Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: JCPOA
Mains level: Paper 2- Peace and stability in the middle east
The assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientist has implication for the future of JCPOA and the peace and the stability of the region. The article explains why.
Context
- Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the Iranian scientist who led Iran’s nuclear weapons programme until it was disbanded, was assassinated last week.
JCPOA and U.S. Presidential election’s link with the
- Assassinations in which Israeli hands were suspected had stopped after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed.
- The U.S. withdrew from the agreement when Trump became the U.S. President.
- In retaliation of the withdrawal, Iran began enriching uranium and stockpiling it beyond JCPOA limits.
- With that, the strategy of targeted assassinations seems to be back.
- This strategy has assumed urgency with the election of Joe Biden in the U.S., who has expressed his desire to return to the JCPOA.
Understanding the Israel link
- Israel government is apprehensive that Mr. Biden will imperil Israel’s nuclear monopoly in West Asia.
- The assassination of Fakhrizadeh appears to be part of a larger Israeli plan in conjunction with Saudi Arabia to force the U.S. into taking military action against Iran.
- An Israeli-Saudi nexus on this issue, when combined with President Trump’s, could culminate in a major military strike on Iran before he leaves office.
Win-win situation for Israel
- If the Iranian government launches revenge attacks Mr. Netanyahu would be able to persuade the U.S. to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
- If Iran shows restraint, Israel would have shown up the Iranian regime as weak while augmenting anti-American feelings in the country.
- That anti-American feeling would make it difficult for the Biden administration to resume negotiations with Tehran on reviving JCPOA.
Conclusion
The fallout of the assassination, while benefiting Israel, will add to the instability in the region.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Kyoto Protocol, Rio Declaration, Copenhagen Accord etc
Mains level: Paper 3- Paris Agreement and issues with it
The article highlights the fact that the provisions of the Paris Agreement would not be enough to avert the catastrophic and irreversible changes resulting from the global emissions.
Past efforts for environmental protection
- The most hopeful time for global cooperation in protection of the planet was between the time of the Stockholm Conference (1972) and the time of the Rio Conference (1992).
- Scientific evidence about role anthropogenic emission in global warming led to political initiatives to harmonise development and environment.
- The historic consensus in Rio led to the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).
- A distinction was made between the “luxury emissions” of the developed countries and the survival emissions of the developed countries, which were allowed to increase.
- Moreover, a huge financial package was approved to develop environment-friendly technologies in developing countries.
Copenhagen Accord: Abandonment of Rio Principles
- After the adoption of UNFCC, Conference of the Parties was held in Berlin in 1995 where developed countries backed off from their commitments.
- Though the G-77 was split, the Rio principles were maintained.
- The Kyoto Protocol enshrined the Rio principles.
- It fixed emission targets for developed countries and a complex set of provisions was included to satisfy their interests.
- The end of the Kyoto Protocol and the abandonment of the spirit of the Rio principles were reflected in the Copenhagen Accord (2009).
- Argument given was that a global climate action plan would be possible only if all reductions of the greenhouse gases were made voluntary.
Paris Agreement: Making emission reduction voluntary
- The Paris Agreement moved away from the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
- All countries were placed on an equal footing by making reduction of greenhouse gas emissions voluntary.
- It requires all parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs)
Shortcomings in Paris Agreement
- The NDCs so far submitted will not result in the desired objective of limiting increase of global warming to below 2°C.
- The Paris Agreement requires that all countries — rich, poor, developed, and developing — slash greenhouse gas emissions.
- But no language is included on the commitments the countries should make.
- Nations can voluntarily set their emissions targets and incur no penalties for falling short of their targets.
- Further temperature rise, even of 1.5°C, may result in catastrophic and irreversible changes.
- Even a 1°C hotter planet is not a steady state, says a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Conclusion
The IPCC report acknowledges that “the pathways to avoiding an even hotter world would require a swift and complete transformation not just of the global economy but of society too”. This will only be possible if the world rejects nationalism and parochialism and adopts collaborative responses to the crisis. The Paris Agreement falls short of that imperative.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Recent Agricultural bills, MSP
Mains level: Concerns of farmers over this bill
Farmers all across the Punjab and Haryana have marched to New Delhi over the new legislations.
Major cause of Farmers’ protest
- Much of the opposition really is just to one of the three laws. It is the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act and its provisions that are seen as weakening the APMC mandis.
- Even in that one — the act — there are only some contentious provisions, which, although key, can still leave doors open for negotiation.
A fight for privilege
- Farmers, if anything, would gain from removal of stocking restrictions on the trade, as it potentially translates into unlimited buying and demand for their produce.
The contentious one: FPTC Act
- The FPTC Act is a bone of contention. It permits sale and purchase of farm produce outside the premises of APMC mandis.
- Such trades (including on electronic platforms) shall attract no market fee, cess or levy “under any State APMC Act or any other State law”.
- An issue here is the very right of the Centre to enact legislation on agricultural marketing.
- Article 246 of the Constitution places “agriculture” and “markets and fairs” in the State List.
- But entry 42 of the Union List empowers the Centre to regulate “inter-State trade and commerce”.
An example of Central hegemony
- While trade and commerce “within the State” is under entry 26 of the State List, it is subject to the provisions of entry 33 of the Concurrent List.
- Under this, the Centre can make laws that would prevail over those enacted by the states.
- Entry 33 of the Concurrent List covers trade and commerce in “foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils”, fodder, cotton and jute.
- The Centre, in other words, can very pass any law that removes all impediments to both inter- and intra-state trade in farm produce, while also overriding the existing state APMC Acts. The FPTC Act does precisely that.
Farmers question
- Some experts make a distinction between agricultural “marketing” and “trade”.
- Agriculture per se would deal with everything that a farmer does — right from field preparation and cultivation to also sale of his/her own produce.
- The act of primary sale at a mandi by the farmer is as much “agriculture” as production in the field.
- “Trade” begins only after the produce has been “marketed” by the farmer.
The centre’s overriding logic behind
- Going by this interpretation, the Centre is within its rights to frame laws that promote barrier-free trade of farm produce (inter- as well as intra-state) and do not allow stockholding or export restrictions.
- But these can be only after the farmer has sold.
- Regulation of first sale of agricultural produce is a “marketing” responsibility of the states, not the Centre.
What do farmers’ want?
- Farmers would want no restrictions on the movement, stocking and export of their produce.
- For example, Maharashtra’s onion growers have vehemently opposed the Centre’s resort to ban on exports and imposition of stock limits whenever retail prices have tended to go up.
- But these restrictions relate to “trade”.
- When it comes to “marketing” — especially dismantling of the monopoly of APMCs — farmers, especially in Punjab and Haryana, aren’t very convinced about the “freedom of choice to sell to anyone and anywhere” argument.
Where lies the major issue?
- Much of government procurement at minimum support prices (MSP) — of paddy, wheat and increasingly pulses, cotton, groundnut and mustard — happens in APMC mandis.
- In a scenario where more and more trading moves out of the APMCs, these regulated market yards will lose revenues.
- They may not formally shut, but it would become like BSNL versus Jio.
- And if the government stops buying, farmers will be left with only the big corporates to sell to.
What could be negotiated?
- If the protesting farmer union leaders were to sit down at the negotiating table, the government can possibly get them to agree to drop the demand on repealing all the three laws.
- Their problem is essentially about the FPTC Act and its provisions that they see as weakening the APMC mandis.
- These may be just fears, but they aren’t small.
- From the government’s standpoint, the elephant in the room would be if the farmers insist on an additional demand: Making MSP a legal right.
- This would be still impossible to meet, even if the three farm laws were to be put on hold.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Not much
Mains level: Ways to counter shortage of doctors in India
The Central Council of Indian Medicine, a statutory body set up under the AYUSH Ministry has allowed postgraduate (PG) Ayurvedic practitioners to receive formal training for a variety of general surgery, ENT, ophthalmology and dental procedures.
Debate over Ayurvedic surgeries
- The Indian Medical Association (IMA) decrying it as a mode of allowing mixing of systems of medicine by using terms from allopathy.
- The debate revolves Ayurveda doctors allowing ‘Shalya’ (general surgery) and ‘Shalakya’ (dealing with eye, ear, nose, throat, head and neck, oro-dentistry) to perform 58 specified surgical procedures.
- The AYUSH Ministry has clarified that the ‘Shalya’ and ‘Shalakya’ postgraduates were already learning these procedures in their (surgical) departments in Ayurvedic medical colleges as per their training curriculum.
Broader issue
- The broader issue is the feasiblity of short-term training equip them to conduct surgeries and if this dilutes the medicine standards in India.
- As such, the postgraduate Ayurvedic surgical training is not short-term but a formal three-year course.
- Whether the surgeries conducted in Ayurvedic medical colleges and hospitals have the same standards and outcomes as allopathic institutions requires explication and detailed formal enquiry, in the interest of patient safety.
Why such a move?
- The shortage and unwillingness of allopathic doctors, including surgeons, to serve in rural areas is now a chronic issue.
- The government has tried to address this by mechanisms such as rural bonds, a quota for those who have served in rural service in postgraduate seats.
- However, it would probably still continue to fall short of enough trained specialists in rural areas.
Are there any restrictions on Ayurveda practitioners?
- As of now, no such restriction exists that limits non-allopathic doctors, including those doing Ayurvedic surgical postgraduation, to rural areas.
- They have the same rights as allopathic graduates and postgraduates to practise in any setting of their choice.
Is it sensible to allow Ayurvedic surgeons to only assist allopathic surgeons, rather than perform surgeries themselves?
- The AYUSH streams are recognised systems of medicine, and as such are allowed to independently practise medicine.
- They have medical colleges with both undergraduate and postgraduate training, which include surgical disciplines for some systems, such as Ayurveda.
- There is, however, a difference in approach in the systems of medicine, and hence models, which allow for cross-pathy.
Various risks associated
- An apprenticeship model for Ayurvedic surgeons working with allopathic surgeons might fall into a regulatory grey zone.
- It might require re-training Ayurvedic practitioners in the science of surgical approaches in modern medicine.
- Even then, there might be a limit to what they are allowed to do. Any such experiment can put patient safety in peril, and hence, will need careful oversight and evaluation.
Can this lead to substandard care?
- Many patients prefer to receive treatment exclusively from AYUSH providers, while some approach this form of treatment as a complement to the existing allopathic treatment they are receiving.
- For invasive procedures, like surgery, the risk element can be high.
A matter of rights
- Patients have a right to know and understand who their surgeon would be, what system of medicine they belong to, and their expertise and level of training.
- There should not be a difference in quality of care between urban and rural patients — everyone deserves a right to quality and evidence-based care from trained professionals.
Way forward
- We need to explore creative ways of addressing this gap by evidence-based approaches, such as task-sharing, supported by efficient and quality referral mechanisms.
- The advent of mid-level healthcare providers, such as Community Health Providers in many States, is also an opportunity to shift some elements of healthcare (preventive, promotive, and limited curative) to these providers, while ensuring clarity of role and career progression.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: RT-PCR, LAMP
Mains level: COVID testing issues
Indian Council of Medical Research has recently validated the LAMP technology for COVID-19 testing.
What is RT-LAMP?
- RT-LAMP stands for Reverse Transcriptase loop-mediated isothermal amplification) technology.
- Agappe Diagnostics has recently developed the technology indigenously, and their kit has been validated and approved by the ICMR for marketing.
- It is named LUME Screen nCoV.
How does it work?
- RT-LAMP technology is a one-step nucleic acid amplification method to multiply specific sequences of RNA of the coronavirus.
- The RNA is first made into cDNA (copy DNA) by the usual reverse transcription. Then, the DNA is amplified by the LAMP technique.
Current method
- •The current method diagnosis is the real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test which detects the presence of viral nucleic acids in nasopharyngeal swab samples.
- But it has certain shortcomings.
- The test requires complex and costly equipment. It requires extensive training for potential users.
Benefits of LAMP over RT-PCR
- The LAMP technology is superior to the PCR technology–based COVID-19 kits where specificity is around 95% only.
- As the specificity and sensitivity of the test is about 95%, there is a possibility of false negative results.
- The turnaround time is about 10 hours, so that the result will be available only by the next day.
- In remote places, the turnaround time further increases depending on the distance the samples need to travel.
- In short, the RT-PCR does not have the capacity to keep pace with the increasing demand.
- The LAMP technology does not need laborious preparation as in the case of RT-PCR. LAMP is cost effective and does not need complex expensive equipment.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now