Dear Civil Services Aspirant,
To access Resources and have interaction fully, please register yourself as a Free User. It is Free.
Furnish your e-mail id as user id and set your own password. Immediately after the registration is over, you will be sent an email to the registered email address. Please click the link given in the email to activate your account and then have unlimited access with all resources.
Best Wishes, Jeywin Team
The World Bank’s total financial commitment to India’s development agenda is set to touch $9.3 billion by the end of its fiscal year ending June. Spread across 25 new projects, the loan assistance is aimed at helping the country sustain the much needed high growth to lift millions out of poverty.
At a press conference in New Delhi on 23.06.2010, World Bank Country Director in India Roberto Zagha said the total expected lending 2010 (July-June 2010) would include $2.6 billion as interest-free credits from the International Development Association (IDA) and $6.7 billion in the form of long-term, low interest loans from the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).
Till date, both IBRD and IDA-aided projects with a total new commitment of $8.3 billion had already been approved, while the remaining projects worth $1 billion were to be presented before the Bank’s board over the next few days, he said.
Mr. Zagha noted that while a part of this lending was in support of the government’s response to the global financial crisis, another significant portion was aimed at helping India in removing infrastructure constraints to high growth and expand the delivery of essential social services such as better schools, roads and electricity to the people. “The Government of India is accelerating its response to its development challenges and so are we,” he said.
The loan assistance also includes a $2 billion package to provide capital to some of the public sector banks to help them in maintaining their credit expansion and prevent a shortfall of capital from affecting the country’s economy in the wake of the global economic crisis.
Pointing to the huge funding needs of India’s fast growing economy such as the estimated requirement of $500 billion for infrastructure development alone during the current Plan period, Mr. Zagha said: “While our annual lending in 2010 represents a significant contribution for the Bank Group, it accounts for less than one per cent of India’s gross domestic product (GDP), and is a modest sum given India’s vast needs.”
The increase in Bank commitments is also in line with the guidance from G-20, which had, during the summit of November 2008, directed international financial institutions (like the World Bank) to step up lending to the emerging economies to sustain their growth and thus help global recovery. “India has played a crucial role in kick-starting the global economy by maintaining high levels of growth and it is important for the Bank to have been able to respond to India’s request for additional support,” Mr. Zagha said.
There is lack of clarity even among Tamil scholars on the issue of criteria for according classical status to a language. It is therefore necessary to examine the attributes that qualify a language to be reckoned as classical.
The concept of Classicism had its origin in Europe. The term ‘classical’ is derived from the Latin word ‘classicus’, which belongs to the 2{+n}{+d} century A.D. From Latin, it was adopted in French and later in English from French.
One does not come across a definition of a classical language as such in dictionaries or encyclopaedias. There does not seem to exist anywhere an authoritative list of classical languages.
Some Tamil scholars have given the impression in articles and speeches that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has an authorised list of classical languages and that it has specified criteria for a classical language. To my letter of December 26, 2007 to UNESCO, I received a reply on January 24, 2007 that it had not established any criteria for designation of classical languages, and that it did not have a list of languages approved as classical languages. “It is a matter which is beyond UNESCO’s mandate,” the letter said.
The Union government, while considering a representation from the Tamil Nadu government for endorsing the classical status of Tamil, approached the Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, for its opinion. The President of the Sahitya Akademi constituted an expert committee under his chairmanship. The committee, in a meeting on September 2, 2004, observed: “It was noted that the criteria for defining a classical language are not mentioned anywhere. But abstracting the standard features of what are universally accepted as Classical Languages (such as Sanskrit, Latin and Greek), it was agreed that the following criteria [mentioned in later paragraphs] be applied in the case of such a designation henceforth.”
It is thus clear that the criteria for granting classical status to a language have not been stipulated explicitly. Against this background, we may consider the basis on which languages such as Greek and Lain were designated as classical languages.
A study of the issue leads us to the finding that the literary contributions of ancient Greece and Rome, in Greek and Latin, were considered by scholars as classical, and these two languages were designated classical languages. In other words, it is the literature that is assessed as classical, and by virtue of the literature, the language is termed classical.
What is the definition of classical literature that forms the basis for a language to be termed classical? The Grolier Academic Encyclopaedia says: “The word classicism in literature refers to those elements of style or content such as reason, clarity, order, restraint and humanitarian outlook that characterised the writing of ancient Greeks, ranging from Homer, Plato and Aristotle.”
The following explanation appears in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: “When used to refer to an aesthetic attitude, Classicism invokes those characteristics normally associated with the art of antiquity, harmony, clarity, restraint, universality and idealism.”
The criteria for determining classical status are therefore derived from Greek and Latin literature and are not based on any independent design. The characteristics of Greek and Latin literature, by and large, are: Antiquity, Harmony, Clarity, Restraint, Serenity, Idealism, Universality, Reason, Order and Humanism.
The Sahitya Akademi’s expert committee mentioned four criteria for a classical language. One is the high antiquity of early texts/recorded history of over 1500 to 2000 years. The second is a body of ancient literature/texts that is considered a valuable heritage by generations of speakers. The third criterion is that the literary tradition should be original and not borrowed from another speech community. Fourthly, the classical language and literature should be distinct from the modern, and there may also be a discontinuity between the classical language and its later forms or offshoots.
It is seen that the criteria are based only on the characteristics of literature. Kamil V. Zevelabil, European scholar and an exponent of the classical status of Tamil, stated in his book, The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India: “But the early Tamil poetry was rather unique not only by virtue of the fact that some of its features were so unlike everything else in India, but, by virtue of its literary excellence; those 26,350 lines of poetry promote Tamil to the rank of one of the great classical languages of the world” (Pages 1-2). Dr. Zvelebil based his decision only on the quality of the literature.
The term classical is also liberally used in the sense of excellence in quality. In the case of the Japanese language, the literature of the period 794 A.D.-1185 A.D. is considered to be classical. In the case of French, the literature of the latter part of the 17{+t}{+h} century, that is, after the establishment of the French Academy, was considered to be classical. In English, the literature from 1660 to 1714 A.D. was considered classical.
When interpreted as excellence in quality, every language can claim to have a period when its literature could be termed classical. Some Tamil scholars can claim that the Kamba Ramayanam is a work of classical literature: others may stake the claim in favour of Sekkilar’s Periapuranam. These issues are altogether different from this discussion, which is on the set of classical languages of the world — classical languages in the sense in which Greek and Latin are referred to as classical languages.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of classicism is of European origin and we have adopted it. In the case of languages, the criteria are derived form Greek and Latin literature. In any set of criteria formulated, this aspect must be reflected. The criteria specified by the Akademi’s expert committee do not provide for this requirement.
Keeping in mind the universally accepted characteristics of classical literature which qualify a language for classical status, we may for general guidance marginally modify the criteria specified by the expert committee. We may reformulate them, considering all the attributes derived mainly from Greek and Latin literary traditions.
First, the language has high antiquity, of about 1500 to 2000 years, for its literature. Second, it has a body of ancient literature meeting the core attributes of classicism and is held as a valuable heritage bequeathed to humanity. Third, the literary tradition is original and not borrowed from another speech community. Fourth, the classical language and literature being distinct from modern, there may also be discontinuity between the classical language and later forms or offshoots.
(The author, a Sahitya Akademi award winner for Tamil in 1988, is vice-chairman of the Central Institute of Classical Tamil.)
On June 7th 2010, the nation has had to relive the gruesome memory of the aftermath of that fateful night of December 3, 1984 of Bhopal. Those heartrending cries of helplessness and the spasms of the deadly end that people met — men and women, children and the infirm which outraged the nation and our people — are being played out again to disturb our cozy little cocoons.
After long span of 25 years, Bhopal gas tragedy verdict has been finally announced today by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mohan P. Tiwari. The verdict has been issued against the eight accused former employees of U.S based Union Carbide India Ltd. The accused include Keshub Mahindra, Vijay Gokhale, Kishore Kundar, J Mukund, R B Roy Chowdhary, S.P.Chowdhary, K.V.Shetty and Shakeel Quereshi. They have been convicted under Sec 304(A) “causing death by negligence” and 304 (Part II) “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” of Indian Penal Code.
The long wait of 26 years for justice in the gas leak disaster has come to a shameful end. This has caused a sense of tragedy and betrayal no less in magnitude than the original disaster itself. It was not confined to the country. In most parts of the world, public opinion and media have castigated the judicial outcome of Bhopal. There seems to be a sense of outrage at allowing Union Carbide’s top brass to get away.
What happened exactly?
In the early hours of Monday, Dec. 3, 1984, a toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas enveloped the hundreds of shanties and huts surrounding a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Later, as the deadly cloud slowly drifted in the cool night air through streets in surrounding sections, sleeping residents awoke, coughing, choking, and rubbing painfully stinging eyes. By the time the gas cleared at dawn, many were dead or injured. Four months after the tragedy, the Indian government reported to its Parliament that 1,430 people had died. In 1991 the official Indian government panel charged with tabulating deaths and injuries updated the count to more than 3,800 dead and approximately 11,000 with disabilities.
The plant was operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), just over 50 percent of which was owned by Union Carbide Corporation. The first report of the disaster reached Union Carbide executives in the United States more than 12 hours after the incident. By 6:00 a.m. in the U.S., executives were gathering with technical, legal, and communications staff at the company’s Danbury, Connecticut headquarters. Information was sparse but, as casualty estimates quickly climbed, the matter was soon recognized as a massive industrial disaster.
The company claimed that the gas was formed when a disgruntled plant employee, apparently bent on spoiling a batch of methyl isocyanate, added water to a storage tank. The water caused a reaction that built up heat and pressure in the tank, quickly transforming the chemical compound into a lethal gas that escaped into the cool night air.
Ironically, the plant at Bhopal had its origin in a humane goal: supplying pesticides to protect Indian agricultural production. The pesticides made at Bhopal were for the Indian market and contributed to the nation’s ability to transform its agricultural sector into a modern activity capable of feeding one of the world’s most heavily populated regions.
It produced the pesticide carbyryl (trademark Sevin). In 1979 a methyl isocyanate (MIC) production plant was added to the site. MIC, an intermediate in carbaryl manufacture, was used instead of less hazardous but more expensive materials. UCC understood the properties of MIC and its handling requirements.
The night the gas leaked, the company refused to divulge any details of the antidote needed to treat the gas leak victims. From then to now, the government has made no effort to find out what that antidote was, nor has it incorporated the research data collected by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to treat survivors.
The 1985 reports give a picture of what led to the disaster and how it developed, although they differ in details.
Causes of the Disaster
Factors leading to the gas leak include:
The use of hazardous chemicals (MIC) instead of less dangerous ones
Storing these chemicals in large tanks instead of over 200 steel drums.
Possible corroding material in pipelines
Poor maintenance after the plant ceased production in the early 1980s
Failure of several safety systems (due to poor maintenance and regulations).
Safety systems being switched off to save money—including the MIC tank refrigeration system which alone would have prevented the disaster.
The problem was made worse by the plant’s location near a densely populated area, non-existent catastrophe plans and shortcomings in health care and socio-economic rehabilitation. Analysts claimed that the parties responsible for the magnitude of the disaster are the two owners, Union Carbide Corporation and the Government of India, and to some extent, the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
Much speculation arose in the aftermath. The closing of the plant to outsiders (including UCC) by the Indian government, and the failure to make data public contributed to the confusion. The CSIR report was formally released 15 years after the disaster. The authors of the ICMR studies on health effects were forbidden to publish their data until after 1994. UCC has still not released their research about the disaster or the effects of the gas on human health. Soon after the disaster UCC was not allowed to take part in the investigation by the government. The initial investigation was conducted entirely by the government agencies – Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) under the directorship of Dr. Varadarajan and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning. Many valves and lines were in poor condition. Tank 610 contained 42 tons of MIC, much more than safety rules allowed. During the nights of 2–3 December, a large amount of water entered tank 610. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200 °C (400 °F). This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the MIC holding tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. It is known that workers cleaned pipelines with water. They were not told by the supervisor to add a slip-blind water isolation plate. Because of this, and the bad maintenance, the workers consider it possible for water to have accidentally entered the MIC tank.
The Repercussion of the leakage
Thousands of people had succumbed by the morning hours. There were mass funerals and mass cremations as well as disposal of bodies in the Narmada river. 170,000 people were treated at hospitals and temporary dispensaries. 2,000 buffalo, goats, and other animals were collected and buried. Within a few days, leaves on trees yellowed and fell off. Supplies, including food, became scarce owing to suppliers’ safety fears. Fishing was prohibited as well, which caused further supply shortages.
A total of 36 wards were marked by the authorities as being “gas affected”, affecting a population of 520,000. Of these, 200,000 were below 15 years of age, and 3,000 were pregnant women. In 1991, 3,928 deaths had been certified. Independent organizations recorded 8,000 dead in the first days. Other estimations vary between 10,000 and 30,000. Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have permanent injuries of different degrees. The acute symptoms were burning in the respiratory tract and eyes, blepharospasm, breathlessness, stomach pains and vomiting. The causes of deaths were choking, reflexogenic circulatory collapse and pulmonary oedema. Findings during autopsies revealed changes not only in the lungs but also cerebral oedema, tubular necrosis of the kidneys, fatty degeneration of the liver and necrotising enteritis. The stillbirth rate increased by up to 300% and neonatal mortality rate by 200%.
Medical staffs were unprepared for the thousands of casualties. Doctors and hospitals were not informed of proper treatment methods for MIC gas inhalation. They were told to simply give cough medicine and eye drops to their patients. The gases immediately caused visible damage to the trees. Within a few days, all the leaves fell off. 2,000 bloated animal carcasses had to be disposed of.
“Operation Faith”
On December 16, the tanks 611 and 619 were emptied of the remaining MIC. This led to a second mass evacuation from Bhopal. Complaints of a lack of information or misinformation were widespread. The Bhopal plant medical doctor did not have proper information about the properties of the gases. An Indian Government spokesman said that “Carbide is more interested in getting information from us than in helping our relief work.” As of 2008, UCC had not released information about the possible composition of the cloud. Formal statements were issued that air, water, vegetation and foodstuffs were safe within the city. At the same time, people were informed that poultry was unaffected, but were warned not to consume fish.
Temporary Effects of the Disaster
The leakage caused many short term health effects in the surrounding areas. Apart from MIC, the gas cloud may have contained phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, monomethyl amine (MMA) and carbon dioxide, either produced in the storage tank or in the atmosphere.
The gas cloud was composed mainly of materials denser than the surrounding air, stayed close to the ground and spread outwards through the surrounding community. The initial effects of exposure were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. People awakened by these symptoms fled away from the plant. Those who ran inhaled more than those who had a vehicle to ride. Owing to their height, children and other people of shorter stature inhaled higher concentrations. Many people were trampled trying to escape.
Long term effects on humanity
Victims of Bhopal disaster started asking for Warren Anderson’s extradition from USA. It is estimated that 20,000 have died since the accident from gas-related diseases. Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have permanent injuries.
The quality of the epidemiological and clinical research varies. Reported and studied symptoms are eye problems, respiratory difficulties, immune and neurological disorders, cardiac failure secondary to lung injury, female reproductive difficulties and birth defects among children born to affected women. Other symptoms and diseases are often ascribed to the gas exposure, but there is no good research supporting this.
There is a clinic established by a group of survivors and activists known as Sambhavna. This is the only clinic that will treat anybody affected by the gas, or the subsequent water poisoning, and treats the condition with a combination of Western and traditional Indian medicines, and has performed extensive research.
Union Carbide as well as the Indian Government long denied permanent injuries by MIC and the other gases. In January 1994, the International Medical Commission on Bhopal (IMCB) visited Bhopal to investigate the health status among the survivors as well as the health care system and the socio-economic rehabilitation.
Compensation from Union Carbide
The Government of India passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act that gave the government rights to represent all victims in or outside India. UCC offered US$ 350 million, the insurance sum. The Government of India claimed US$ 3.3 billion from UCC. In 1999, a settlement was reached under which UCC agreed to pay US$470 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a full and final settlement of its civil and criminal liability. When UCC wanted to sell its shares in UCIL, it was directed by the Supreme Court to finance a 500-bed hospital for the medical care of the survivors. Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) was inaugurated in 1998. It was obliged to give free care for survivors for eight years.
Economic rehabilitation
After the accident, no one under the age of 18 was registered. The number of children exposed to the gases was at least 200,000. Immediate relief was decided two days after the tragedy. Relief measures commenced in 1985 when food was distributed for a short period and ration cards were distributed. Widow pension of the rate of Rs 200/per month (later Rs 750) was provided.
One-time ex-gratia payment of Rs 1,500 to families with monthly income Rs 500 or less was decided. Each claimant was to be categorised by a doctor. In court, the claimants were expected to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that death or injury in each case was attributable to exposure. In 1992, 44 percent of the claimants still had to be medically examined.
From 1990 interim relief of Rs 200 was paid to everyone in the family who was born before the disaster. The final compensation (including interim relief) for personal injury was for the majority Rs 25,000 (US$ 830). For death claim, the average sum paid out was Rs 62,000.
Effects of interim relief were more children sent to school, more money spent on treatment, more money spent on food, improvement of housing conditions. The management of registration and distribution of relief showed many shortcomings.
In 2007, 1,029,517 cases were registered and decided. The number of awarded cases was 574,304 and number of rejected cases 455,213. Total compensation awarded was Rs.1,546.47 crores. Because of the smallness of the sums paid and the denial of interest to the claimants, a sum as large as Rs 10 billion is expected to be left over after all claims have been settled.
33 of the 50 planned work-sheds for gas victims started. All except one was closed down by 1992. 1986, the MP government invested in the Special Industrial Area Bhopal. 152 of the planned 200 work-sheds were built. In 2000, 16 were partially functioning.It is estimated that 50,000 persons need alternative jobs, and that less than 100 gas victims have found regular employment under the government’s scheme.
Today –
16th June 2010
Concerned over the uproar on the Bhopal gas leak judgment, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 14.06.2010 directed the Group of Ministers (GoM), headed by home minister P Chidambaram, to report to the cabinet within 10 days on all aspects relating to the tragedy. Manmohan Singh directed that the GoM may meet immediately to take stock of the situation arising out of the recent court judgement, to assess the options and remedies available to the government on the various issues involved and to report to the cabinet within 10 days claimed a statement from the prime minister’s office (PMO).
The GoM, set up to look into all issues relating to the Bhopal disaster, was reconstituted recently with Chidambaram as the head of the panel. The empowered GoM also comprises health and family welfare minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, law minister M Veerappa Moily, minister for urban planning S Jaipal Reddy, minister for roads and highways Kamal Nath, tourism minister Selja, minister for fertilisers and chemicals MK Alagiri, minister of state in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan and environment minister Jairam Ramesh. Madhya Pradesh’s minister in-charge of rehabilitation will be a permanent invitee to the panel.
June 20th 2010
The deluge of information around the Bhopal gas tragedy clearly establishes that everyone let down the victims. But perhaps the biggest failure has been on the part of the state that did not provide proper treatment that the victims deserved. But right from the day of the accident to now, victims and their families have received very little healthcare support despite specific orders by the Supreme Court.
But some have now come forward to claim that the company did have an antidote which they did not share with anyone.
Some employees claim that they were made to stand in front of a basin, water was sprayed into their eyes and a tablet was given to stop the breathlessness and vomiting. So the company’s dispensary had the treatment but they didn’t give it to anyone else outside. If they had then quite a few others would have been saved.
So doctors continued to treat the symptoms caused by the deadly gas like acute breathlessness, eye injuries, vomiting and skin burns. But since the toxic elements that caused them were not treated right at the onset, victims were left struggling with lifelong ailments.
The key reason why this could have happened was shown by a study done on the victims which found that MIC broke down in the body into cyanide which circulated in the blood stream create treatment protocols for the sick.
One of the two monitoring committees set up by the Supreme Court to oversee medical care for the gas tragedy victims said that after 50 visits, 50 meetings and six reports to the apex court, there has been no change in the working of these hospitals.
Even now registration of gas victims was not being done properly Health books of patients containing investigations and prescriptions were not being maintained Health records of patients prior to the issue of health books is difficult to trace. Funds allocated for procuring medicines were not being spent and therefore, the supply of drugs was likely to dry up soon.
More than 25 years later, there is still no relief for those who survived one of India’s worst industrial disasters. They know that along with Union Carbide, which denied them primary treatment, their own government let them down by its callous indifference.
Litigations
Over two decades since the tragedy, certain civil and criminal cases remain pending in the United States District Court, Manhattan and the District Court of Bhopal, India, against Union Carbide, (now owned by Dow Chemical Company), with an Indian arrest warrant also pending against Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide at the time of the disaster. Greenpeace asserts that as the Union Carbide CEO, Anderson knew about a 1982 safety audit of the Bhopal plant, which identified 30 major hazards and that they were not fixed in Bhopal but were fixed at the company’s identical plant in the US. In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former chairman of UCIL, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by law. An eighth former employee was also convicted but had died before judgment was passed.
Government Measures
Waking up to a string of injustices to the victims of Bhopal gas tragedy, the government is likely to file a curative petition against the dilution of criminal charges against former Union Carbide officials and move a fresh plea to the US to extradite former chairman Warren Anderson to stand trial in India.
The Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Home Minister P. Chidambaram that met twice on 18.06.2010 is learnt to have agreed with Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati, who favoured a curative petition against the 1996 Supreme Court verdict diluting charges against the accused to causing death due to a rash and negligent act.
At its first meeting, the GoM discussed the government’s legal options. Chidambaram said they had “reached some tentative conclusions” that would be firmed up in the report to be submitted to the PM.
At its second meeting later in the evening that focused on health-related issues, the ministerial panel also wondered why the Supreme Court appointed trustees — chaired by former Chief Justice of India A.M. Ahmadi — to the Bhopal Memorial Hospital that was set up in the aftermath of the gas tragedy.
Incidentally, Justice Ahmadi headed the SC Bench that diluted the charges against Union Carbide officials, a verdict that reduced the maximum jail term for the tragedy from 10 years to two years. Justice Ahmadi said he had offered to quit but the SC rejected his request.
Sources said the conclusions referred to by Chidambaram included the petition to “cure” the defect in the 1996 verdict and making a renewed bid to seek Anderson‘s extradition.
Planning Commission releases Rs.982 crore for victims
Hours before the Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram met on 18.06.2010, the Planning Commission is understood to have released Rs.982 crore to the Madhya Pradesh government for rehabilitation of the Bhopal gas tragedy victims.
There was no official word on the reported approval of funds. The funds released for sustainable economic and medical rehabilitation of the victims would need the approval of the GoM, official sources said.
It is understood that the GoM will give broad guidelines on the use of the funds.
The State’s proposal, in the shape of an action plan, had been pending for long with the Commission.
It had earlier rejected the action plan on the grounds that the proposals were not convincing.
However, changes and circumstances and public outrage against the low compensation for the victims are understood to have forced the Commission to review its stand and release the funds.
In its proposal, the State government accepted that 16,000 people had died and 5,000 women were widowed in the 1984 disaster due to the toxic waste that polluted theenvironment in and around the abandoned Union Carbide factory in Bhopal.
The action plan for rehabilitation is divided into four components — medical, economic, social and environmental.
It is well-known that the victims received poor medical care. Under the action plan, 40 independent work sheds and a special industrial estate with 152 work sheds — to employ the victims as per their decreased capacities, owing to their medical condition after inhaling the toxic gas — were proposed, but the State government had slipped on this issue.
Rs. 1,500-crore package for Bhopal victims recommended
A road map to address the legal, medical, humanitarian, environmental and other aspects of the Bhopal gas leak disaster was presented on 20.06.2010 by the Group of Ministers (GoM) to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He has called a special Cabinet meeting for June 25, 2010 to discuss the report.
The GoM recommends a Rs. 1,500-crore package for the victims (Rs. 1,320 crore from the Centre and Rs. 180 crore from the Madhya Pradesh government), enhancing the compensation for the kin of the dead to Rs. 10 lakh, for the permanently disabled to Rs. 5 lakh and for the temporarily disabled to Rs. 1 lakh. It has also recommended that those stricken with cancer and other serious ailments be given Rs. 2 lakh. However, previous handouts will be deducted from the amount payable.
A sum of Rs. 300 crore required for the clean-up operation will be paid by the Centre, but it will continue to pursue the case against Dow Chemical in the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur.
The report also recommended fresh steps for extradition of Mr. Anderson and the filing of a curative petition in the Supreme Court to secure enhanced punishment for the guilty.
CBI moves curative petition in Supreme Court
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has moved a curative petition in the Supreme Court challenging the 1996 judgement of the apex court, delivered by the then chief justice A M Ahmadi, that had diluted the charges against the eight accused in the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.
“The Petitioner (CBI) by way of the present Curative Petition is seeking restoration of the charges of Section 304 Part II of IPC against the Respondents/accused persons which were quashed by this Hon’ble Court without any consideration of the material placed by the prosecution at that stage,” said agency in its petition settled by Attorney General G E Vahanvati. It deals with the stringent charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which attracts maximum punishment of a 10-year jail term. However, due to dilution of the charges, the accused were tried under section 304A of the IPC, which provides a maximum punishment of two years of jail.
“Categorical evidence has now come to light, which unequivocally points to the commission of offences under Section 304 Part II of the IPC by the Respondents/accused persons. The accused persons getting away with minimal charges under Section 304-A, despite categorical evidence pointing to the commission of offences under Section 304 Part II of the IPC has resulted in a colossal failure of justice. This failure of justice adversely affects not only the victims in particular but also the society and the nation as a whole,” said petition drafted by advocate Devadatt Kamat.
It said: “The assumption underlying the deletion of the charges under Section 304 Part II of the IPC breaks down when one takes into consideration the fact that there was structural and operation defects in the Plant — aspects which the Respondents/accused as persons responsible for running the Plant could not have been said to be oblivious of.”
CBI said: “This court failed to consider the fact that the Operational Safety Survey Report conducted by the UCC authorities, which outlined the defects in the plant was also placed on record and it was specifically submitted that the report was sent to Mr. Warren Anderson and to Mr. Keshub Mahindra i.e. Accused No. 1 and 2 respectively.”
After waiting 25 years for a closure, families of the victims of the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history, the bombing of Air India 182, were on 17.06.2010 told by a Commission of Inquiry that the Canadian government was responsible for failing to act upon credible information indicating that the attack was imminent.
In a scathing report by the Commission, its head, the former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, John Major, noted: “Government agencies were in possession of significant pieces of information that, taken together, would have led a competent analyst to conclude that Flight 182 was at high risk of being bombed by known Sikh terrorists in June 1985.”
Flight 182, nicknamed Emperor Kanishka and operating on the Montréal-London-Delhi-Bombay route, was blown up by a bomb at an altitude of 31,000 feet on June 23, 1985. The Boeing 747-237B aircraft crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in Irish airspace, killing all 329 people aboard, including 280 Canadians – many of Indian origin – and 22 Indians.
The report also issued a sharp criticism of the structure of Canadian security agencies and their lack of coordination. “There is a lack of institutionalised coordination and direction in national security matters.” It added that Canadian agencies had developed a culture of managing information in a manner designed to protect their individual institutional interests.
In particular, the report recommended that the National Security Adviser ought to be given much greater powers to intervene and resolve disputes between the Canadian Security and Intelligence Services (CSIS) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
The Commission argued that the “current practice of attempting to limit the information the CSIS provides to the RCMP in order to prevent its disclosure in potential criminal proceedings is misguided, as disclosure obligations at trial are engaged by potential relevance, not by which agency has seen the information.” It further noted that the result of such efforts to deny intelligence to the police was an “impoverished response” to terrorist threats.
The Commission further criticised the process of the post-bombing inquiry, pointing out that the CSIS often failed to disclose promptly to the RCMP information relevant to the criminal investigation, particularly information from human sources, or it disclosed information without sufficient detail or in a manner that prevented the RCMP from using the information.
The report also attacked the government’s response to victim families. It said Canadian government agencies consistently opposed external review and attempted, “at times successfully,” to avoid or delay such reviews.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on 17.06.2010 assured family members of victims of the 1984 Air India Kanishka bombing that the government would respond “positively” to the recommendations made by an inquiry committee and said compensation would be offered to all.
Mr. Harper met the families of the victims, mostly of Indian-origin, hours after the report was made public.
Government spokesman Dimitri Soudas told the families at a special meeting that the government would respond “positively” to recommendations made by the panel headed by Justice John Major.
In an earlier written response, Mr. Harper said his government launched the inquiry “to bring closure to those who still grieve and to ensure that measures are taken to prevent such a tragedy in the future.”
“We thank Commissioner Major for his work and once again extend our deepest sympathies to the families and friends for the loved ones they lost,” the Prime Minister said.
Mr. Major said his report was so important that the government should also establish an oversight or watchdog body to ensure that his recommendations were implemented.
Inquiry lawyers said the changes would not necessarily incur “astronomical” costs.
Counsel Mark Freiman said the proposals were not aimed at creating a new bureaucracy, but “we need to find a higher level of decision-making” when the legitimate interests of, say, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police collide.”
He said a “lack of effective decision-making and information available” was key to the sequence of actions that failed to prevent the crash.
At a National Consultation organised by the Law Ministry during May 1-2, 2010, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described legal education in India as a “sea of institutionalised mediocrity with a few islands of excellence,” and stressed the need for dramatic reform in terms of its scope and quality. He wanted the legal education system to be sensitive to the needs of the marginalised sections of society, particularly in the context of globalisation and the retreat of the state from some of its traditional roles. He felt that in future, domestic legal mechanisms will increasingly interact with both international and foreign legal systems and that the law schools should prepare themselves to face consequent challenges. The reforms he suggested included multi-disciplinarity in legal studies, flexible curricula, improved service conditions for law teachers, continuing education programmes for legal professionals and placement-internship programmes for all students.
This subject has indeed received the attention of several expert committees recently, including the National Knowledge Commission and the Committee on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education (the Yash Pal Committee). These commissions and committees found three fundamental drawbacks in the objects, structure and content of legal education as it is being imparted in nearly a thousand law colleges in India, most of them functioning in the private sector.
First of all, the objects of legal education in the changing socio-economic context are neither clear nor prioritised. The Advocates Act and the Bar Councils seem to think that the only object of legal education is to produce lawyers to practise in courts. Today, people seek legal education for a variety of purposes: to meet the demands of trade, commerce, industry, governance and international relations. The practising profession itself is getting increasingly internationalised, warranting the study of other legal systems and practices. These multiple goals raise questions of content, structure and regulation.
Currently, the content of legal education is considered to be a function of the regulatory bodies (read Bar Council of India) and the universities are obliged to follow it. This has adversely affected curriculum development in terms of serving the multiple objects of legal education and inhibited innovation and experimentation that are essential for academic and professional excellence. In a sense, it has alienated law schools from its essential function of legal research and development.
Law grows when it engages with society and interacts with other branches of knowledge. Engagement with social problems and movements make legal education relevant and contextual. For this to happen, a liberal, holistic and decentralised approach to curriculum planning and development is necessary, for which each university teaching law should have the primary responsibility. This was the essence of the National Knowledge Commission’s and the Yash Pal Committee’s recommendations. In other words, according to the expert committees the future of legal education will depend on how the role of universities (law schools) is conceived on the one hand, and on what the goals and objects of legal education are determined to be, on the other. Whichever way one looks at the situation, one thing is clear: the existing regulatory mechanism under the Advocates Act, 1961 is far too weak and inadequate to chart the future course of legal education.
Access and equity are important considerations in higher education, and this is particularly so in law education. The Bar Council’s efforts over the last 50 years did succeed in making the so-called legal education accessible to all sections and keeping the costs low for students. But in the process, quality was neglected or allowed to be diluted. Many universities practically avoided their responsibilities, and put the entire blame on the Bar Council. An attempt was made at the instance of the Bar Council to improve quality by introducing the five-year integrated LL.B. programme, and by establishing a series of autonomous National Law Schools. But they have remained islands “in a sea of mediocrity” — as the Prime Minister described it.
The challenge before legal educators and the regulators of higher education today is two-fold.
First, how to promote competitive excellence in a global context in the few National Law Schools and others of its kind that are maintaining some degree of quality in education. Secondly, how to take the mediocre institutions — which are too many in number — to improve their performance towards achieving some degree of professionalism and academic excellence in the shortest possible time.
The major problems cited in this regard are inadequacy of resources including lack of competent teachers in adequate numbers. Given that most of these institutions are privately managed and have very little investment and faculty resources, it is not possible to transform them unless the managements themselves mobilise the finances. Others that are in the government sector, including university departments, can prepare plans for development and seek funds from governments, Central and State. There exists a case to increase tuition fees and development charges while making the institutions provide better teaching and learning facilities to consumers of education.
Finally, if quality is to be improved the key institutions for regulating legal education should be the universities themselves. Let there be competition among universities to deliver quality educational services. The external regulator’s function should be limited to setting goals, setting minimum standards, and facilitating the exercise of academic autonomy by individual institutions. In this regard, the proposal of the Knowledge Commission for a multi-member single regulator involving all stakeholders is an excellent idea that deserves attention. The shortage of teachers can be addressed partly through a flexible approach in faculty composition: this may include more visiting and adjunct teachers, partnership arrangements, contractual engagement of professionals and so on. There could also be an organised plan to prepare teachers by selected institutions with special support from government.
It will take a decade or more to create a research environment in the existing law schools, particularly for cutting-edge research that contribute to law reform and development. Meanwhile, the recommendation of the Knowledge Commission to set up a few advanced research centres that can attract available talent to plan and develop legal research is worthy of immediate attention. This is where the Central government should invest, as it did in the field of scientific and industrial research in the early 1960s and 1970s. They can be networked with the law schools of the region: this will be of mutual advantage.
The initiative on Second Generation Reforms developed by the Union Law Ministry (2010) and the Task Force on Legal Education constituted by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development should work together to develop a plan of action to push forward the agenda of legal education reforms. This should serve not only the needs of the practising profession but also the emerging demands of society and government for law trained persons. The Judicial Academies training judges should tie up with selected law schools of the region to enrich the content and process of judicial education and training, while providing opportunities to law schools to understand and inform themselves of the problems and challenges of the administration of justice. Bar Councils should set up a chain of continuing legal education centres, similarly tying up with law schools for mutual benefit. What the nation needs now is an organised movement involving legal educators, lawyers and judges, not only to learn the practice of law but to transform law and legal institutions to maximise justice in society and to put legal education at the centre for better governance under democracy and rule of law.
(Professor N.R. Madhava Menon is founder-director of the National Law School of India in Bangalore, the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata and the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal.) Courtesy: The Hindu
New Zealand will host the annual plenary meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Christchurch on June 24, 2010. Though not listed in the formal agenda, the proposed China-Pakistan deal to set up two more nuclear reactors at Chashma is likely to come up.
When China joined the NSG it told the group that the Sino-Pakistan nuclear cooperation agreement permitted China to export the Chashma-2 reactor to Pakistan, small research reactors, and the fuel for these units.
On the basis of previous Chinese statements, the United States is expected to argue that the supply of additional power reactors would not be grandfathered. In that sense, the Christchurch meeting will demonstrate how far China is prepared to abide by its commitments to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the NSG guidelines.
The Indian example is not a precedent since India’s exemption had to go through the US legislative scrutiny and the NSG exemption. Pakistan cannot compare its non-proliferation record with that of India. The exoneration of A Q Khan by the judiciary of charges of unauthorized nuclear trade clearly implies that Pakistani proliferation had the approval of successive governments in Islamabad. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is still to get access to Khan. The proliferation, Iran being uppermost in international concern, started with a Pakistani deal with that country.
While there are fears in the West that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons may trigger an arms race in West Asia as Saudi Arabia is likely to go nuclear to counter Iranian proliferation, the impact of likely Pakistani expansion of its nuclear arsenal — exceeding India’s manifold — which has been reported on by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on the west Asian situation, has hardly received any attention. Iran as a Shia Muslim state suffered half a million casualties at the hands of then Sunni leadership of Iraq and was subjected to attacks with weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) at the hands of Sunni Saddam Hussein.
Shias are targets of al-Qaida and its associated Sunni extremist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and others. Iran and Pakistan were in a state of covert war when Taliban ruled Afghanistan with Pakistani support. While Pakistan supported the Taliban, Iran supported the majority of Dari speaking people, especially the Northern Alliance. Reports from Washington media indicate that there have been secret missile deals between China and Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Even in the 1980s, as Pakistan assembled its nuclear weapons with Chinese proliferation help, it sold long-range CSS-2 missiles to Saudi Arabia. Those missiles did not make sense unless they had nuclear warheads. Since Saudi Arabia was the financier of Pakistani nuclear programme the logical inference was the Saudi missiles will get the Pakistani nuclear warheads when required.
With the Shia majority rule in Iraq the three Shia states — Iran, Iraq and Azerbaijan, all oil-rich states, are rising in power and influence and this is a morale-booster for the oppressed Shia minorities in Sunni-dominated countries. The Shia-Sunni animosity goes back to the early years of the origin of Islam itself.
The Iranian nuclear ambitions are likely to be more to counter a two-front encirclement of Shias by Sunni Pakistan and Sunni Saudi Arabia. China appears to be taking full advantage of this conflict to make deals for oil with Saudi Arabia as well as Iran by selling them missiles, lending tacit support to Iran on sanctions and providing Pakistan additional capacity to make plutonium warheads to supply Saudi Arabia. Many observers believe the supply of civil nuclear reactors is only a cover for China to continue to sustain its nuclear proliferation to Pakistan going back to Bhutto’s agreement with China in June, 1976. According to the disclosures of two US nuclear scientists, Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman in their book ‘The Nuclear Express’, Chinese even conducted the first bomb test for Pakistan on 26th May 1990 at their Lop Nor test site. So strong is the commitment of China to Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
China has a penchant to carry on successful business in conflict zones like Sudan or Afghanistan. Increased tension in the Af-Paf region or West Asia will make both confronting sides rely on China for missiles. Iran too depends on Beijing to lighten the rigours of sanctions. Now, US scientists have discovered enormous mineral resources in Afghanistan. China is already in the mining business in that country. They will have an interest in ensuring the US and Western multinationals are kept out of this newly discovered mineral treasure. It is time US and its allies looked afresh at the Iranian proliferation issue giving full consideration to the China-Pakistan nexus and the Shia-Sunni divide.
The Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) on 19.06.2010 broadly endorsed the setting up of the proposed National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) as an apex/regulatory body, entrusted with framing policy, and to bring within its ambit, medical education and other disciplines of higher education and research.
Though there was general consensus at the 57th meeting of the CABE – the highest advisory body to Centre and States on education – it was decided that the State governments and other members could send in written comments and suggestions within four weeks to enable the task force on NCHER to finalise the draft of the Bill, which would then be presented to the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) for consideration. This was done in response to some States expressing apprehension that the move would “infringe” upon their autonomy.
“The task force members will include the minutes of the meeting in their final draft and appropriately place it before the authorities. I hope the task force members who were present at the meeting would have taken note of it,” Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal said.
There is a turf war going on between the HRD Ministry and other Ministries over bringing all disciplines of higher education within the purview of NCHER. While the Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry is reluctant to part with medical education, the Law Ministry and the Bar Council of India is opposed to the idea of giving away legal education. Agriculture being a State subject will need Constitutional amendment to be brought under the NCHER.
The proposal for the National Academic Depository Bill 2010, for the creation and maintenance of a national electronic database of academic records and awards, also received a nod at the meeting. It will now be sent to the Cabinet for approval and placed before Parliament in the monsoon session, Mr. Sibal said.
On implementation of the Right to Education, the States expressed some practical problems and demanded that the Centre share at least 90 per cent of the cost. “I told the States that while the sharing pattern was yet to finalised, it would not be possible for the Centre to bear 90 per cent of the cost. However, the concerns have been taken note of,” the Minister added.
Come 2011, all States will have a common curriculum at senior secondary level in science and mathematics, a step that would pave the way for a possible common entrance test for admission into universities. State Education Ministers on 19.06.2010 endorsed the Centre’s move to have a core curriculum in science and mathematics at class XI and XII.
The Council of School Board of Education has already prepared the core curriculum. The State boards can frame their syllabus on the basis of the curriculum.
“The ministers endorsed the core curriculum prepared by the Council. They also endorsed the idea of having a core curriculum in Commerce,” HRD Minister Kapil Sibal said. The core curriculum will bring uniformity in the course content in the school boards. This will give a level playing field to students from urban and rural areas, Mr. Sibal said. It will be helpful in holding a common entrance test for admission into the universities.
The Bill seeking to amend the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 to pave the way for adoption by widows and single women will be passed in the coming session of Parliament, said Jayanthi Natarajan, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The Personal Laws ( Amendment) Bill, 2010, was introduced in Rajya Sabha on April, 22, 2010 and referred to the standing committee for eliciting public opinion on the issue.
Talking to reporters after holding discussions with officials of the State government and various Public Sector Undertakings ( PSUs), Ms. Natarajan said there was unanimous opinion in favour of the Bill. The committee had already visited Mumbai and Bangalore.
Ms. Natarajan said the issue of adopting a “ flexible policy,” with regard to promotion, leave and vacation for women in government jobs, was also discussed. “ Many women refuse to accept promotional transfers citing family responsibility.
The committee has suggested that the PSUs and other government agencies could formulate a flexible promotion and transfer policy for women employees.”
While discussing the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace, the committee evaluated whether the guidelines set up by the Supreme Court in Vishaka case were being followed. She said the Centre was considering enacting a law in this regard and the private sector could be covered at a later stage.
The meeting on 19.06.2010 also discussed in detail the infrastructure facilities, appointments in subordinate courts and the possibility of courts functioning in shifts, re- employment of retired judges and setting up fast track courts for speedy disposal of cases with regard to rape, sexual harassment and cases involving senior citizens.
Ms. Natarajan said the situation in Tamil Nadu was better in terms of infrastructure. Vacancies were filled immediately and judges were given training periodically. She said no representation was made to the committee in connection with making Tamil a court language.
The government of India has proposed special examinations to induct young officers recruited through the State Civil Services into the elite Indian Administrative Service (IAS). Faced with a shortfall of at least 560 IAS officers across India, a proposal for the UPSC to hold “limited competitive examinations” to allow young officers serving in the states to join the IAS is under active consideration of the Prime Minister’s Office.
A similar move to make up the acute shortfall of IPS officers through a “limited competitive examination” for young officers in Central Police Organisations (CPOs), Central Paramilitary Forces (CPFs) and state police forces had been firmed up by the Union ministry for home affairs (MHA) in March, 2010.
The proposal had been struck down by the UPSC, prompting the home ministry to approach the PMO to overrule the UPSC’s decision. The Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, will be meeting the law minister, Mr Veerappa Moily, and the minister of state in the ministry of personnel, Mr Prithviraj Chavan, on Friday to elicit their views. The Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, will be meeting the law minister, Mr Veerappa Moily, and the minister of state in the ministry of personnel, Mr Prithviraj Chavan, on 18.06.2010 to settle contentious issues like age criteria, and other modalities involved in holding such exams. “We will be taking the views of the stakeholders to resolve any complications in view of the concerns expressed by the UPSC. A final view will be taken after we study their suggestions,” an Ministry Home Affairs official said.
April 20th
A deep-water oil drilling rig known as the MODU Deepwater Horizon exploded and caught fire in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20th 2010 with 126 people on board. At least seven people were critically injured in the 10 p.m. blast about 50 miles southeast of Venice and were receiving medical treatment in the New Orleans area and Alabama, according to the Coast Guard. The Deepwater Horizon was a 9-year-old semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), a massive floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig built by Hyundai Heavy Industries that could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep and drill down to 30,000 feet
The incident which shook the world during April this year 2010 has been termed as Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster or the Macondo blowout.
The gusher, now estimated to be flowing at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 to 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 to 9,500 cubic metres) of crude oil per day, originates from a deepwater wellhead 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below the ocean surface. It has not been possible to ascertain the exact spill flow rate due to the difficulty of installing measurement devices at that depth and is a matter of ongoing debate. The resulting oil slick covers a surface area of at least 2,500 square miles (6,500 km2), with the exact size and location of the slick fluctuating from day to day depending on weather conditions. Scientists have also reported immense underwater plumes of oil not visible at the surface.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said during a White House briefing that designating the spill as one of “national significance” means that “the US can draw down assets from across the country” to assist with cleanup. She said 1,100 people are working on the cleanup effort, which as on that date had collected 685,000 gallons of oil and water from the polluted Gulf. The White House said 174,060 feet of flotation booms had been deployed to corral the floating oil.
The spill will result in an environmental disaster, with extensive impact already on marine and wildlife habitats. It has also damaged the Gulf of Mexico fishing and tourism industries. With a variety of ongoing efforts to stem the flow of oil at the wellhead, crews have been working to protect hundreds of miles of beaches, wetlands and estuaries along the northern Gulf coast, using skimmer ships, floating containment booms, anchored barriers, and sand-filled barricades along shorelines. The U.S. Government has named the British company BP as the responsible party in the incident, and officials have said the company will be held accountable for all cleanup costs resulting from the oil spill. BP is the operator and principal developer of the Macondo Prospect with 65% of interest, while 25% is owned by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and 10% by MOEX Offshore 2007, a unit of Mitsui.
The Deep-water Horizon was drilling an exploratory well at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in the Macondo Prospect located in the Mississippi Canyon Block 252, in the United States exclusive economic zone about 41 miles (66 km) off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico. It was at this time that the explosion took place. Production casing was being run and cemented by Halliburton Energy Services. It was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to temporarily abandon the well for later completion as a subsea producer.
In their permit to drill the well, BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels per day. On April 28, 2010, based on satellite pictures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated that the leak was likely 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) a day.
The spread of the oil was initially increased by strong southerly winds caused by an impending cold front. By April 25, the oil spill covered 580 square miles (1,500 km2) and was only 31 miles (50 km) from the ecologically sensitive Chandeleur Islands. An April 30 estimate placed the total spread of the oil at 3,850 square miles. The spill quickly approached the Delta National Wildlife Refuge and Breton National Wildlife Refuge, where dead animals, including a sea turtle, were found.
On May 14, the report said that a publicly available model called the Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills indicates about 35 percent of a hypothetical 114,000 barrels (4,800,000 US gal; 18,100 m3) spill of light Louisiana crude oil released in conditions similar to those found in the Gulf now would evaporate, that between 50 and 60 percent of the oil would remain in or on the water, and the rest would be dispersed in the ocean.
By June 4, the oil spill had landed on125 miles (201 km) of Louisiana’s coast, had washed up along Mississippi and Alabama barrier islands, and was found for the first time on a Florida barrier island at Pensacola Beach. On June 9, oil sludge began entering the Intracoastal Waterway through Perdido Pass after floating booms across the opening of the pass failed to stop the oil.
The rig’s blowout preventer, a fail-safe device fitted at source of the well, did not automatically cut off the oil flow as intended when the explosion occurred. BP attempted to use remotely operated underwater vehicles to close the blowout preventer valves on the well head 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below sea level, a valve-closing procedure taking 24–36 hours. BP engineers have attempted a number of techniques to control or stop the oil spill. The first and fastest was to place a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) container dome over the largest of the well leaks and pipe the oil to a storage vessel on the surface. But the effort did not succeed.
BP next tried to shut down the well completely using a technique called “top kill”. The process involves pumping heavy drilling fluids through two 3-inch (7.6 cm) lines into the blowout preventer that sits on top of the wellhead. This would first restrict the flow of oil from the well, which then could be sealed permanently with cement. On May 27, the U.S. Coast Guard, who is coordinating the government response, expressed that engineers had succeeded in stopping the flow of oil and gas into the Gulf of Mexico.
The next contingency option was the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP) Cap Containment System. The operational plan first involves cutting and then removing the damaged riser from the top of the failed blowout preventer to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP’s LMRP. The cap is designed to be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and placed over the LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well. BP is also working on a system that will allow it to flow oil from the choke and kill valves on the BOP through a subsea manifold to the Q4000 service platform operated by Helix Energy Solutions Group, with processing capacity for about 5,000 barrels (210,000 US gallons; 790 cubic metres) of oil per day. Q4000 will be paired with Sealion Shipping owned well testing vessel Toisa Pisces
Wildlife and environmental groups accused BP of holding back information about the extent and impact of the growing slick, and urged the White House to order a more direct federal government role in the spill response. The spill threatens environmental disaster due to factors such as petroleum toxicity and oxygen depletion. More than 400 species live in the islands and marshlands at risk, including the endangered Kemp’s Ridley turtle. In the national refuges most at risk, about 34,000 birds have been counted, including gulls, pelicans, roseate spoonbills, egrets, terns, and blue herons. As of June 10, dead animals found in the spill zone included 1131 dead birds, 331 sea turtles, 38 dolphins and other mammals, and 1 reptile. There may be other dead animals that go unfound. It is possible the Gulf Stream sea currents may spread the oil into the Atlantic Ocean.
ALABAMA BEACHES
Beaches in Orange Beach, Ala., where large amounts of crude and tar balls washed ashore on Saturday, were mostly clean after crews worked through the night and in the early morning clearing the oil. Clear plastic bags sat in piles, full of sand and tar balls, and some empty stretches of beach were still littered with grapefruit sized tar patties.
FLORIDA’S SHORES
Winds continued to blow two patchy, orange oil plumes from the spill toward the white sands of the western Florida Panhandle in the first week of June 2010, as skimmers worked to collect the crude before it came ashore. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection said one of the slicks is as close as 3 miles south of Pensacola Pass, an inlet next to a stretch of the Gulf Islands National Seashore and the tourist hotels of Pensacola Beach.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Oil collected on the water’s surface near the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil continued to flow from the wellhead some 5,000 feet below the surface. The Coast Guard demanded that BP step up its efforts to contain the oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico by the end of the weekend, telling the British oil giant that its slow pace in stopping the spill is becoming increasingly alarming as the disaster fouled the coastline in ugly new ways. Workers loaded bags of contaminated sand as they clean up oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill along the beach.
NEW ORLEANS
BP mounted a more aggressive response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as it started deploying undersea sensors to better measure the ferocious flow of crude while drawing up new plans to meet a government demand that it speed up the containment effort ahead of President Barack Obama’s visit to the coast. The financial ramifications of the disaster are growing by the day as the White House and states put pressure on BP to set aside billions of dollars to pay spill-related claims in a move that could quickly drain the company’s cash reserves and hasten its path toward possible bankruptcy.
One of the actions BP took Sunday was to use robotic submarines to position sensors inside the well to gauge how much oil is spilling. The robots were expected to insert the pressure sensors through a line used to inject methanol – an anti-freeze meant to prevent the buildup of ice-like slush – into a containment cap seated over the ruptured pipe. BP was installing the sensors at the request of a federal team of scientists tasked with estimating the flow. The necessary equipment was first identified last week, and the installation procedures were approved over the weekend.
BP is currently capturing about 630,000 gallons of oil a day, but hundreds thousands more are still escaping into the Gulf. The company has said that it could begin siphoning an additional 400,000 gallons a day by burning it using a specialized boom being installed on a rig – and any new success would be welcome news for Obama.
Obama wanted an independent, third party to administer an escrow account paid for by BP to compensate those with “legitimate” claims for damages. The amount of money set aside will be discussed during talks this week between the White House and BP, but the request will most definitely be in the billions.
Waste Management received a contract from BP to transport waste produced by cleanup crews assigned to work the stretch of the coastline. Ken Haldin, a Waste Management spokesman, said Sunday that the company has designated 65 trucks and 535 containers that are being filled with solid oil waste.
Waste Management has designated three landfills in three different states that are operated by the company to handle the oily refuse. Before the refuse is dumped, it has to be analyzed by both the waste removal company and by local government environmental authorities to make sure it is nonhazardous.
Waste Management also is handling some of the liquid waste skimmed from the ocean by cleanup crews, and has set up special equipment, including vacuum trucks, along the docks that separates oil from the water. Once separated, the oil will be resold to oil services companies.
The oil spill is gaining international ramifications with furore growing between the US and the UK. Already during the first week of June 2010, the normally smooth waters of US-British relations were rocked by growing signs of strain over objections to US treatment of the officers and stockholders of BP, a big-oil company listed on the London stock exchange. Some British officials and the London press are of the view that US officials – President Obama topping the list – were increasingly mixing anti-British vitriol into their growing frustration with the formerly “British Petroleum” named, formerly British-owned BP.
On Friday, the European Union announced it was responding to a request by US authorities for various types of booms to help contain the spilled oil.
Sweden, Germany, Norway, the UK, and the European Maritime Safety Agency all responded with offers and are working “flat out” to deliver the equipment as soon as possible. The Netherlands responded to an earlier request by providing three sweeping arms which are already operating in the Gulf.
But the oil leak is also having unanticipated international repercussions, with the US already quietly discussing the Gulf disaster and its potential extended impact with Cuba, the country most likely to be the first non-US victim if the oil slick advances beyond Florida into the Caribbean.
The US, which has modestly expanded contacts with the Cuban government under the Obama administration, has had some low-level discussions with the Cubans about the Gulf oil leak and is keeping channels of communication open in light of the oil’s potential trajectory according to State Department officials.
But some oil experts say the US needs to look beyond the current catastrophe to consider a potential future oil disaster. With Cuba set to commence oil exploration in its northern territorial waters sometime in the next six to nine months, they see a stark scenario under which the US embargo on Cuba would prevent American oilfield and petroleum-technology companies from taking part in any disaster response.
Mr. Piñón, a former Conoco and BP oil executive, says the Obama administration should do for petroleum equipment and services trade with Cuba what the Clinton administration did for agricultural trade – exempt it from the embargo.
An executive order paving the way for US companies to intervene in a Cuban oil disaster was one of the recommendations of a Cuba Task Force organized by the Brookings Institution in Washington. Piñón serves on the task force and co-authored a recent paper analyzing Cuban oil issues in light of the Gulf disaster.
Before the Gulf spill, much of the focus of analysis of Cuba’s move into oil exploration and production was on the impact it will have on the current regime, Cuba’s relations with current oil-supplier Venezuela, and an eventual transition government in Havana.
In the meanwhile, more than 130 lawsuits relating to the spill have been filed.
******
The EU was set up in the aftermath of World War Two to bring peace, stability and prosperity to Europe. Europe’s mission in the 21st century is to:
provide peace, prosperity and stability for its peoples;
overcome the divisions on the continent;
ensure that its people can live in safety;
promote balanced economic and social development;
meet the challenges of globalisation and preserve the diversity of the peoples of Europe;
uphold the values that Europeans share, such as sustainable development and a sound environment, respect for human rights and the social market economy.
The Council of the European Union, which represents the member states, is the EU’s main decision-taking body. When it meets at Heads of State or Government level, it becomes the European Council whose role is to provide the EU with political impetus on key issues.
The European Parliament, which represents the people, shares legislative and budgetary power with the Council of the European Union.
The European Commission, which represents the common interest of the EU, is the main executive body. It has the right to propose legislation and ensures that EU policies are properly implemented.
The ten historic steps taken by the European Union over the years are given below-
On 9 May 1950, the Schuman Declaration proposed the establishment of a European Coal and Steel Community(ECSC), which came into force with the Treaty of Paris of 18 April 1951. This put in place a common market in coal and steel between the six founding countries (Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).
The Six countries then decided, on 25 March 1957 with the Treaty of Rome, to build a European Economic Community (EEC) based on a wider common market covering a whole range of goods and services. Customs duties between the six countries were completely abolished and common policies, notably on trade and agriculture, were also put in place during the 1960s.
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom decided to join the Community on seeing the success of the Union. This first enlargement, from six to nine members, took place in 1973. At the same time, new social and environmental policies were implemented, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) was established in 1975.
In 1979, the first elections to the European Parliament were held by direct universal suffrage. These elections are held every five years.
In 1981, Greece joined the Community, followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. This strengthened the Community’s presence in southern Europe and made it all the more urgent to expand its regional aid programmes.
The worldwide economic recession in the early 1980s brought with it a wave of ‘euro-pessimism. In 1985 the European Commission, under its President Jacques Delors, published a White Paper setting out a timetable for completing the European single market by 1 January 1993. This ambitious goal was enshrined in the Single European Act, which was signed in February 1986 and came into force on 1 July 1987.
The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, leading to the unification of Germany in October 1990 and the coming of democracy to the countries of central and eastern Europe as they broke away from Soviet control. The Soviet Union itself ceased to exist in December 1991. The new Treaty on European Union was adopted by the European Council, composed of presidents and/or prime ministers, at Maastricht in December 1991. The Treaty came into force on 1 November 1993. By adding areas of intergovernmental cooperation to existing integrated Community structures, the Treaty created the European Union (EU).
Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU on 1 January 1995. The Berlin Wall was pulled down in 1989 and the old divisions of the European continent gradually disappeared.
By then, the EU was on course for its most spectacular achievement yet, creating a single currency. The euro was introduced for financial (non-cash) transactions in 1999, while notes and coins were issued three years later in the 12 countries of the euro area (also commonly referred to as the euro zone).
The euro is now a major world currency for payments and reserves alongside the US dollar. Europeans are facing globalisation. New technologies and ever increasing use of the Internet transform the economies, but also bring social and cultural challenges.
In March 2000, the EU adopted the ‘Lisbon strategy’ for modernising the European economy and enabling it to compete on the world market with other major players such as the United States and the newly industrialised countries. The Lisbon strategy involves encouraging innovation and business investment and adapting Europe’s education systems to meet the needs of the information society.
Still, unemployment and the rising cost of pensions are putting pressure on national economies, making reform all the more necessary. Voters are increasingly calling on their governments to find practical solutions to these problems.
Scarcely had the European Union grown to 15 members when preparations began for a new enlargement on an unprecedented scale. In the mid-1990s, the former Soviet-bloc countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), the three Baltic states that had been part of the Soviet Union (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), one of the republics of former Yugoslavia (Slovenia) and two Mediterranean countries (Cyprus and Malta) began knocking at the EU’s door.
The EU welcomed this chance to help stabilise the European continent and to extend the benefits of European integration to these young democracies. Negotiations on future membership opened in December 1997. The EU enlargement to 25 countries took place on 1 May 2004 when 10 of the 12 candidates joined. Bulgaria and Romania followed on 1 January 2007.
Current Scenario
The European Union’s influence in world affairs is on the increase. The process of integration, the launch of the euro and the progressive development of a common foreign and security policy are all providing the EU with political and diplomatic status to match its undoubted economic and commercial clout.
With quite a few strategic foreign policy objectives, the Union first seeks to establish a stable Europe with a stronger voice in the world. The recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and the bloody fighting in Chechnya underline how important it is to secure peace, democracy and respect for human rights throughout Europe. Enlargement can help achieve that by creating an internal market of over 500 million consumers and ending the long divide in Europe.
Being the world’s biggest trading partner, the EU is also determined to secure its international competitiveness while at the same time promoting global commerce through further liberalisation of world trade rules – a process that it believes will be of particular benefit to developing countries.
Until recently, there were three main components to the Union’s external activities: trade policy, development aid and the political dimension. The Union now wants to reinforce these capabilities, if and when necessary, trying to use force where its vital interests are at stake and be able to respond more effectively to crises. The significance is not on fighting wars or creating a European army. It means greater cooperation between EU members in carrying out humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks. The Union is also becoming more involved in security issues, taking on greater responsibility for ensuring peace and stability in parts of the world close to its own spheres of influence.
The Union attacks issues ranging from the need to fight the spread of AIDS and famine and to govern migration flows to the campaigns against drugs and terrorism. They all require closer transnational cooperation since the problems of today’s world can only really be solved by working together.
By broadening and deepening its contacts with partners, incorporating economic, trade and political dimensions into those relationships, the European Union is adapting itself continuously its external policies and priorities.. It can now count on a diversity of interregional partnerships and cooperation agreements with countries on all five continents.
Global commitment
Around a few years ago, the complete panoply of external relations was handled by just two Commission departments. Now there are six. Overall coordination is assured by the External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten. He is helped by his colleagues who are in charge of sectoral policies – Poul Nielson (Development and Humanitarian Aid), Günter Verheugen (Enlargement) and Pascal Lamy (Trade). He also works in close contact with Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers and the first High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
The Union has an widespread network around the world, which helps it to formulate and implement policy. With quite a lot of foreign embassies in Brussels accredited to the EU, the Commission has over 120 of its own delegations in third countries. Through this the Union’s bilateral links with nations of hugely differing size and wealth are improved, promoting the EU’s policies and values and keeping Brussels informed of developments on the ground.
The EU has regular summit meetings, once or twice a year, with its major partners such as the United States, Japan, Russia and Canada. Both trade oriented and political discussions take place, including ways to protect the environment, tackle international crime and drug trafficking and promote human rights. The Union makes its views known in various multilateral forums such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and works with them to better secure the common objectives of peace and security.
Common foreign and security policy
The European Union’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) was introduced in 1993 by the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), following over 20 years of political cooperation between the EU countries.
Since then, some 70 common positions have been adopted on foreign policy issues ranging from the Balkans to East Timor and from the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to counter-terrorism. Once adopted, Member States are required to adhere to common positions, which the Presidency defends at the United Nations.
Trade: removing barriers, spreading growth
Since 1999, almost a fifth of all world exports accrues towards the EU making it the world’s biggest trading partner. Since its earliest days, the EU has been committed to removing trade barriers between its individual members on the grounds that this will stimulate economic prosperity and national and individual well-being. It has championed the same principles on the world stage.
The multilateral trading system has been progressively liberalised through a series of international negotiations over the past half-century. During that time, the following has happened
world trade has grown seventeen – fold
world production has more than quadrupled
world per capita income has doubled and
average tariffs applied by industrialised countries have dropped from 40 % in 1940 to under 4 %.
The EU believes that multilateral trade liberalisation can yield very substantial benefits for the global economy and that much of this should go to developing regions. This will in turn improve social conditions worldwide.
The Union is one of the strongest advocates of continuing this trend by pressing for as wide an agenda as possible in the next round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks involving 137 countries. Despite the setback at the ministerial meeting held in Seattle in December 1999, the EU is still committed to a broad agenda and is convinced the benefits will be significant.
Two European Commission studies conclude that further trade liberalisation could help sustainable development and bring about an annual welfare gain for the world of up to 420 billion euro. Economic growth translates into employment as the Union itself has shown with the creation of half a million new jobs after the abolition of its own internal trade barriers.
This could mean more business opportunities, more efficient allocation of resources and more wealth. Further reductions in tariffs will enable business to better exploit export potential because trade flows will be driven increasingly by quality, price and service and be less impeded by artificial obstacles like tariffs.
World Trade Organisation
EU believes that the next WTO negotiations should not be limited to the narrow agenda of agriculture and services left over from the last Uruguay round. It must cover both traditional topics and new issues to allow all participants to have an interest in the negotiations and meet the needs of the economy of the 21st century.
When a new round of WTO negotiations is launched, the Union believes it should cover at least four main areas if it is to be comprehensive and successful. In the EU’s view, the round should:
improve market access across the board, including agriculture, services and non-agricultural products;
set rules in a number of new areas such as investment, competition and trade facilitation;
focus more on development
address a number of civil society concerns, by clarifying WTO rules on trade and environmental agreements, labelling, public health and the application of the precautionary principle.
Japan
The second largest national economy after the United States, accounting for two thirds of Asian GDP and 14 % of the global economy, Japan is one of the Union’s major trading partners and its third largest foreign market. While there had been friction during the 1980s over trade imbalances and the difficulties European firms encountered in exporting to Japan 1991 saw a a constructive relationship between the two partners. There was an approval of an EU strategy in 1995 on Europe and Japan. This will launch a ‘decade of Japan-Europe cooperation’ beginning in 2001 in four key areas: promoting peace and security, strengthening the economic and trade partnership, coping with global and societal challenges and bringing people and cultures together.
One of the Union’s major concerns has been to ensure that European exporters and investors are not prevented from entering the Japanese market by unnecessarily restrictive red tape and bureaucratic regulations. They achieved this since 1995 through the regulatory reform dialogue aimed at removing structural and other obstacles facing exporters. The Union is also keen to see fewer obstacles to European investment in Japan. Japanese direct foreign investment is seven times greater in the EU than European investment in Japan.
Asia
During the past two decades, EU-China trade increased more than 20 fold and was worth 70 billion euro in 1999. China is the Union’s third largest non-European trading partner after the United States and Japan and the EU is China’s fourth largest source of imports. In 1999, the Union became the largest foreign direct investor in the country, excluding Hong Kong, with 4.5 billion euro. It has been a strong supporter of Chinese membership of the World Trade Organisation and has worked closely with the United States to help bring this about. In summer 2000, the two parties completed their lengthy bilateral negotiations on China’s accession to the WTO.
Under the terms of the EU-China WTO accession agreement, China agreed to substantial reductions on import tariffs for over 150 leading European exports, ranging from machinery to wines and spirits. This will make it easier for European distributors and companies to operate in China.
Relations with India too are also moving up a gear as they broaden from dialogue and cooperation to partnership. That shift was epitomised by major initiatives in 2000. These included the first EU-India Summit and wider contacts between officials, policy-makers, opinion formers and civil society.This is in addition to the extensive commercial contacts which already exist. The EU is India’s most important partner in trade, investment and development cooperation. Indian exports to the Union grew from 1.8 billion euro in 1980 to 9.8 billion euro in 1998. Similar growth can be seen in trade going in the other direction which has risen from 2.4 billion to 9.5 billion euro.
Latin America and Mexico
The EU has organised its relations with Latin American countries around the recognition of three sub-regional groups: Central America, the Andean Community and Mercosur, as well as individual countries like Chile and Mexico. The Andean countries enjoy easier access to the European market under the ‘generalised system of preferences’ and the EU works closely with them on a programme to tackle drug trafficking. Caribbean countries enjoy trade preferences with the EU, while Cuba is the only Latin American country not to have signed a cooperation agreement with the Union.
Promoting development, fighting poverty
The Union provides 55 % of all international official assistance, and is by far its biggest trader and foreign investor. It grants non-reciprocal trade preferences, along with more favourable arrangements for the least developed.
The marginalisation of many economies, the increase in poverty in the world, the need to manage better environmental interdependencies, the destabilising effects of migration, and the consequences of armed conflicts, natural disasters and pandemics are major concerns for everyone and Europe’s citizens understandably expect effective EU action in tackling them.
New emphasis on helping the world’s poor
The Union’s fights against poverty is the central thrust of the EU’s development policy efforts as it concentrates its attention on a more limited number of policy areas.
Foreign direct investment into developing countries has soared in the past decade, rising from 29 billion euro in 1990 to 185 billion euro in 1998. But it is unevenly spread. Some 55 % goes to the top five developing nations, while the 48 least developed, many of them in Africa, receive less than 1 %.
The EU limits its activities to those areas where it can offer comparative advantages and added value. It has selected six: trade for development, regional integration and cooperation, macroeconomic policies linked with poverty reduction strategies, reliable and sustainable transport, food security and sustainable rural development strategies, and institutional capacity building to consolidate good governance and the rule of law.
ACP-EU Partnership
The lynchpin of the EU’s development policy is the Cotonou Agreement which binds it with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and is the most ambitious and comprehensive agreement between developed and developing countries.
The Cotonou Agreement was signed in June 2000 in the capital of Benin, which is the origin for the informal name of the agreement. It sets out an integrated and comprehensive approach to development, poverty eradication, trade and a political dialogue that includes conflict prevention, human rights and democratisation and issues of mutual concern such as migration. The EU has agreed to implement an immigration and asylum policy founded on the principle of partnership with the originating countries and regions.
The Union has agreed special trade concessions for all least developed countries, of which 39 are signatories of the Cotonou Agreement.
Human rights
The importance which the European Union attaches to respect for human rights around the world was underlined by two developments in 1999. For the first time, responsibility for this area was given to one Commissioner – Chris Patten, the External Relations Commissioner. The second, was the publication of the first annual report on human rights documenting the EU’s policies, priorities and practices in this area.
This commitment to human rights and a legal framework are reflected in the Union’s common foreign and security policy provisions and in its development cooperation programme. Every new agreement between the EU and a third country includes a human rights clause allowing for trade benefits and development cooperation to be suspended if abuses are established.
Recent News
June 11, 2010
The E.U. has moved environmental standards for biofuels used in Europe, requiring biofuels to deliver “substantial reductions” in greenhouse gas emissions and not result in conversion of forests or wetlands, according to a statement from the European Commission.
The plan calls for industry, governments and NGOs to set up “voluntary schemes” which certify that biofuels used in the E.U. meet sustainability criteria. The “sustainable biofuel certificates” will be policed by independent auditors.
The tensions between China and Taiwan find their roots in the 1949 Chinese revolution, when communists led by Chairman Mao claimed control of the mainland. The then Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek withdrew to Taiwan, with two million refugees, vowing to reclaim the mainland. China’s main motive to keep Taiwan under their jurisdiction is that it will strengthen China strategically. The Communist Government in Beijing has sworn to all the international nations that whatever power required shall be applied keep the island conquered under them. Mainland China has considered Taiwan a renegade province ever since communist forces drove the nationalists off the mainland in 1949. China has repeatedly threatened to use military power against the island if it declares independence and has staged a series of naval exercises off the coast of Taiwan.
The actual conflict arises from The Taiwan relationsAct which was established to combat communism and aid in the spread of globalization and capitalism. The Act declares that if any outside Nation attacks Taiwan, the US should come to its defense. Since it was made during the Cold War Era, the situation does not prevail now.
The China Government is ready to support the economic and political stability in entire East Asia but do not want to come into any compromise where Taiwan’s Independence is concerned. While Chinese leaders prefer peaceful means for dealing the pro independence course of Taiwan’s pro independence course, the potential for a major conflict remains high. Whenever the Taiwanese moves towards independence they are backed by the US Neo conservatives. They look up to China as a potential military rival and have been putting greater arms sale from US.
History
With the incursion of so many refugees in 1949, bitterness grew between the millions of native Taiwanese and the mainland newcomers. The tensions reached such a point that Chiang imposed a “perpetual” martial law over the island for the next 38 years. Thousands of opponents were executed under his rule, and severe restrictions were placed on civil and political liberties.
1945-1949 Civil War
The end of the World War II saw Taiwan being handed over to the control of mainland China, under the Kuomintang (nationalist) government of General Chiang Kai-shek. The move brought to an end more than 50 years of Japanese control.
Chiang left no stone unturned to quickly formalise the island’s status as a province of China. Taiwan itself initially welcomed liberation from Japanese rule, but many quickly came to resent the corruption of the new government and what was seen as the exploitation of Taiwanese resources for mainland post-war reconstruction. Taiwanese industry, which had been closely tied to Japan, was redirected to supply the needs of the mainland and the island’s economy slid into crisis. Unemployment soared and, as protests grew, a brutal crackdown took place in 1947.
This led to the “the White Terror” when an estimated 18,000 – 30,000 members of the island’s native-born political and academic elite were executed as Chiang’s government asserted its control. For decades afterwards the government insisted the action was a crackdown on communists and gangsters.
The war with the Japanese came to an end but not so the civil war on the mainland with Mao Zedong’s communist forces resuming more fiercely than ever with the communists increasingly gaining the upper hand. As defeat loomed hundreds of thousands of Chiang’s soldiers defected to the communist side.
1949-1955 Withdrawal to Taiwan
In October 1949 Chairman Mao’s communists took control on the mainland. Chiang Kai-shek withdrew his Kuomintang army to Taiwan, taking with him China’s entire gold reserves. He was followed by more than 1.5 million refugees who fled with him adding to resentment among native Taiwanese against what they saw as a mainland invasion.
In December Chiang declared Taipei the temporary capital of China, vowing that he would eventually “recover the mainland”. He also issued a decree imposing perpetual martial law – an order not rescinded until 38 years later. As part of the claim to represent all China, all the institutions of mainland government were transferred to Taiwan, including the parliament, which had representatives for all mainland provinces.
Harsh restrictions were imposed on civil and political liberties by Chiang’s government, jailing or executing thousands of opponents and clamping down on the use of native Taiwanese dialects.
Initially the US kept well out of the stand-off between the two Chinas. But with the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 and Chinese troops fighting in Korea, Taiwan was seen as part of the west’s bulwark against communist expansionism. The US poured in money and military supplies. A planned communist invasion in 1950 was thwarted when President Truman ordered the US 7th Fleet into the Taiwan Straits.
U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered the 7th Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent possible Chinese attack on the island. It was the first time the United States had intervened in the conflict between the island and mainland. The U.S. considered Taiwan a buffer against communist expansion in Asia and provided the island money and military supplies.
1955-1972 Cold War Fortress
Despite sporadic attacks from the mainland Taiwan enjoyed huge economic growth during the 1950s and early 60s, backed up by massive inflows of US funds and demand for its products.
Domestically President Chiang’s was a increasingly dictatorial ruler, backed up by the military secret service, the Taiwan Garrison Command. Chiang’s position was under challenge from two sides. On the one hand there was growing support for outright independence among the native
During the 1960s some native Taiwanese, upset by the rule of the mainland minority, began to call for independence from China. It was during this time that focus shifted from reclaiming the mainland to developing the island itself.
Taiwanese resented what they saw as minority rule by mainlanders. On the other, there was the ever-present threat of communist invasion.
As the Kuomintang government began to absorb a younger generation of mainlanders and native Taiwanese, the focus slowly began to shift from reconquest of the mainland to the development of the island itself. But much of the real power remained firmly in the hands of President Chiang and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo.
In the late 1960s Taiwan began to lose out to the shifting tide of Cold War politics. Washington and Beijing developed closer ties to counter what they saw as Soviet expansionism and it seemed that Taiwan was losing the support of its principal international backer. But it was also during this period that the U.S. and other countries began improving relations with China as a way to prevent Soviet expansionism
In 1971 with international favour swinging towards Beijing, Taipei lost possession of China’s seat on the UN Security Council to the mainland government. In disgust Chiang walked out of the UN.
1972-1986
Yet another hard blow came by Taiwan when US President Richard Nixon’s made his historic visit to China in 1972, paving the way for Washington and Beijing to establish diplomatic relations seven years later. Under its “one China” policy Beijing insisted that countries wanting to establish diplomatic relations must automatically break off official ties with Taipei and during the 1970s other western countries and their allies followed Washington’s lead.
To counter act this, pro-Taiwan members of the US Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, allowing for the sale of defence equipment to Taiwan and providing vague guarantees for the island’s security. Nonetheless as China made its way onto the world stage Taiwan found itself increasingly pushed off it.
President Chiang died in 1975 and three years later his son replaced him as president, raising opposition alarm that the appointment heralded the start of a Chiang dynasty.
In 1979 opposition groups organised a protest rally in the southern city of Kaohsiung to mark International Human Rights Day.
The United States formally recognized the People’s Republic of China, severing official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, now under the rule of Chiang’s son, Chiang Ching-kuo. The U.S. move meant that America accepted Beijing’s “one China” mandate and abandoned its defense pact with the island. Within months, though, the U.S. Congress reinstated unofficial economic ties with Taiwan, including the sale of arms.
Democratic movements began to stir on Taiwan in 1979. A rally in the southern city of Kaohsiung turned violent and was crushed by police. The leaders were arrested and later defended by a little-known, but successful, maritime commerce lawyer named Chen Shui-bian. Chen, twenty years later, would become the first non-Nationalist party elected Taiwanese president.
During the 1980s a series of financial scandals rocked the Kuomintang government and criticism grew of Taiwan’s continued one-party rule. In 1985 Chiang opened talks with the domestic opposition and a year later Taiwan’s first opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party, was born.
1986-1999 Path to Democracy
During the 1980s the process of democratisation became increasingly brisk. The dropping of martial law in 1987 and the death of President Chiang Ching-kuo a year later opened the door to a new era of Taiwanese politics as Lee Teng-hui became the island’s first native-born president. Taiwan dropped its martial law in 1987, only a year before the death of Chiang Ching-kuo. On Chiang’s death, Vice President Lee Teng-hui became the first native islander to become president, and in 1990, the National Assembly elected him to a full six-year term.
In 1989 as pro-democracy protests swept China, Taiwan held its first elections in which parties other than the Kuomintang were allowed to stand. A year later surviving members of parliament representing provinces on the mainland were retired, ending Taipei’s claim to be the government of all China.
Taiwan’s confidence increased. It began to court diplomatic ties, offering trade and aid in return. Dialogue also developed with Beijing but moves towards Taiwan asserting its de facto independence drew angry reactions from the mainland.
Lee tried to strengthen diplomatic relations with countries around the world, including the U.S. In 1995 relations threatened to boil over when President Lee’s visit to the US and the build up to Taiwan’s first democratic presidential elections sparked a tense military stand-off. Many in Taiwan said the mainland was trying to influence voting in the election by the show of force.
The U.S. responded by sending warships to the straits, in what would become the largest show of naval force since the Vietnam War. President Clinton ordered to aircraft carrier battle groups to patrol the area. The elections went forward as planned and Lee decisively won a second term.
With President Lee re-elected by popular mandate in 1996, Taiwan’s relations with the mainland continued on a rollercoaster ride. Economic links slowly expanded but Beijing remained edgy about Taiwan acting as an independent state. Any hint that Taiwan was moving towards independence produced warnings of military intervention.
The Hong Kong handover
In 1997, as Britain prepared to return control of Hong Kong to China, Taiwan conducted live military exercises in the Straits. Experts said it was to demonstrate that Taiwan would not quietly follow the Hong Kong example. The United States began shipping fighter jets to Taiwan that year, and on the island itself the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party won municipal elections.
In 1999, President Lee announced that Taiwan enjoyed a “special state-to-state relationship” with China. This statement of implied state sovereignty angered Beijing. Taipei backed away from the position, but talks between the two leaderships were cut off.
2000-2002 Independence Dilemma
A new rift between Taiwan and China was threatened by the election to the presidency in March 2000 of Chen Shui-bian of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
But Chen, a former lawyer with a populist touch, took care not to antagonise Beijing during the election.
He promised not to declare independence so long as Beijing did not use force against Taiwan. He also pledged not to hold a referendum on independence or reunification and offered several concessions and gestures towards China, such as opening up direct trade links.
But China remained distrustful of Chen’s motives, regularly claiming his real ambition was to attain full independence for the island.
The lack of progress with China, which continued to refuse to hold talks with Chen, may have prompted him to take a harder line.
In August 2002 he made a veiled threat to hold a referendum and referred to China and Taiwan as each being a country on either side of the Taiwan Strait – “one side, one country”.
China has always seen Taiwan as a renegade province and Mr Chen’s comments were seen by some as a coded call for formal independence.
Analysts said the comments appeared to have been designed to win the support of independence activists inside the DPP. But with China hanging on his every word, Mr Chen must have known his comments would infuriate Beijing too.
A Timeline of Relations between Taiwan and China
1949 – Communist forces led by Mao Zedong defeat Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists, driving him and more than a million followers to Taiwan. Chiang sets up a government-in-exile and vows to “recover the mainland”.
1954 – The U.S. signs a mutual-defense treaty with Taiwan.
1958 – China attacks the island of Quemoy, a base for about 100,000 Nationalist troops in the Taiwan Strait, in a bid to “liberate” Taiwan. The U.S. deploys the Seventh Fleet; the Chinese back off.
1971 – Taiwan is expelled from the United Nations and its seat given to China, following a secret visit to Beijing by the then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
1972 – U.S. President Richard Nixon visits China, paving the way for the resumption of full diplomatic relations between the two nations and leading to the end of formal U.S. ties with Taiwan.
1979 – The U.S. cuts formal links with Taiwan and agrees to abide by Beijing’s “one China” policy
1987 – Taiwan lifts martial law after 38 years and allows its nationals to visit relatives in China for the first time
1988 – Lee Teng-hui becomes the island’s first native Taiwanese President, and democratic reforms begin to take hold
1989 – China fears that Taiwan will declare a formal split after the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) fares well in parliamentary and local-government polls.
1993 – The first high-level talks between China and Taiwan take place in Singapore
1995 – A visit to the U.S. by President Lee prompts China to perform missile tests and military exercises in the Taiwan Strait just before the island’s first presidential election by universal suffrage. Lee wins.
1999 – Lee infuriates Beijing by saying China and Taiwan enjoy a “special state-to-state relationship,” implying that Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation.
2000 – DPP candidate Chen Shui-bian, also a native Taiwanese, is elected President, ending more than 50 years of Kuomintang rule.
2001 – Taiwan eases restrictions on its companies wanting to invest in China. Two journalists from the mainland’s Xinhua News Agency become the first Chinese reporters to visit Taiwan under the island’s new “open door” policy
2002 – President Chen defines the status quo as “one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait,” sparking criticism from Beijing and his domestic opponents
2003 – A Taiwan airliner makes the first civilian flight to the mainland since 1949. Chen, meanwhile, announces plans for a referendum on election day on March 20, 2004, to ask voters whether the island should increase its defense budget and engage in dialogue with Beijing
2005 – Taiwanese and Chinese airlines fly the first nonstop charter flights between the two sides for the Chinese New Year.
2008- Taiwan Presidential election
Shortly after its legislative elections, Taiwan held a presidential election on March 22, 2008. Former President Chen Shui-Bian was a second-term incumbent, and thus barred from re-election. The two official candidates were the Democratic Progressive Party’s Frank Hsieh and the Kuomintang’s Ma Ying-Jeou. Ma Ying-Jeou won the election by a large margin
Today’s Scenario – May 26, 2010
A Chinese ballistic and cruise missile buildup targeting Taiwan could ultimately undermine the strategic security of other nations in Asia as well as the United States, certain reports.
China is believed to have more than 1,000 missiles trained on Taiwan. While Taiwan has an autonomous government, Beijing claims the island state as its territory and has threatened to use force should it pursue formal independence.
“Driven in large measure by a Taiwan scenario, China’s capacity to conduct a successful aerospace campaign to quickly gain a decisive advantage in the air is growing faster than the defenses that its neighbors, including Taiwan, Japan, perhaps India, and even U.S. forces operating in the Western Pacific, can field,” the Washington Times quoted the report, Evolving Aerospace Trends in the Asia-Pacific Region, as stating.
Highly accurate long-range missiles developed by Beijing “are altering the strategic landscape,” the document says, noting that such weapons include ground-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads.
Because of their speed, precision, and difficulties in fielding viable defenses, these systems — if deployed in sufficient numbers — have the potential to provide [China] with a decisive military edge in the event of conflict over territorial or sovereignty claims as per analysts Ian Easton and former Air Force Maj. Mark Stokes.
The analysts add that the buildup could prompt China’s neighbors to seek similar defense capabilities and that China’s missile-based strategy has the potential to start an arms race in long-range precision strike capabilities.
China has also begun work on a ballistic missile that could target an aircraft carrier, according to the assessment.
The nation has deployed short-range missiles to installations at Ganzhou, Jinhua, Leping, Meizhou and Yongan, and medium-range missiles to bases at Chuixiong, Chizhou, Kurle, Laiwu and Qimen, the document states.
The country has placed land-based cruise missiles at its Guiyang, Liuzhou and Yichun bases, the analysis asserts.
The report warns that over time, the same capabilities arrayed against Taiwan could be brought to bear in pursuit of other sovereignty claims around the country.
Combined with improvements to China’s air capabilities and regional monitoring systems, its missile development has “profound strategic implications for the U.S.,” according to the document. Reporters warn that given the certainty of the Asia-Pacific to U.S. global interests, China’s aerospace development certainly warrants further attention.
China is this month to carry out its largest military exercises of the year aimed at sending a ’substantial warning’ to Taiwan separatists. While a recent Pentagon report warns that China is considering further coercive moves, Beijing accuses the United States of fabricating a ‘China threat’ to continue arms sales to Taiwan. Although cross-straits relations have improved in recent months, with Beijing and Taipei seeking closer business links, muted saber rattling continues.
The China Taiwan Conflict seems to go a long way before any constructive measures are taken on both sides.
Dear Indian Civil Services Aspirants,
This Article on the Parliamentary Procedures of India will be of immense use for your preparation to the Civil Services Exams and subsequent personality test. Best wishes for your success. Go ahead:
Parliamentary procedure, often used interchangeably with “parliamentary law,” is more correctly defined as parliamentary law in combination with the rules of order that a given assembly or organization has adopted.
Parliamentary law is:
1. rules of the game of democracy.
2. rules that govern procedures by which civil and criminal laws are made and adopted.
3. rules and customs that govern deliberative and decision-making assemblies and organizations.
Principles
Parliamentary law is based upon
1. the will of the majority;
2. the right of the minority to be heard;
3. protection of the rights of absentees;
4. courtesy and justice for all; and
5. consideration of one subject at a time.
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha contain various procedural devices to enable members to raise matters of public importance on the floor of the House. By conventions and practices some other devices have also developed without having any specific sanction of the rule book.
According to the Constitution of India, the union legislative body is called the Parliament. Also called as Sansad in Hindi, the Parliament includes the President and the two Houses – the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) and the House of the People (Lok Sabha). This kind of system, with two Houses, is called a bicameral legislature.
Rajya Sabha:
The Upper House of Parliament is the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). It has a maximum of 250 members, out of which 12 members are nominated by the President for their expertise in specific fields of art, literature, science, and social services. The remaining 238 members are elected by the States and Union Territories.
Every member serves for a term of six years. At the end of two years, one third of its members retire. The Rajya Sabha is a permanent body and unlike the Lok Sabha, it cannot be dissolved at any time. Both Houses have equal legislative powers. But in the area of finance the Lok Sabha is given overriding powers. The Vice-President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. A Deputy Chairman is however elected from among its members, who take care of the day-to-day working of the House.
Lok Sabha:
The Lok Sabha (House of the People) is the Lower House of the Parliament. The members are directly elected by the people of the country. Eligible candidates are all citizens who have attained 18 years of age and are otherwise not disqualified to vote under the law. The maximum strength of the Lok Sabha can be 552 members. While up to 530 members can represent territorial constituencies in the states, up to 20 members would represent the Union Territories, and two members would be appointed by the President to represent the Anglo-Indian community if there is inadequate representation of the community. The minimum age for qualification as a member of the Lok Sabha is 25 years. Each Lok Sabha is formed for a period of five years, at the end of which the House is dissolved. The House can be dissolved before the completion of the term or it can be extended by a Proclamation of Emergency. The period of extension cannot exceed one year at a time. A Speaker and a Deputy Speaker, elected by the members of the Lok Sabha, conduct day-to-day business. The Deputy Speaker presides during the absence of the Speaker.
Government of India
The formal, constitutional head of Republic of India is the President. Once the Lok Sabha elections are over, the President invites the leader of the party or parties with the majority of votes in the Lok Sabha, to form the Government. The President appoints the leader of the majority party as the Prime Minister and on the advice of the Prime Minister appoints other ministers. The ministers can be chosen from both Houses of Parliament.
The political power is vested with the Prime Minister and his team of ministers. The Council of Ministers constitutes the Government of India and the government is headed by the Prime Minister. The Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is responsible for the governance of the country and is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha passes a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers, they are under constitutional obligation to resign. As the leader of the majority, the Prime Minister is also the Leader of the House. He has to perform certain parliamentary functions like proposing dates of calling the House in session to the Speaker and drawing up programme of the official business.
The leader of the largest party in opposition in each House is designated as the Leader of the Opposition.
Functions of Parliament
Where India is concerned, the members of the Parliament also belong to the Council of Ministers. There is an overlap of the legislative and executive functions for several members. For those members who are part of the Council of Ministers, there is an additional responsibility of the executive as compared to those who are not in the Council of Ministers.
The broad functions of Parliament can be described as follows:
1. Legislative: To pass laws
2. Supervisory: To ensure that the executive (i.e. government) performs its duties satisfactorily.
3. Representative: To represent the views and aspirations of the voters in Parliament.
4. “Power of the Purse”: To approve and oversee the revenues and expenditures proposed by the government
President’s role
The President is directly elected by an electoral college that includes elected members of both Houses of Parliament and the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States. The President performs certain constitutional functions:
1. He summons the two Houses of Parliament to meet from time to time.
2. He has the power to discontinue a session in the two Houses and dissolve the Lok Sabha.
3. The President has to agree to sign a Bill before it can become a law.
4. If the Houses are not in session, the President can enact or promulgate Ordinances having the same validity as a law passed in Parliament.
5. The President has the power to appoint Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha on an interim basis.
6. The President has the right to address either or both Houses of Parliament.
7. The President has the power to call both Houses for a joint sitting in case a dispute arises over passing a Bill. In the joint sitting, the matter is decided by majority vote.
8. He nominates 12 members of the Rajya Sabha and has the right to nominate two members from the Anglo Indian community to the Lok Sabha if they are under-represented.
9. He invites the leader of the majority party to form the Government after a new Lok Sabha is duly elected.
Special powers of Rajya Sabha
1. Rajya Sabha can declare that it would be in the national interest for the Parliament to make laws on any subject in the State List ; and
2. Rajya Sabha is empowered to make laws creating one or more All India Services, which would be common to the Union and State, if it is deemed to serve the national interest.
3. The services such as the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, and All-India Judicial Service are part of the All India Services.
Qualifications and disqualifications for being a Member of Parliament
To be qualified to become a Member of Parliament a person must be:
1. a citizen of India;
2. not less than 30 years of age in the case of the Rajya Sabha
3. not less than 25 years in the case of the Lok Sabha; and
4. a voter for any parliamentary constituency in India, (in the case of the Rajya Sabha a candidate must be registered as an elector in the State or Union Territory from where he is to be chosen).
There are, however, certain disqualifications for becoming a member. A person would be ineligible for being a member of either House of Parliament if the person:
1. holds any office of profit under the government other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;
2. is of unsound mind;
3. is an un-discharged insolvent;
4. has ceased to be a citizen of India;
5. is so disqualified by any law made by Parliament;
6. is so disqualified on the ground of defection
Besides, certain laws enumerate further disqualifications. Also a person should not have been convicted or punished, among other things,
1. for promoting enmity between different groups or convicted for the offence of bribery
2. for preaching and practising social crimes such as untouchability, dowry, sati,
If he has been punished or convicted because of the above charges, he will be disqualified from being chosen as a member. There are also disqualifications on the ground that the person is convicted for an offence and sentenced to imprisonment; and for a government servant dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State.
Definition of a Bill
The Parliament or the central legislative (or law making) body has as one of its primary functions that of making laws. Any legislative proposal can be brought before the Parliament. The draft of a legislative proposal is known as a Bill. For a Bill, whether it is introduced by the Government or a private member, to become law or Act of Parliament it should receive the approval of the President of India.
Types of the Parliamentary Bills
Broadly, there are two types of Bills:
1. Government Bills: Any Bill initiated by the government is a Government Bill.
2. Private Members’ Bills: If the Bill is sponsored by any private member (a member who is not part of the Council of Ministers is referred to as a private member) in either House of Parliament, it is known as a Private Members’ Bill.
Although most laws are made through Government Bills, the Private Members’ Bill serves the purpose of highlighting any changes needed in the existing law or the need for a particular legislation.
Bills may be further classified on the basis of their content.
1. Ordinary Bills: Any Bill which is not a Constitution Amendment Bill or a Money Bill is classified as an Ordinary Bill.
a. Original Bills (embodying new proposals, ideas or policies),
b. Amending Bills (to modify, amend or revise existing Acts),
c. Consolidating Bills (to consolidate existing law on a particular subject),
d. Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bills (to continue an expiring Act), and
e. Bills to replace Ordinances issued by the President.
2. Money and Financial Bills: Money and Financial Bills are treated separately from these Bills, because of their special features.
3. The Constitution (Amendment) Bills: These refer to Bills that seek to amend the Constitution of India
Drafting of a Parliamentary Bill
The legislative proposal or the Bill should be drafted by the concerned ministry after weighing the various political, administrative, financial, legal and constitutional implications. This is done after consultation of the other ministries or State governments. Advice is also sought from the Ministry of Law, the Attorney General of India, and other interest groups. The Ministry, then, prepares a proposal and examines it thoroughly before submitting it to the Cabinet. Once the Cabinet approves the proposal, it is given the shape of a Bill to be brought before the House.
Passage of an Ordinary Bill in Parliament
A Bill goes through three readings in both Houses before it becomes an Act.
First Reading: During the First Reading, the Bill is introduced by the minister in-charge after the Speaker grants permission to do so. The Bill is then published in the Gazette of India. If the Bill has already been published in the Gazette with the Speaker’s assent, the stage of introducing the Bill in the House can be bypassed.
Second Reading: The Second Reading is the most vital stage for the Bill because it is scrutinized thoroughly during this period. This Reading is divided in two stages.
First Stage in Second Reading:
Initially, only the principles of the Bill are discussed. There is no in-depth discussion about the details of the Bill. The Bill may be
• referred to a Select Committee of Lok Sabha,
• to a Joint Committee of the Houses with the concurrence of Rajya Sabha and/or
• It may be circulated for the purposes of eliciting opinion. These committees are appointed on a temporary basis in order to consider particular Bills referred to them.
At this time, either of the two Houses might refer the Bill to Departmentally Related Joint Standing Committee of both Houses. This Committee also considers the Bill clause by clause and its members can move amendments to various clauses. The Committee can also take evidence of experts, associations or public bodies who are interested in the subject. After each clause and schedule have been considered and adopted by the Committee, the Lok Sabha Secretariat prepares a report. This report is presented to the House for its consideration.
Eliciting Opinion:
The Parliament may pass a motion that a Bill should be circulated to elicit the opinions of local bodies, associations, individuals or institutions. In such a case, the Secretariat of the House circulates letters to all the state governments and Union Territories asking them to publish the Bill in their respective local Gazettes. The period for eliciting opinion is generally mentioned in the motion. If no mention is made, the State governments have to send the opinions within three months of adopting the motion. The opinions are then tabled in Parliament. The Bill again passes through the Committee stage. At this point, the House can debate on the Bill as reported by the Committee. The debate is confined to the Bill as reported by the Committee.
The Second Stage: After the House decides to debate the Bill as reported by the Committee, the members discuss each clause of the Bill separately. They can also amend the clauses. This is a long process where each clause and amendment is discussed, adopted or rejected by the House. If an Amendment is accepted, it becomes a part of the Bill.
Third Reading: At this stage, the Bill is discussed solely to determine whether to approve or reject it. Only certain verbal, formal and consequential amendments are allowed to be moved at this stage. In order to pass an Ordinary Bill, the simple majority of members present and voting is required.
Once the Bill has been approved by the originating House, it is sent to the other House. It goes through all the three stages again. In case a Bill is passed by the originating House but rejected by the other House, the President has the power to call a joint sitting of the two Houses. The decision to accept or reject a Bill is taken by the majority of the total number of members of both Houses present and voting.
After both Houses of Parliament passes a Bill, it is presented to the President for his assent. If the President does not agree to sign the Bill, it is rejected. However, the President generally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, so he generally does not withhold consent against the advice of the ministers. He has the right to seek information and clarification about the Bill. If the President gives his assent, the Bill becomes an Act.
Money Bill
According to the Constitution of India, a Bill is considered to be a Money Bill if it contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;
(b) the regulation of money borrowed by the Government of India or any guarantee given by the Government of India. The Bill can also consider amendment of the law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of India;
(c) the custody of the Consolidated Fund or the Contingency Fund of India , the payment of moneys into or the withdrawal of moneys from any such Fund;
(d) the appropriation of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund of India;
(e) the declaring of a new item to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Also, if there is any increase in the amount of any such expenditure;
(f) the receipt of money on account of the Consolidated Fund of India or the public account of India or the custody or the issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of the Union or of a State; or
(g) any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) (f)
Only on the recommendation of the President, the Money Bill can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha. Also, the Speaker of the House has the final authority to decide whether a Bill is a Money Bill or not. A Money Bill cannot be introduced in Rajya Sabha nor can it be referred to a Joint Committee of Houses or be considered at a Joint Sitting of the two Houses.
After being passed in the Lok Sabha, the Bill is sent to the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha may not amend Money Bills but can recommend amendments. A Money Bill should be returned to the Lok Sabha within 14 days or the Bill is deemed to have passed both Houses in the form it was originally passed by the Lok Sabha. The Lok Sabha has the discretion to accept or reject the recommended Amendments made by the Rajya Sabha. The President does not have the power to return a Money Bill for reconsideration unlike an Ordinary Bill.
Financial Bill
Any Bills relating to revenue or expenditure is a Financial Bill. Those Bills which make provisions for any of the matters specified in the Money Bills but do not contain solely those matters are known as Financial Bills. For e.g. a Bill contains taxation clause, but does not deal solely with taxation. Financial Bill also includes matters involving expenditure from the Consolidated Fund.
Differences between a Money Bill and a Financial Bill
1. All Financial Bills are not Money Bills.
2. A Financial Bill is considered to be a Money Bill solely when it contains matters specified in the Constitution for a Money Bill.
3. Only those Financial Bills would be considered as Money Bills, which are certified by the Speaker.
4. A Financial Bill, which contains any matters specified for a Money Bill but does not deal exclusively with such matters, has two features in common with a Money Bill:
5. It cannot be introduced in the Rajya Sabha
6. It cannot be introduced except on the recommendation of the President.
7. But, if the Bill is not classified as a Money Bill, the Rajya Sabha has full powers to reject or amend it as it does in the case of Ordinary Bill. In case of disagreement over a Bill between the Houses, the President can call for a joint sitting to resolve the deadlock.
8. A Financial Bill, which involves expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India, is treated in the same manner as an Ordinary Bill. Hence, it can be introduced in both the Houses and the Rajya Sabha has the full power to reject or amend it. It also does not require the recommendation of the President for its introduction. However, the President’s recommendation is necessary before the Bill can be passed by both the Houses.
Appropriation Bill
As the name suggests, the Appropriation Bill seeks to give legal authority to the Government to appropriate expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Constitution says that no money can be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund without the enactment of law by the Parliament. A Bill that incorporates all the demands for grants voted by the Lok Sabha as well as the expenditures charged on the Consolidated Fund, is introduced in the Lok Sabha. This Bill is known as the Appropriation Bill. It is passed in the same manner as any other Bills. But no amendments can be proposed to the Bill. After the Bill is passed by the Lok Sabha, the Speaker certifies it as a Money Bill. Rajya Sabha can make recommendations over the Bill but it does not have the power to amend or reject the Bill. Thereafter, the Bill is presented to the President for his assent.
Finance Bill
The Finance Bill incorporates all the financial proposals of the Government for the following year. It is ordinarily introduced in the Lok Sabha every year, immediately after the Budget is presented. Discussions on the Bill are restricted to matters relating to general administration and local grievances within the sphere of responsibility of the Union Government. No discussion is permitted on the details of particular estimates. This Bill has to be considered and passed by the Parliament and assented to by the President within 75 days after its introduction. This Bill is certified as a Money Bill. Thus, Rajya Sabha can only make recommendations to the Bill. It is up to the Lok Sabha to accept or reject such recommendations.
Bill becoming an Act
Firstly, a Bill has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Once the Bill is approved, it is sent to the President for his assent. No Bill can become an Act without the assent of the President.
Amendment of the Constitution of India
The Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution of India through a set of procedures laid down in Article 368. It is initiated by introducing a Bill in either House of the Parliament. Such a Bill may be introduced either by the government or a private member. Generally, Constitution (Amendment) Bills brought forward by a minister are introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Constitution (Amendment) Bill goes through three stages of reading before the Bill is passed. Articles of the Constitution have been classified into three categories for the purpose of amendment:
• Articles amendable by simple majority ;
• Articles, which require special majority for their amendment, i.e., by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting;
• Articles, which require a special majority as well as ratification by the legislatures of not less than one- half of the States. The Constitution does not provide for any time limit within which the States must give their consent for the ratification of a Constitution (Amendment) Bill, referred to them for this purpose.
Parliamentary privilege vs Contempt of the House
Parliamentary privilege can be defined as the set of special rights enjoyed by each House of Parliament and its Committees collectively as a constituent part of Parliament and by members of each House individually. For example: A member has immunity from any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament. When any of these rights and immunities are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law. However, the privileges have not been codified by law.
If any act obstructs either House of Parliament or its Committees from discharging their duties, it might amount to Contempt of the House. For example, offering bribes to members to influence them in their Parliamentary conduct is also a form of Contempt of Parliament.
Dear Indian Civil Services Aspirants,
This Article on the Parliamentary Procedures of India will be of immense use for your preparation to the Civil Services Exams and subsequent personality test. Best wishes for your success. Go ahead:
Question Hour in Parliament
The first hour of every sitting in both Houses of Parliament is known as the Question Hour. During Question Hour, the Members of Parliament have the right to question any administrative and governmental policy related to the national as well as the international sphere. The questions asked in both Houses of Parliament are generally addressed to the ministers. These questions can be categorised as Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions, and Short Notice Questions. A member has to give notice to the Secretary-General of the concerned House that he wants to ask a question.
Question hour in other legislatures
This sort of a process where elected representatives ask questions that are replied by the Prime Minister or other government ministers is part of parliamentary tradition in many other countries. The Question Hour in the Indian Parliament is similar to the Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, the Question Period in the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures of Canada and the Question Time in Australia and New Zealand.
Types of Parliamentary Questions:
There are three categories of questions addressed to ministers. They are:
• Starred Questions: Questions which have to be answered orally on the floor of the House, carrying an asterisk mark are called starred questions. The member is allowed to ask a supplementary question after the reply from the Minister concerned.
• Unstarred Questions: Questions answered in a written form and which do not carry the asterisk mark are called unstarred questions. After the reply has been provided, no supplementary question can be asked.
• Short Notice Questions: A minimum 10 day notice is to be given to ask a question in Parliament normally. However, if a Member seeks to ask a question urgently and cannot wait for 10 days, in such cases it is allowed to ask the question before 10 days. Such questions are called short notice questions.
Business after Question Hour
After the Question Hour, the House takes up miscellaneous items of work before proceeding to the main business of the day. These may consist of one or more of the following:-
Adjournment Motions, Questions involving breaches of Privileges, Papers to be laid on the Table, Communication of any messages from Rajya Sabha, Intimations regarding President’s assent to Bills, Calling Attention Notices, Matters under Rule 377, Presentation of Reports of Parliamentary Committee, Presentation of Petitions, – miscellaneous statements by Ministers, Motions regarding elections to Committees, Bills to be withdrawn or introduced.
Zero Hour in Parliament
Dictionaries describe a Zero Hour as “the hour at which a planned, especially military operation is timed to begin” or “a crucial moment” or a time set for the beginning of an attack’.
Zero Hour denotes the time immediately following the Question Hour in both Houses of Parliament. It starts at 12 noon. It came to be called an ‘Hour” also because very often it continued for one full hour, until the House rose for lunch at 1 p.m. However, the duration of the Zero Hour has varied over the years. It is not possible to predict what kind of matters might be raised during Zero Hour as there is no mention of any “Zero Hour” in the rules of the Parliament. It is the press who coined the term “Zero Hour” during the early 1960s, when the practice of raising urgent matters of public importance without prior notice developed. Although euphemistically called Zero Hour, it may not last for an hour; it may last for some time which may be half-an-hour or more or less. Sometimes it may also occupy full one hour or may even extend beyond an hour, depending on the number of matters which members may like to raise and the gravity and importance of such matters. It is also not necessary that there would be a Zero Hour every day during the session.
Half-an-Hour Discussion
Any matter of sufficient public importance, which has been the subject of recent questions in the Lok Sabha can be discussed during a Half-an-Hour Discussion. Usually, the discussions take place in the last half-an-hour on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. During the discussion, the member who has given notice makes a short statement and not more than four members who have intimated earlier and have secured one of the four places in the ballot are permitted to ask a question each for further elucidating any matter of fact. Thereafter, the Minister concerned replies. There is no formal motion before the House nor voting.
Discussion on Matters of Urgent Public Importance
Members may raise discussions on matters of urgent public importance with the permission of the Speaker. Such discussions may take place on two days in a week. No formal motion is moved in the House nor is there any voting on such a discussion.
Debate in the House
After the member who initiates discussion on an item of business has spoken, other members can speak on that item of business in such order as the Speaker may call upon them. Only one member can speak at a time and all speeches are directed to the Chair. A matter requiring the decision of the House is decided by means of a question put by the Speaker on a motion made by a member.
Division
A division is one of the forms in which the decision of the House is ascertained. Normally, when a motion is put to the House members for and against it indicate their opinion by saying “Aye” or “No” from their seats. The Chair goes by the voices and declares that the motion is either accepted or negatived by the House. If a member challenges the decision, the Chair orders that the lobbies be cleared. Then the division bell is rung and an entire network of bells installed in the various parts and rooms in Parliament House and Parliament House Annexe rings continuously for three and a half minutes. Members and Ministers rush to the Chamber from all sides. After the bell stops, all the doors to the Chamber are closed and nobody can enter or leave the Chamber till the division is over. Then the Chair puts the question for second time and declares whether in its opinion the “Ayes” or the “Noes”, have it. If the opinion so declared is again challenged, the Chair asks the votes to be recorded by operating the Automatic Vote Recording Equipment.
Automatic Vote Recording System
With the announcement of the Speaker for recording the votes, the Secretary- General presses the button of a key board. Then a gong sounds serving as a signal to members for casting their votes. For casting a vote each member present in the Chamber has to press a switch and then operate one of the three push buttons fixed in his seat. The push switch must be kept pressed simultaneously until the gong sounds for the second time after 10 seconds.
There are two Indicator Boards installed in the wall on either side of the Speaker’s Chair in the Chamber. Each vote cast by a member is flashed here. Immediately after the votes are cast, they are totalled mechanically and the details of the results are flashed on the Result Indicator Boards installed in the railings of the Speaker’s and Diplomatic Galleries.
Divisions are normally held with the aid of the Automatic Vote Recording Equipment. Where so directed by the Speaker in terms of relevant provision in the Rules of Procedure etc. in Lok Sabha, Divisions may be held either by distribution of ‘Aye’/'No’ and ‘Abstention’ slips to members in the House or by the members recording their votes by going into the lobbies.
There is an Indicator Board in the machine room showing the name of each member. The result of Division and vote cast by each member with the aid of Automatic Vote Recording Equipment appear on this Board also. Immediately a photograph of the Indicator Board is taken. Later the Photograph is enlarged and the names of members who voted ‘Ayes’ and for ‘Noes’ are determined with the help of the photograph and incorporated in Lok Sabha Debates.
Quorum of the Houses of Parliament
Each session of the Lok Sabha can be initiated with a quorum of 55 members (one–tenth of the total membership), including the Speaker or the person acting as such. Quorum should be ascertained at the beginning of the sitting each day, before the Speaker takes the Chair. The quorum to constitute a meeting of Rajya Sabha is one-tenth of the total number of members of the House, i.e. 25 members.
Prorogation of the House of Parliament
A prorogation means an order of the President which terminates the session of the House. The House may be prorogued any time. Usually, however, prorogation follows the adjournment of the sitting of the House without fixing a day for re-convening . The period between prorogation of the House and its reassembly in a new session is termed as ‘inter-session period’.
The President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister before exercising his powers of deferring the House. The Prime Minister, in turn, may consult the Cabinet before the advice is submitted to the President.
Ordinance
Ordinance simply put is a law made by the executive. In a democracy like India wherein the principle of separation of powers, it is the prerogative of the legislature to make laws. However if the parliament is not in session and when such extra-ordinary unforeseen and emergent circumstances exist wherein the legislation can’t wait, then the President is empowered under the article 123 to legislate by promulgating ordinances. Ordinances carry the full force of a law similar to one made by the legislature which also implies that it has similar limitations like ordinary laws i.e an ordinance is null and void if it violates fundamental rights etc. POTO (Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance) which later became POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) when the Parliament approved it in a joint sitting, was an example of an Ordinance. The President can issue Ordinances if he is satisfied that conditions exist that render it necessary to take immediate action. However, he cannot do so if both Houses of Parliament are in session. He may issue an Ordinance to enforce the provisions of a Bill pending before a House or to enforce the provisions of a Bill already passed by one House but not yet passed by the other House. An Ordinance may also be introduced on an entirely new matter to be replaced subsequently by a Bill. An Ordinance promulgated by the President has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. The Ordinance ceases to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament have to approve the Ordinance within that period. If it is not approved by one of the Houses, the Ordinance expires. The President can also withdraw it at any time.
‘Calling’
Every member (with prior consent of the Speaker) has the right to call the attention of a minister on any matter of urgent public importance. This concept is unique to India. ‘Calling Attention’ allows a member to highlight failure or inadequate action of Government on any important matter of public importance. This is similar to an adjournment motion without its censure aspect. The minister is allowed to make a brief statement or request a later date for making a statement.
Motion
In the Parliament, a member may introduce a motion in the form of a proposal. Thus, a Motion is a proposal for eliciting decision or expressing the opinion of the House on a matter of public importance. Every question to be decided by the House must be proposed as ‘Motion’. The consent of the Speaker or the Chairman is also essential to initiate a motion.
All motions, notice of which is received in the Lok Sabha Secretariat under the rules, shall be classified under the following categories, namely:–
1. Substantive Motions
2. Substitute Motions and
3. Subsidiary Motions, which are further divided into three classes:–
a. Ancillary Motions,
b. Superseding Motions, and
c. Amendments.
A Motion passes through four stages:
(i) Moving the Motion, (ii) Proposing the question by the Speaker/Chairperson, (iii) Debate or discussion where permissible, and (iv) Vote or decision of the House.
Government motions generally aim at obtaining approval of the House for some policy or action of the government. But motions moved by private members focus on eliciting opinion of the House on a particular matter.
The rules governing these motions shall be as follows:– Substantive Motions- A substantive motion is a self-contained independent proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House, e.g., all resolutions are substantive motions.
Substitute Motions – Motions moved in substitution of the original motion for taking into consideration a policy or situation or statement or any other matter are called substitute motions. Such motions, though drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing an opinion by themselves, are not strictly speaking substantive motions inasmuch as they depend upon the original motion.
Subsidiary Motions- They depend upon or relate to other motions or follow upon some proceedings in the House. They by themselves have no meaning and are not capable of stating the decision of the House without reference to the original motion or proceedings of the House. Subsidiary motions are further divided into:–
(a) Ancillary Motions -They are motions which are recognized by the practice of the House as the regular way of proceeding with various kinds of business. The following are the example of ancillary motions, namely:–
(i) That the Bill be taken into consideration.
(ii) That the Bill be passed.
(b) Superseding Motions.-They are motions which, though independent in form, are moved in the course of debate on another question and seek to supersede that question. In that class fall all the dilatory motions. The following motions are superseding motions in relation to the motion for taking into consideration a Bill:–
(i) That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee.
(ii) That the Bill be re-committed to a Joint Committee of the Houses.
(iii) That the Bill be re-circulated for eliciting further opinion thereon.
(iv) That consideration of the Bill or the debate on the Bill be adjourned sine die or to some future date.
(c) Amendments – They are subsidiary motions which interpose a new process of question and decision between the main question and its decision. Amendments may be to the clause of a Bill, to a resolution or to a motion, or to an amendment to a clause of a Bill, resolution or motion.
How is a motion moved in the Parliament
The Speaker calls the member concerned to move the motion and make a speech on the allotted day. Thereafter, the Speaker places the motion before the House. The members who have given prior notice initiate amendments and substitute motions and the discussion follows. At the conclusion of the discussion, the amendments/ substitute motions are put to the vote of the House and disposed of.
Adjournment Motion
In Parliamentary parlance, ‘adjournment’ means a break or termination of the debate on a Motion/Resolution/Bill in the House. Adjournment of the House terminates the sitting of the House. It may also signify a brief break during a sitting of the House. Adjournment sine-die means termination of the sitting without any definite date being fixed for its next sitting.
‘No-day-yet-named motion’
If the Speaker admits notice of a motion but no date is fixed for its introduction, then it is called a ‘No-day-yet-named motion’. These are placed before the Business Advisory Committee, which selects the motions for discussion in the House and also allots time for the same. The government motions get precedence over the private members’ motions, as ‘No-day-yet-named motions’ are discussed in government time.
Motion of confidence and a motion of no-confidence
The changing political composition of the Parliament has led to a new procedure known as the Motion of Confidence in the Council of Ministers. This practice has evolved in recent times whenever no single political party is in a position to command the majority of the House. The procedure followed is as follows: a one line motion under Rule 184 “that this House expresses its confidence in the Council of Ministers” is moved by the Prime Minister on the direction of the President.
The Council of Ministers remains in office as long as they enjoy the confidence of the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha expresses a lack of confidence in the Council of Ministers, the Government is constitutionally bound to resign. In order to ascertain the confidence, the rules provide for moving a motion to this effect, which is called a No-confidence motion. A motion of No-confidence, once admitted, has to be taken up within 10 days of the leave being granted. Rajya Sabha is not empowered to entertain a motion of No-confidence.
Censure Motion
A Censure Motion is a specific type of a No-confidence Motion. While a motion of no-confidence need not specify any grounds on which it is based, a censure motion must reveal the grounds on which it is based. This type of motion is moved for the specific purpose of censuring the government for certain policies and actions. Censure motion can be moved against the Council of Ministers or an individual minister for the failure to act or not to act or for their policy, and may express regret, indignation or surprise of the House at the failure of the minister.
Resolution in the Parliament
A Resolution is a procedural means or a Substantive Motion to initiate a discussion on any matters of general public interest. It might record either approval or disapproval by the House for an act or policy of the government or convey a message, or commend, urge or request an action, or call attention to a matter or situation for consideration by the government, or in such other forms as the Speaker may consider appropriate.
Similarly, in the Rajya Sabha resolutions may be in the form of declaration of opinion by the House or in such other forms as the Chairperson considers appropriate Resolutions may be classified as private members’ resolutions, government resolutions and statutory resolutions. The last two and a half hours of a sitting every alternate Friday are allotted for the discussion on the private members’ resolutions.
Government resolutions are initiated by ministers to seek the approval of the House for international treaties, conventions or agreements to which the government is a party. Statutory resolutions may be moved either by a minister or by a private member. Such resolutions are always tabled in pursuance of a provision in the Constitution or an Act of Parliament.
Difference between a motion and a resolution
All Resolutions fall in the category of Substantive Motions. But all motions need not necessarily be substantive. Further, all motions are not necessarily put to vote of the House, whereas all the resolutions are required to be voted upon.
Budget
A Budget is an “annual financial statement” or an estimate of receipts and expenditure of the Government of India. It is presented for the ensuing financial year, which at present begins on the 1 st of April every year in such form as the Finance Minister may, after considering the suggestions, if any, of the Estimates Committee, settle. There shall be no discussion of the Budget on the day on which it is presented to the House.
Demands for Grants
The Budget includes the estimated inflows and outflows of the Government for three years. It gives the actual expenditure for the preceding year, the revised estimates for the current year and the budget estimates for the next year. A separate demand shall ordinarily be made in respect of the grant proposed for each Ministry, provided that the Finance Minister may include in one demand grants proposed for two or more Ministries or Departments or make a demand in respect of expenditure which cannot readily be classified under particular Ministries. Each demand shall contain first a statement of the total grant proposed and then a statement of the detailed estimate under each grant divided into items.
The Pre-Budget Economic Survey is prepared by the Finance Ministry. The survey studies the overall economic development in the country. It mainly focuses on areas like banking and capital markets, prices, industry, agriculture and infrastructure. Other topics include trends in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), demand and supply factors, fiscal developments to name a few.
Preparation and Presentation of the general Budget in India
The overall responsibility of preparing the budget rests with the Budget Division within the Finance Ministry. The division takes cognizance of the availability of funds as well as the proposals from the numerous departments and ministries. It also consults the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The budget, however, needs the final approval of the Prime Minister before it can be presented in the Lok Sabha. The President decides on which day the budget is to be presented. By convention, it is presented on the last day of February.
Budget presentation in Parliament
The Budget is presented in two parts:
• Railway Budget , pertaining to Railway finance; and
• General Budget, which gives an overall picture of the financial position of the Government of India, excluding the Railways.
The Railway Budget and the General Budget are presented in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance, respectively. The speech announcing the General Budget is divided into two parts:
Part A: dealing with the general economic survey of the country; and
Part B: containing the taxation proposals for the ensuing financial year.
Following the budget presentation, the annual financial statement relating to the Government of India (duly authenticated by the Finance Minister) is laid on the table. Also, the Finance Bill is introduced at this time.
Vote on Account
If the Budget is not approved by 1st April or the current financial year, the Indian Constitution allows the Lok Sabha to grant a Vote-on-Account. Generally, the passage of the budget crosses the beginning of the financial year and it becomes necessary for the government to have enough funds to run the administration of the country. Thus, Vote on Account is a special provision, which empowers the Lok Sabha to make any grant in advance for a part of any financial year, pending the completion of the budgetary process.
Normally, the Vote on Account is granted for two months for a sum equivalent to one-sixth of the estimated expenditure for the entire year under the various demands for grants. During an election year, the Vote on Account may exceed that time. This provision is invoked once the general discussion on the Budget is over and before the discussion on demands for grants is taken up. In case of Railway Budget, which is passed before 31st March, no Vote on Account is needed, except during an election year.
A motion for vote on account shall state the total sum required and the various amounts needed for each Ministry, Department or item of expenditure which compose that sum shall be stated in a schedule appended to the motion.
Amendments may be moved for the reduction of the whole grant or for the reduction or omission of the items whereof the grant is composed.
Discussion of a general character may be allowed on the motion or any amendments moved thereto, but the details of the grant shall not be discussed further than is necessary to develop the general points.
In other respects, a motion for vote on account shall be dealt with in the same way as if it were a demand for grant
Approval of the Budget in the Parliament
The procedure for approving the Budget in the Parliament involves many steps:
(a) Presentation of the Budget: The Finance Minister introduces the Budget in the Lok Sabha, in February, with a speech giving an overview of the budget. A copy of the Budget is laid on the table of the Rajya Sabha at the conclusion of the Finance Minister’s speech in the Lok Sabha. There is no discussion of the Budget on the day in which it is presented.
(b) Discussion on the Budget: The Parliament allots some time for discussion after the presentation. The Budget is discussed in two stages – the ‘General Discussion’ followed by a detailed “discussion and voting on the demands for grants”. Besides, there are other opportunities for further discussions on financial proposals during consideration and passing of Appropriation Bill and Finance Bill. The Rajya Sabha is restricted to discussing the budget in general terms.
(c) Voting on Demands: After the prescribed period of debate is over, the Speaker uses his power to stop all discussions and put all outstanding demands for grants to vote. This power is known as “Guillotine”. Voting on demands is the exclusive preserve of the Lok Sabha. Demands for grants are subjected to Cut Motions by the members of the Lok Sabha.
(d) Appropriation Bill: The Bill is introduced after all demands for grants are passed by the Lok Sabha. The Bill paves the way for the enactment of Appropriation Act and is certified as a money Bill. It allows the government to withdraw money from the Consolidated Fund of India.
(e) Finance Bill: This Bill includes all taxation proposals including any amendments and paves the way for enacting the Finance Act.
Demands for Grants with regard to the Budget
Demands for Grants can be defined as requests made by the Executive to the Lok Sabha for the authority to spend the amount asked for. Thus, they are related to the expenditure part of the Budget. The demands have to be made in the form of motions. Members may disapprove a policy pursued by the Ministry or suggest measures for economy in the administration or focus attention of the Ministry to specific local grievances. Members can do so by moving subsidiary motions, called Cut Motions.
Cut Motion
A cut Motion is a veto power given to the members of the Lok Sabha to oppose the demand of Financial Bill discussed by the Government. This can be effective tool to check the strength of the Government. If a cut motion is adopted by the House and the Government doesn’t have the write numbers, it is obliged to resign.
A motion may be moved to reduce the amount of a demand in any of the following ways:-
(a) ‘that the amount of the demand be reduced to Re.1/-’ representing disapproval of the policy underlying the demand. Such a motion shall be known as ‘Disapproval of Policy Cut’.
a. A member giving notice of such a motion shall indicate in precise terms the particulars of the policy which he proposes to discuss.
b. The discussion shall be confined to the specific point or points mentioned in the notice and it shall be open to members to advocate an alternative policy;
(b) ‘that the amount of the demand be reduced by a specified amount’ representing the economy that can be effected.
a. Such specified amount may be either a lump sum reduction in the demand or omission or reduction of an item in the demand. T
b. The motion shall be known as ‘Economy Cut’.
c. The notice shall indicate briefly and precisely the particular matter on which discussion is sought to be raised and speeches shall be confined to the discussion as to how economy can be effected;
(c) ‘that the amount of the demand be reduced by Rs.100/-’ in order to ventilate a specific grievance which is within the sphere of the responsibility of the Government of India.
a. Such a motion shall be known as ‘Token Cut’ and
b. The discussion thereon shall be confined to the particular grievance specified in the motion.
Admissibility of cut motions
In order that notice of motion for reduction of the amount of demand may be admissible, it shall satisfy the following conditions, namely:-
1. it shall relate to one demand only;
2. it shall be clearly expressed and shall not contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions, imputations, epithets or defamatory statements;
3. it shall be confined to one specific matter which shall be stated in precise terms;
4. it shall not reflect on the character or conduct of any person whose conduct can only be challenged on a substantive motion;
5. it shall not make suggestions for the amendment or repeal of existing laws;
6. it shall not refer to a matter which is not primarily the concern of the Government of India;
7. it shall not relate to expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India;
8. it shall not relate to a matter which is under adjudication by a court of law having jurisdiction in any part of India;
9. it shall not raise a question of privilege.
10. It shall not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session and on which a decision has been taken;
11. it shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration in the same session;
12. it shall not ordinarily seek to raise a discussion on a matter pending before any statutory tribunal or statutory authority performing any judicial or quasi-judicial functions or any commission or court of enquiry appointed to enquire into, or investigate any matter:
13. The Speaker may in his discretion allow such matter being raised in the House as is concerned with the procedure or stage of enquiry, if he is satisfied that it is not likely to prejudice the consideration of such matter by the statutory tribunal, statutory authority, commission or court of enquiry; and
14. It shall not relate to a trivial matter.
The Labour Party won the 2005 UK general election with 35.3% of the popular British vote. The Conservative Party was just a few points behind with 32.3% of the votes, but because of the first past the post voting system, the Labour Party had a significant majority with 356 parliamentary seats (MPs) compared to 198 seats for The Conservative Party.
2010 Elections
The United Kingdom general election, 2010 was held on Thursday 6 May 2010 to elect members to the House of Commons. The election took place in 649 constituencies across the United Kingdom under the first-past-the-post system.
None of the parties achieved the 326 seats needed for an overall majority. The Conservative Party led by David Cameron won the largest number of votes and seats, with the biggest swing since 1931. This resulted in a hung parliament where no party would be able to command a majority in the House of Commons. The last time this occurred was in the February 1974 election, and only twice since the Second World War.
On May 6, 2010, British voters delivered to the House of Commons a hung Parliament—the first time a single party had not achieved a majority since the February 1974 election. At 65 percent, turnout was up 4 percent over 2005, when Tony Blair had led his Labour Party to its third successive majority. In 2010, however, Blair was not a candidate, having turned over the reins of government to Gordon Brown, his longtime chancellor of the Exchequer. Sagging poll numbers for Labour and a resurgent Conservative Party under the youthful David Cameron brought the assumption that the Conservatives would cruise to a parliamentary majority for the first time since 1997.
The election also brought some other surprises. The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland won its first seat ever in the House of Commons, ousting Democratic Unionist Party leader Peter Robinson. The Green Party also won its first seat, capturing the seat of Brighton Pavilion along the southern coast. And, surprisingly, though there was a strong swing away from Labour in much of the country, the Labour share of the vote held up rather well in Scotland and Wales.
Clegg indicated that the Conservatives, as the largest party, should have the right to attempt to form a government, but, with no party securing a majority and with most parties unlikely coalition partners for the Conservatives, it remained unclear who would become prime minister. Negotiations between Cameron and Clegg began in earnest on May 7, and on May 10 Brown announced his intention to resign as leader of the Labour Party. The following day Brown announced his resignation as prime minister and as leader of the Labour Party, and Cameron subsequently became prime minister.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government—Britain’s first since World War II—with Clegg taking the post of deputy prime minister. Conservatives William Hague (foreign secretary) and George Osborne (chancellor of the Exchequer) were among the leading cabinet appointments. Several Liberal Democrats, including Chris Huhne (secretary of state for energy and climate change), also took cabinet posts. As part of the power-sharing agreement, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems agreed to set out a plan for deficit reduction in an emergency budget to be presented within 50 days of taking office. They also agreed to a fixed five-year Parliament that called for the next election to be held on the first Thursday in May in 2015, though dissolution of Parliament and a subsequent election could come earlier through the vote of 55 percent or more of the House of Commons. The coalition partnership called for a referendum on alternative vote, whereby voters indicate a first and second preference, with the second preference being counted only if no candidate receives a majority—which fell short of the Lib Dems’ goal of full proportional representation.
Coalition talks began immediately between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and lasted for five days, although there was a brief attempt to put together a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition in the middle. On 11 May 2010 Gordon Brown announced his resignation as Prime Minister, marking the end of 13 years of Labour government. This was accepted by Queen Elizabeth II, who then invited David Cameron to form a government and become Prime Minister. Just after midnight on 12 May, the Liberal Democrats emerged from a meeting of their Parliamentary party and Federal Executive to announce that the coalition deal had been “approved overwhelmingly”, sealing a stable coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
There were quite a few ‘first-time incidents’ during this election. None of the three main party leaders had previously led a general election campaign, which hadn’t happened since the 1979 election. During the campaign, the three main party leaders engaged in a series of televised debates, the first time ever in a British election. The Liberal Democrats, achieved a breakthrough in opinion polls after the first debate in which their leader Nick Clegg was widely seen as the strongest performer. However, on polling day their share of the vote increased by only 1%, and they suffered a net loss of five seats. However, this was the Liberal Democrats’ largest popular vote since the party’s creation, and they found themselves in a pivotal role in the formation of the new government.
The share of votes for a party other than Labour or the Conservatives was 35% and was the largest since the 1918 general election. The Green Party of England and Wales won its first ever seat in the Commons, and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland gained its first representation since 1974.
Talking about the next elections, Kenneth Clarke, the shadow business secretary and former Chancellor, speaking at a Westminster lunch after the elections, said he would rather the Labour Party won the next general election than it result in a hung parliament, with all the uncertainty and chaos that would mean. He believes that, in the middle of an acute national crisis, a hung parliament would be one of the biggest disasters England could suffer. According to him, that would be a bigger danger than a Labour victory.
The British electorate has had a knack over the decades of delivering just that; but a weekend opinion poll putting the Tories only seven points ahead of Labour is the latest indication that the country may be heading for the first election in a generation to deliver neither of the two main parties an overall parliamentary majority.
There have been false alarms before. In 1992, it was widely assumed there would be a hung parliament but the Tories under John Major won a majority of 21 and the largest popular vote in history.
In February 1974, Edward Heath went to the country in a “who governs” election after a battle with the miners, and lost. The Tories had 297 seats and Labour 301. However, the Conservatives had a majority, so Heath tried to soldier on by doing a deal with the Liberals, who had 14 seats. Even that would not have been enough for a majority but the Tories could have stayed in office with the votes of the Ulster Unionists.
The negotiations foundered, Heath resigned and Harold Wilson decided to govern without a majority for six months before calling another election, which Labour won outright but only just. By 1977, Labour’s slender majority had gone, so James Callaghan, by then prime minister, entered a pact with the Liberals to keep the government going without a formal coalition.
In other words, the system muddled through. Labour remained in office for almost the duration of its five-year term before being defeated in a vote of confidence in 1979. A party without a majority, according to some, is not necessarily the disaster that Clarke fears. Indeed, far from being something the country could well do without in times of crisis, coalition government is precisely the option that has historically been chosen to see the country through – as in two world wars and the Depression of the 1930s.
But things might be different this time.
First of all, comes the issue of the size of the electoral mountain that the Tories must scale to secure a parliamentary majority. They need to win an extra 117 seats and require a swing in their favour greater than Thatcher achieved in 1979 to do so. And that is to get a majority of a single seat. Were the outcome of the election to be anything like the figures in the weekend Ipsos-Mori poll, the Tories would be well short of the 326 seats they need (currently they have 193).
This, then, is the nightmare scenario; and it is intensified by the greater diversity of British politics compared with 1974. Then, there were only 37 MPs from other parties apart from the big two. At the last election, there were 92. Anthony King, professor of government at Essex University, says that U.K will be in untrodden territory because they have multi-party Westminster politics in a way they had never had before. The sheer arithmetical probability of a stalemate is greater than at any time in the last 100 years.
Because large parts of the country are no longer winnable for the Tories, including Scotland and much of Wales, it is perfectly possible that the Conservatives could end up as the largest party in a hung parliament but be well short of a majority.
Under the UK constitution, the party able to command the confidence of Parliament is invited to form the government. That does not necessarily mean the party with the most seats or votes. Even if he lost power, Gordon Brown would remain Prime Minister until he resigned. He might try to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats by offering their leaders key Cabinet positions in exchange for support to get his legislation through. This would be massively unpopular in the country and could well split the Lib Dems. At the weekend, Nick Clegg gave a clear indication that he would not be interested in propping up a Labour government that had fewer seats in parliament than the Tories.
Clegg believes that the party which has the strongest mandate from the British people will have the first right to seek to govern,
But a deal with the Conservatives could also split the Liberals, as happened in the early 1920s and 1931. And it might not be as simple as that, anyway. If David Cameron is so short of a majority that it is not feasible to continue as a minority administration, hoping to wade through to another general election that the Tories could win, if he to try to forge a coalition, he would be asked to pass a Bill to introduce proportional representation, a long-standing Lib Dem demand. The price would be far too high, since it would mean there would never be a majority Tory government again.
This is where the Queen is drawn into what could become a constitutional quagmire. There is no need for a hung parliament to become a crisis – provided the politicians can reach some sort of agreement among themselves. Prof King, the author of a new book on the British constitution, says that the Queen must ardently hope that such a situation does not arise. She and her advisers would be prudent to work out what to do well in advance and how to keep well out of it.
The British constitution is a collection of conventions and precedents, some of which are written down and some of which are not. There is a Whitehall “Precedents Book” that would be consulted by senior mandarins; but the problem is that there are no precedents, or certainly none in modern times.
As well as relying upon the advice of her private secretary, the Queen would also take private soundings among constitutional experts. In the 1970s, Robert Blake, the historian, was said to be the favoured counsellor; today, it is likely to be Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford University. Whoever it is would have to pick their way very carefully through a political minefield, trying to keep the Monarch out of making any decision that could be seen as parti pris in any way.
The Queen has a number of advantages here: principally, the experience and integrity that would enable her to deal with such circumstances without damaging the monarchy. However, the rule of thumb would be to keep her well out of it and hope the politicians could sort out a deal. If they did not, there would have to be another election – and the party that forced it would likely be punished at the polls.
None of this need happen. Even if there were a hung parliament, the Tories as the largest party would almost certainly try to carry on as a minority government (as the SNP has done in Scotland) until such time that they lost a key vote and David Cameron asked for another election, which the Queen would grant.
In order to stay in office, such a government would probably do very little to frighten the horses. There might even be a period of less government and better administration, which would benefit, rather than harm, the country. It might even do something to restore the primacy of parliament in our national life, since the executive would no longer be able to govern without winning the argument.
Much would depend on what the outside world made of the failure of the British to maintain something they have almost always managed to achieve: strong government. If there were a run on the pound and a collapse of international confidence in the British economy, then a crisis could occur.
Just the sort of crisis, indeed, that in the past warranted the formation of governments of national unity.
The results of the 2010 election results are provided in the table.
Party
Seats
% Vote
Conservatives
306
36.1
Labour
258
29.0
Liberal Democrats
57
23.0
DUP
8
0.6
SNP
6
1.7
Sinn Féin
5
0.6
Plaid Cymru
3
0.6
SDLP
3
0.4
Greens
1
1.0
Alliance Party
1
0.1
Others
1
6.9
May 11, 2010
Gordon Brown announces that he will tender his resignation as prime minister to Queen Elizabeth II and will ask her to invite David Cameron to form a government. Cameron subsequently becomes prime minister of the United Kingdom—the youngest leader of the country since 1812. Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats becomes deputy prime minister.
The political party and term of office of each British prime minister are provided in the table.
Prime ministers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom
Name
party
term
Robert Walpole
(from 1725, Sir Robert Walpole; from 1742, earl of Orford)
Whig
1721–42
Spencer Compton,
earl of Wilmington
Whig
1742–43
Henry Pelham
Whig
1743–54
Thomas Pelham-Holles,
1st duke of Newcastle (1st time)
Whig
1754–56
William Cavendish,
4th duke of Devonshire
Whig
1756–57
Thomas Pelham-Holles,
1st duke of Newcastle (2nd time)
Whig
1757–62
John Stuart,
3rd earl of Bute
1762–63
George Grenville
1763–65
Charles Watson Wentworth,
2nd marquess of Rockingham (1st time)
Whig
1765–66
William Pitt,
1st earl of Chatham
1766–68
Augustus Henry Fitzroy,
3rd duke of Grafton
1768–70
Frederick North,
Lord North (from 1790, 2nd earl of Guilford)
1770–82
Charles Watson Wentworth,
2nd marquess of Rockingham (2nd time)
Whig
1782
William Petty-Fitzmaurice,
2nd earl of Shelburne (from 1784, 1st marquess of Lansdowne)
1782–83
William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck,
3rd duke of Portland (1st time)
Whig
1783
William Pitt, the Younger
(1st time)
Tory
1783–1801
Henry Addington
(from 1805, 1st Viscount Sidmouth)
Tory
1801–04
William Pitt, the Younger
(2nd time)
Tory
1804–06
William Wyndham Grenville,
1st Baron Grenville
1806–07
William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck,
3rd duke of Portland (2nd time)
Whig
1807–09
Spencer Perceval
Tory
1809–12
Robert Banks Jenkinson,
2nd earl of Liverpool
Tory
1812–27
George Canning
Tory
1827
Frederick John Robinson,
1st Viscount Goderich (from 1833, 1st earl of Ripon)
Tory
1827–28
Arthur Wellesley,
1st duke of Wellington (1st time)
Tory
1828–30
Charles Grey,
2nd Earl Grey
Whig
1830–34
William Lamb,
2nd Viscount Melbourne (1st time)
Whig
1834
Arthur Wellesley,
1st duke of Wellington (2nd time)
Tory
1834
Sir Robert Peel,
2nd Baronet (1st time)
Tory
1834–35
William Lamb,
2nd Viscount Melbourne (2nd time)
Whig
1835–41
Sir Robert Peel,
2nd Baronet (2nd time)
Conservative
1841–46
John Russell,
Lord Russell (from 1861, 1st Earl Russell) (1st time)
Whig-Liberal
1846–52
Edward Geoffrey Stanley,
14th earl of Derby (1st time)
Conservative
1852
George Hamilton-Gordon
4th earl of Aberdeen
1852–55
Henry John Temple,
3rd Viscount Palmerston (1st time)
Liberal
1855–58
Edward Geoffrey Stanley,
14th earl of Derby (2nd time)
Conservative
1858–59
Henry John Temple,
3rd Viscount Palmerston (2nd time)
Liberal
1859–65
John Russell,
1st Earl Russell (2nd time)
Liberal
1865–66
Edward Geoffrey Stanley,
14th earl of Derby (3rd time)
Conservative
1866–68
Benjamin Disraeli
(1st time)
Conservative
1868
William Ewart Gladstone
(1st time)
Liberal
1868–74
Benjamin Disraeli,
(from 1876, earl of Beaconsfield) (2ndtime)
Conservative
1874–80
William Ewart Gladstone
(2nd time)
Liberal
1880–85
Robert Cecil,
3rd marquess of Salisbury (1st time)
Conservative
1885–86
William Ewart Gladstone
(3rd time)
Liberal
1886
Robert Cecil,
3rd marquess of Salisbury (2nd time)
Conservative
1886–92
William Ewart Gladstone
(4th time)
Liberal
1892–94
Archibald Philip Primrose,
5th earl of Rosebery
Liberal
1894–95
Robert Cecil,
3rd marquess of Salisbury (3rd time)
Conservative
1895–1902
Arthur James Balfour,
(from 1922, 1st earl of Balfour)
Conservative
1902–05
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman
Liberal
1905–08
H.H. Asquith,
(from 1925, 1st earl of Oxford and Asquith)
Liberal
1908–16
David Lloyd George,
(from 1945, 1st Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor)
Liberal
1916–22
Bonar Law
Conservative
1922–23
Stanley Baldwin
(1st time)
Conservative
1923–24
Ramsay Macdonald
(1st time)
Labour
1924
Stanley Baldwin
(2nd time)
Conservative
1924–29
Ramsay Macdonald
(2nd time)
Labour
1929–35
Stanley Baldwin,
(from 1937, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley) (3rd time)
Conservative
1935–37
Neville Chamberlain
Conservative
1937–40
Winston Churchill
(1st time)
Conservative
1940–45
Clement Attlee,
(from 1955, 1st Earl Attlee)
Labour
1945–51
Winston Churchill
(from 1953, Sir Winston Churchill) (2nd time)
Conservative
1951–55
Sir Anthony Eden,
(from 1961, 1st earl of Avon)
Conservative
1955–57
Harold Macmillan,
(from 1984, 1st earl of Stockton)
Conservative
1957–63
Sir Alec Douglas-Home,
(until 1963, Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, 14th earl of Home; from 1974, Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Baron Home)
Conservative
1963–64
Harold Wilson
(1st time)
Labour
1964–70
Edward Heath
Conservative
1970–74
Harold Wilson
(from 1976, Sir Harold Wilson) (2nd time)
Labour
1974–76
James Callaghan
Labour
1976–79
Margaret Thatcher
Conservative
1979–90
John Major
Conservative
1990–97
Tony Blair
Labour
1997–2007
Gordon Brown
Labour
2007–10
David Cameron
Conservative
2010–
The origin of the term prime minister and the question to whom it should originally be applied have long been issues of scholarly and political debate. Although the term was used as early as the reign of Queen Anne (1702–14), it acquired wider currency during the reign of George II (1727–60), when it began to be used as a term of reproach toward Sir Robert Walpole. The title of prime minister did not become official until 1905, to refer to the leader of a government.
