28-01-2019 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:28-01-19
Give Us An Upgrade
India’s e-waste problem has long outgrown the informal sector’s capacity to manage it
TOI Editorials
Mobile phones are ubiquitous in India, a necessary requirement to carry out everyday tasks such as banking and identity verification. There is a flip side to this convenience. Disposing e-waste (electronic and electrical items) is a complex challenge as it contains heavy metals and other toxic substances. In India, it’s been largely confined to the informal sector which does not have the skills or resources to deal with this challenge. This translates into serious environmental damage, especially in cities like Moradabad which handle a disproportionate share of e-waste.
Not only is the e-waste generated domestically not receiving adequate attention, field research indicates that e-waste from more affluent countries is also being imported into India for disposal. This problem needs urgent attention at all levels of government as the eventual price will be paid in terms of deteriorating health. The economic summit at Davos has flagged the problem too. A set of UN entities put the matter in perspective there, by observing that the world generates 50 million tonnes of e-waste a year, which exceeds by weight all commercial airliners ever made. In India one estimate is that the country has a capacity to dismantle and recycle only 20% of its total e-waste.
There is a regulatory framework to deal with safe disposal of e-waste but its impact has been limited. For instance, the legal responsibility on smartphone manufacturers to help in waste management hardly works in practice. This perhaps explains why the informal sector handles most of the e-waste. Given the link between human health and e-waste disposal there is an urgent case for government to regulate an effective upgrade of the recycling ecosystem. It will save healthcare costs and improve quality of life.
Date:28-01-19
Avoid A Fudge
Budgets tend to understate deficits which leads to a fresh set of problems
TOI Editorials
On Friday this Modi government will present its last budget. Thus far the government has presented five budgets, a sufficient number to identify an important feature. This happens to be a common thread running through UPA and NDA governments: understated fiscal deficits. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports have pointed out that the budget understates fiscal deficits by exploiting accounting loopholes. Consequently, the credibility of budget numbers has been undermined. It is not just fiscal consolidation which matters. The manner in which targets are achieved is also important.
Governments in India follow the cash accounting system. Expenditure in this accounting system is recognised only when cash flows out of government coffers. A consequence is that deficits can be understated by delaying payments. To illustrate, in 2016-17, budget documents said subsidies as a proportion of GDP were 1.53%. According to CAG, it should have been 2.21% as claims of about Rs 1.03 lakh crore by public sector companies had not been paid. A little over 14 years ago, the 12th Finance Commission observed that the current cash accounting system provided room for “fiscal opportunism” and called for a transition to the superior accrual system of accounting. The transition is yet to take place.
Emphasis on accounting systems and quality of fiscal consolidation is not a case of nitpicking. Greece’s problems over the last decade should serve as a warning. The country kept understating its budget deficit. Finally, in 2009, Greece was plunged into a debt crisis after a new government came clean on the actual number which was almost three times more. Misreporting has indeed had long-term consequences for Greek economy and society.
Conventionally, a government’s last budget is one which refrains from initiating major expenditure commitments. A new government will present a full-fledged budget within a few weeks of taking office and it’s only fair that it’s not burdened with a significant new expenditure commitment. Such a commitment constrains budgetary space for a new government. This reason also holds good for the larger problem of exploiting accounting loopholes. Even if expenditure is pushed off the government balance sheet it has to be paid for. There’s no free lunch for an economy. An opaque approach only creates additional problems. For too long, governments have been casual about the transition to an accrual-based accounting system. This should not be put off any longer as transparency is in India’s best interest.
वेनेजुएला का संकट
संपादकीय
अकूत तेल संपदा वाला देश वेनेजुएला इन दिनों गंभीर राजनीतिक संकट का सामना कर रहा है। एक ओर निर्वाचित राष्ट्रपति निकोलस मादुरो की वैध सत्ता है, तो दूसरी ओर विपक्षी नेता जुआन गुएडो ने अपने को राष्ट्रपति घोषित कर दिया है और समानांतर सत्ता का केंद्र बन गए हैं। वेनेजुएला के इस संकट की धुरी अमेरिका बना हुआ है। अमेरिका और उसके कुछ पिछलग्गू दक्षिण अमेरिकी राष्ट्रों ने गुएडो को अंतरिम राष्ट्रपति के रूप में मान्यता दे दी है और देश में नए चुनाव कराने की बात कही है। जाहिर है, अमेरिका का एकमात्र मकसद वेनेजुएला में तख्तापलट कर अपने अनुकूल सरकार बनवाना है। इसलिए वेनेजुएला का यह संकट अब देश के दायरे में सीमित नहीं रह गया है, इसने दुनिया के तमाम देशों के दो खेमों में बांट दिया है- वेनेजुएला के समर्थक और विरोधी।
अमेरिका के मैदान में उतरने के बाद रूस, चीन, तुर्की, मैक्सिको, क्यूबा सहित कुछ दक्षिणी अमेरिकी देश भी खुल कर मादुरो के समर्थन आ गए हैं। जबकि कनाडा, ब्रिटेन, अर्जेंटीना, ब्राजील और यूरोपीय संघ जैसे देश अमेरिका की हां में हां मिला रहे हैं। कुल मिला कर वेनेजुएला दुनिया का नया अखाड़ा बनने की ओर अग्रसर है। तेल संपन्न राष्ट्रों पर कब्जा करने की अमेरिका की रणनीति पुरानी रही है। पहले किसी न किसी मुद्दे पर अमेरिका तेल से भरपूर राष्ट्रों के साथ विवाद पैदा करता या कराता है और फिर इसकी आड़ में वहां सत्ता परिवर्तन करवाता है। ईरान, इराक जैसे देश इसका बड़ा उदाहरण हैं। तेल के लिए ही अरब बिरादरी में अमेरिका की गहरी पैठ है और अरब देश उसके इशारे पर चलते हैं। लेकिन वेनेजुएला पर कब्जा उसके लिए अभी तक सपना ही रहा है। हाल में जिस तरह का विवाद खड़ा किया गया है उसके मूल में भी तेल की राजनीति ही है। अमेरिका शुरू से मादुरो की सत्ता के खिलाफ रहा है और उन्हें सत्ता से बाहर करना चाहता है। मादुरो ने अमेरिका पर तख्तापलट का आरोप लगाते हुए उसके साथ राजनयिक रिश्ते तोड़ लिए हैं और उसके राजनयिकों को देश छोड़ने को कह दिया है। दूसरी ओर अमेरिका ने गुएडो को राष्ट्रपति की मान्यता देते हुए अपने राजनयिकों को अमेरिका नहीं छोड़ने को कहा है।
ऐसे में सवाल है कि देश में कौन किसकी सत्ता को मानेगा? हालांकि अभी तक सेना और देश की न्यायपालिका मादुरो के साथ ही है। पर जनता में व्याप्त रोष और विद्रोह से निपटना मादुरो के लिए बड़ी चुनौती बना हुआ है। वेनेजुएला लंबे समय से गंभीर आर्थिक संकट से जूझ रहा है। पिछले कुछ सालों में वहां मुद्रास्फीति तिरासी हजार फीसद तक बढ़ गई है। लोगों के पास खाने तक को नहीं है। लाखों लोग पड़ोसी देशों में शरण ले चुके हैं। देश के भीतर विपक्ष की अगुआई में विरोध-प्रदर्शनों का सिलसिला थम नहीं रहा। ऐसे हालात देश को अस्थिरता की ओर धकेल रहे हैं। भारत और अमेरिका वेनेजुएला के दो बड़े तेल खरीददार हैं। अब अमेरिका का अगला कदम वेनेजुएला से तेल खरीद पर पाबंदी लगाना होगा, जो उसकी अर्थव्यवस्था को धक्का पहुंचाने वाला होगा। भारत की भी कई तेल कंपनियां वेनेजुएला के तेल उद्योग से जुड़ी हैं। इसके अलावा वेनेजुएला भारत के लिए बड़ा दवा बाजार है। ऐसे में भारत वेनेजुएला की घटनाओं से अछूता नहीं रह सकता। सवाल वेनेजुएला की संप्रभुता का है। देश के अंदरूनी संकट में दूसरे देशों का कूदना उसे और गर्त में धकेलने वाला होगा।
आयोग की दहाड़
संपादकीय
मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त ने जिस दृढ़ता से ईवीएम का पक्ष लिया है, उसके बाद राजनीतिक दलों का मुंह बंद हो जाना चाहिए। उन्होंने साफ कहा है कि किसी तरह के दबाव या धमकियों से चुनाव आयोग मतपत्रों के दौर में लौटने नहीं जा रहा। इसका अर्थ बताने की आवश्यकता नहीं। जो दल और नेता मांग कर रहे थे कि चुनाव आयोग ईवीएम को लेकर पैदा हुई आशंकाओं को दूर करें मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त ने उनको सीधा संदेश दे दिया है। उन्होंने जिस तरह तथ्यों और आंकड़ों के साथ विस्तार से अपनी बात रखी, उसका उद्देश्य यह स्पष्ट करना था कि ईवीएम पूरी तरह सुरक्षित और परिक्षित प्रणाली है। उन्होंने तो यह भी कह दिया कि अब इसकी विफलताओं और गड़बड़ियों से सीखने का दौर भी बीत चुका है। यानी जो भी संदेह व्यक्त किए जा रहे हैं, आरोप लग रहे हैं वे पूरी तरह निराधार हैं। अरोड़ा का यह वक्तव्य ऐसे समय आया है जब लंदन के एक कार्यक्रम में अमेरिका में बैठे हैकर द्वारा वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग के जरिए भारत में चुनाव में ईवीएम की व्यापक पैमाने पर हैकिंग के आरोप से माहौल गरमाया हुआ है। अरोड़ा के कथन में गुस्सा और पीड़ा दोनों थी।
अगर वह ईवीएम को फुटबॉल बनाने की बात कहकर दलों पर गुस्सा उतार रहे हैं तो चुनाव आयोग की निष्पक्षता का विश्वास दिलाकर अपनी पीड़ा व्यक्त कर रहे हैं। यह सच है कि पांच राज्यों के विधानसभा चुनाव के दौरान 1 लाख 76 हजार मतदान केंद्रों से केवल छह शिकायतें आई। यह भी इस्तेमाल में न लाए जाने के कारण रख-रखाव की खामी थी। मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त ने प्रकारांतर से ईवीएम को विवाद का विषय बनाने वाले नेताओं को लताड़ लगाई है। अगर नेतागण ईवीएम को बदनाम करने का अभियान नहीं चलाए होते तो मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त को इस तरह मुखर होकर सामने आने की आवश्यकता उत्पन्न नहीं होती। उनके इतने विस्तृत वक्तव्य के बाद हमारे नेताओं को अहसास होना चाहिए कि अभी तक आप जो कर रहे थे या कर रहे हैं वह गैर जिम्मेवार रवैया है। आयोग ने हैकर पर मुकदमा करके उचित कदम उठाया है। उसे अमेरिका से पकड़कर भारत लाया जाए, जिससे यह पता चले कि ऐसा आरोप लगाने के पीछे उसका या उसके साथ खड़े लोगों का उद्देश्य क्या था? आयोग को यह चेतावनी भी दे देनी चाहिए कि अब जो भी आरोप लगाएगा उसे हम न्यायालय में खड़ा करेंगे।
Crisis in Caracas
Venezuela plunges from one catastrophic crisis to another
Editorial
The political crisis in Venezuela took a dangerous turn when Juan Guaidó, the new head of the National Assembly, declared himself “acting President”, challenging the authority of President Nicolás Maduro. Soon after Mr. Guaidó’s announcement, the U.S., Canada, Brazil and a host of other Latin American countries recognised the 35-year-old leader from the Popular Will party as interim President. A furious Mr. Maduro cut diplomatic ties with the U.S. and ordered American diplomats to leave in 72 hours. Venezuela has grappled with an economic and political crisis of its own making for almost two years now. When oil prices started falling from its 2014 highs, it badly hit an economy that was over-reliant on petroleum exports and was borrowing heavily to fund its over-spending on social welfare programmes, which former President Hugo Chávez liked to describe as a “Bolivarian revolution”. Mr. Maduro’s government was clueless when the economy started collapsing.
At least 90% of the people now live below the poverty line, inflation is forecast to touch 10 million per cent this year, food and medicine shortages are widespread, and the economic woes have triggered a massive migrant crisis — nearly three million are estimated to have fled the country in recent years.The opposition, whose attempts to overthrow the Socialists, including the 2002 coup against Chávez, had failed in the past, launched protests against Mr. Maduro. The government used brute force to suppress them, while the economic situation deteriorated. This left Venezuela in a constant state of economic hardships and violent street protests over the past two years. The main opposition boycotted last year’s presidential election, which Mr. Maduro won with 67.8% vote. Mr. Guaidó’s claim is that the election was not free and fair and therefore Mr. Maduro is not the legitimate President — a claim that the U.S. and its allies back.
While Mr. Maduro shares a lot of the blame for the mismanagement of the economy, forcibly removing him from power with support from foreign nations may destabilise the country further, even leaving aside the legality of such a move. Mr. Guaidó may have hoped that by anointing himself a rebel President with backing from the U.S., he could win the support of sections of the armed forces, without which he cannot unseat Mr. Maduro. But that plan appears to have failed with the military declaring its loyalty to President Maduro. To be sure, the people of Venezuela deserve a better deal from a government that has led them to untold suffering and forced millions to flee the country. Destabilisation by interfering in the political process is not the solution, however. What is required is a coordinated international effort to restore some degree of economic and political normalcy. In the long run, it is up to the people of Venezuela to decide their own political destiny.
After US leaves Kabul
The rise of Afghan Taliban poses a threat to both India and Pakistan
Khaled Ahmed, (The writer is consulting editor, Newsweek Pakistan)
America is thinking of quitting Afghanistan because its soldiers are too expensive to send abroad. It stands to save $43 billion annually if it leaves. Pakistan is scared of what will happen if America really quits and Afghanistan returns to its heroin-sustained warlordism. The Afghan Taliban are winning on a daily basis and control half of the country, eying the 250,000-strong Afghan army as future Taliban. India has presence in Afghanistan after the construction of the game-changing Chabahar Port in Iran and the highway that links it to Kabul.
Three South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) members — Afghanistan, Pakistan, India — could have cooperated but are poised to fight instead. And it is difficult to say who will fight who. The Taliban have warriors in their hordes who have come from the Middle East and Central Asia; and there are ISIS-Daesh and Al Qaeda still operational in the country, threatening all the three SAARC members. China is the next economic presence in Afghanistan after India, and Turkey is eying an opportunity to play its role to safeguard the interests of Afghanistan’s Turkmen-Turkic community whose leader Rashid Dostum has been vice-president of Afghanistan and chief of the Afghan army.
Rebellious Pakistani Taliban, safely located in northwestern Afghanistan, has hurt Pakistan as no one else in Afghanistan. On December 16, 2014, six of its gunmen attacked the Army Public School in Peshawar, killing 132 children. The killers included one Chechen, three Arabs and two Afghans. This was the final trauma that changed the thinking of the Pakistan army and forced it to question why the Afghan Taliban were allowing the Pakistani killers to live on their territory. Embarrassed by the fact that “enemy” America was killing them instead with drones, Pakistan no longer viewed Afghanistan as its “strategic depth” against India, which had snuck into this “depth” and thrown a front-and-back challenge to Pakistan.
Chief of Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, who engineered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007, was killed by an American drone in August 2009. (In 2017, Pakistan actually acquitted the men he had sent down for the assassination!) The most wanted terrorist chief of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud became the next victim of the American drones, despite Pakistan’s protests (sic!), in November 2013, after he had captured and personally executed two ex-ISI officers.
No one could communicate with the Taliban. America couldn’t rely on them even after they had done the job of defeating the Soviet Union. It turned on them finally after 9/11. Pakistan thought they could get anything done in Afghanistan through the Haqqani clan but found that the Haqqanis instead had an ideological plan of their own.
When the Taliban ruled in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s own jihadi underground in the madrasa-dominated regions was vulnerable to their seduction. It is true that most Afghans will accept the return of the Taliban and the destruction of the liberal order now being held up by an America-overseen constitution and American money, but they would like to leave the country — if they could — before a Taliban takeover. Returning to Islam is going to be suicidal for Afghanistan. This “small landlocked country recovering from decades of war” is among the water-stressed nations in the world and “a country whose people lack sufficient dietary diversity”. Afghanistan is on the brink of a food and water crisis.
A dead SAARC must be revived to decide what its three members are going to do after the Americans leave Afghanistan. The Ashraf Ghani government will not survive after the American-funded Afghan army disintegrates and joins up with the Taliban. That’s why the Taliban are refusing to even recognise the Kabul government: The Afghan army is the low-hanging fruit that will enlarge their capacity to challenge both Pakistan and India. It is difficult to diagnose the state of the mind of decision-makers in Pakistan. But their decision to turn to India and offer “talks” and “trade” points to the possibility of the kind of “normalisation” needed for handling the next crisis in Afghanistan.
