a Hydrogen Energy Mission in 2021-22 for generating hydrogen from green power sources,” Sitharaman said.
The first element of the periodic table and, the most abundant element in the universe, Hydrogen is deemed as the fuel of the future. Hydrogen is used as fuel in rockets, and has application in Iron &amp; Steel industry.
According to the Power Ministry, India generates about 62 per cent of energy from thermal sources (non-renewable resources), out which 85 per cent of power comes from coal. Though, India is <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/environment/6f1e52b8-73cc-4044-93c0-5af1fa85ab7d/paris-agreement-can-india-keep-its-big-promises" target="_blank">doing fairly well to generate more energy from renewable sources</a>, this tilt towards Hydrogen is a welcome move.
<ins>Current Status</ins>
While the exact details about the planned mission is yet to be made available in the public domain, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) says that it is supporting R&amp;D by the industrial, academic, and research institutions on hydrogen energy and fuel. Challenges in production of green hydrogen, its efficient storage, and its utilisation for energy generation &amp; transport applications are being constantly addressed.
“With respect to transportation, major work has been supported to Banaras Hindu University, IIT Delhi, and Mahindra &amp; Mahindra. This has resulted in development and demonstration of internal combustion engines, two wheelers, three wheelers, and mini buses that run on hydrogen fuel. Two hydrogen refuelling stations have been established (one each at Indian Oil R&amp;D Centre, Faridabad and National Institute of Solar Energy, Gurugram),” mentions the MNRE on its official site.
FM Nirmala Sitharaman has also proposed to provide an additional capital of Rs 1500 crore to Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) for the financial year 2021-22.
Several nations like US, UK, Canada, Germany, China, Japan, South Korea, among others are presently investing in technologies related to green hydrogen for a sustainable future.
Even before getting elected, the US President Joe Biden had made promised that he will invest in Green Hydrogen to “secure our future”. The European Union has vowed to spend 430 billion Euros in Green Hydrogen.
Green Hydrogen can be the next big power source in the world, and India has also started on its way to tap its full potential. It can provide clean power in manufacturing, transportation, and other sectors, but its production demands a thorough research &amp; development to make it economically viable. A post-production infrastructure is also required for efficient storage and transportation.
China, on the other hand, is already the world’s largest producer of hydrogen as a fuel, but there is a catch. It produces grey and blue hydrogen. When the source of energy to extract hydrogen is non-renewable like natural gas or fossil fuels, then the resultant fuel is called Grey Hydrogen, whereas Blue Hydrogen is produced by extracting CO2 from methane.
These methods cause release of methane and CO2, both greenhouse gases that are responsible for global warming.
<ins>Way ahead</ins>
The rise in energy demand is having a significant impact on the environment. Moreover, energy sector is considered to be a major source for environmental concerns, including local air pollution, GHGs emissions, and thus it accounts for the implications associated with climate change.
Therefore, there is a powerful need to address the growth of energy demand, and at the same time provide clean energy to the masses, keeping the climate change threats under constant check.
This visionary step can prove to have prospective advantages as it will provide India a better alternative source of energy, and help achieve the environment protection goals set according to the Paris Agreement.
Hydrogen will prove to be the game changer in this regard, but for that to happen, India will have to focus on capacity building, especially in the R&amp;D arena.
...
More to come
...
Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PoliCharcha" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/policharcha/" target="_blank">Instagram</a>. Also join our <a href="https://t.me/policharcha" target="_blank">Telegram channel</a> for regular updates

Quest for a green future; Hydrogen Energy Mission

One year has gone so fast, and though initially it felt like the impact of the pandemic will be devastating for India, we are sitting at a much more comfortable position.
From capacity building in our medical infrastructure, to confidence building in our vaccination programme, we have come a long long way in just a span of one year.
.
Everybody came together to fight the virus and minimise its effects. Special thanks to the health care workers, and frontline heroes who not only gave us a chance to survive this adversity, but also positioned us at the lead in the fight against Covid.
.
Economy took a hit, but is steadily getting back on track. Migrants workers were the ones to face the brunt of the disorder that prevailed earlier. The migrants' situation could have been handled more efficiently.
.
What are your thoughts? What we could have done differently? Are you happy with the efforts of the Government? How did the pandemic changed the dynamics of the working culture? Anything else you want to comment about?
Be sure to add your views in the comments.

On this day last year, the first case suspected for Covid-19 infection was reported in India in Thrissur district of Kerala.

<a href="/hashtag/BJP">#BJP</a> is working really hard in West <a href="/hashtag/Bengal">#Bengal</a>, can they win?

What do you think about the upcoming #Bengal assembly elections?

Already world is dealing with Covid19.

But China is using this 'opportunity' to engage in creating complications across its borders, whether land with India or sea, in South China Sea.

Now it has fulfilled Bangladesh's long term demand of reduction in tariffs, and that too by 97%! The timing couldnt be perfect.

Where is China headed to?

How realistic is our this thought that we should Boycott Chinese Products in response to the Dragon's aggression across the border?

Wallet vs Bullet

As we all are aware about the "Vande Bharat Mission" Exercise, known as the World's biggest expatriation exercise of the world, taking off today. What ae your opinions on this?
Do you think this is the correct step, correct timing to start something like this as we already know that the COVID19 cases in India are soaring rapidly. This expatriation might bolster the Pandemic and could give catastorphic results. I am sharing some of the main points below.
1. The mission is all about bringing stranded Indians from abroad.
2. 64 flights over 1 week to repatriatestranded Indians.
3. 14,800 Indians from 12 countries to be brought back in phase1.

Is it the correct step and time for THE REPATRIATION EXERCISE of the Indians from U.A.E?? 

would like to know what you feel is the setting root for such crimes?

I am more than active on twitter and it has actually helped me to find out more from different perspectives and do research. In India right now internet is provided at a very cheap rate for everyone , so less than thankfully many labourers have the connection. Now a new trend which has commenced is low grade small movies from few production houses like fliz,gupchup etc where in they have started to show similar adult movies or porn being a welcomed route. It just doesn't need any acting skills and their is nothing in it except of the scenes and they are readily available over the net. Mixed with the languages used in songs and movies along with individual albums these days, that is degrading the humans and more so the females.
Isn't it the time to get in some strict actions in place now as even many such other atrocities like domestc violence and rapes have always played a key role in degrading the life of woman in our nation. ?

Boys locker room

There has been a lot of discussion on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/pmcares?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/pmcares"><a href="/hashtag/pmcares"><a href="/hashtag/pmcares">#pmcares</a></a></a></a> .Some say it is a replica of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/pmnrf?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/PMNRF"><a href="/hashtag/PMNRF">#PMNRF</a></a></a> and others are questioning its transparency and use.
Some Facts:
1. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/pmnrf?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank">#PMNRF</a> was introduced to bring back people displaced from Pakistan and contribute a small portion towards medical treatment. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/pmcaresfund?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/pmcaresfund">#pmcaresfund</a></a> is just about <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/covid19?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/covid19"><a href="/hashtag/covid19">#covid19</a></a></a>.
2. Relief funds set up state government don't fall under CSR Donations - <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/companiesact?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/companiesact">#companiesact</a></a> Act,2013. Ironical when the party which placed it now questions it knowing that it will need an amendment to change it.

3.Contribution of funds to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/sdma?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/SDMA">#SDMA</a></a> will be taken as <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/csr?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/CSR"><a href="/hashtag/CSR">#CSR</a></a></a> Expenditure. Why are some states complaining and politicising it rather than asking the corporates to contribute under it and avail <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/csr?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank">#CSR</a> Benefits under prevailing law??
4. States get 41% share of the revenue under 15th Finance Commission so it's time they chip in because the way I see, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/pmcares?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank">#pmcares</a> is doing what it is supposed to.
5. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/pmcares?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank">#pmcares</a> will be audited by independent auditors. <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pm-cares-to-be-audited-by-independent-auditors/articleshow/75112792.cms?fbclid=IwAR0UARVDu33NvYzBfgDSwwyDeGFBtcuXcIydiFX9vVbbwLTZon8BF5TL_lA" target="_blank">https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pm-cares-to-be-audited-by-independent-auditors/articleshow/75112792.cms</a>

Isn't it high time we forget the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/religion?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/religion">#religion</a></a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/party?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank"><a href="/hashtag/party">#party</a></a> based bias and unite as a nation. Or does it require more <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/covid19?source=note&epa=HASHTAG" target="_blank">#covid19</a> deaths for us to finally stop politicising everything?

When will we unite as a nation by keep religion and politics aside?

India is one of the fastest growing major economies in the world, has the largest young workforce, most densely populated country (and the largest consumer market).&nbsp;

BUT is it sufficient?

As, on the other side:
1. We are still lacking the basic infrastructure to support large scale manufacturing. As we are still largely dependent on our service sector and primary sector, and have over the years grown in these two primarily ,leaving our manufacturing capabilites underdeveloped ?

2. Is our young huge workforce "skilled" also?

3. Do we have simple Economic, Labour &amp; Corporate laws in place to permit easy entry, exit &amp; working of the firms/corporate?

4. Are our Income tax laws favourable for foreign countries for setting up manufacturing facilities in India?

5. Do we have proper transportation network for movement of goods within india and for export outside india? Like: Dedicated freight corridors, Developed Ports, ICDs (Inland Container Depots) etc.

6. Are our export clearances easy &amp; whether our FTP(Foreign Trade Policy) is really making impact for increasing exports?

On this day last year, the first case suspected for Covid-19 infection was reported in India in Thrissur district of Kerala.

What do you think about the upcoming #Bengal assembly elections?

Where is China headed to?

Wallet vs Bullet

News & Articles