UPSC Key—14th December, 2023: New Delhi declaration, Net borrowing ceiling for states and Global Stocktake

2 men jump from visitors’ gallery in Lok Sabha, open smoke cans, cause panic

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies III: Challenges to internal security through communication networks, role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges,

Key Points to Ponder:

• What’s the ongoing story-In a major security breach Wednesday, hours after leaders and lawmakers led the nation in paying tribute to those who died in the line of duty this day in 2001 during the terror attack on Parliament House, two men jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the visitors’ gallery, raised slogans and opened canisters that emitted yellow smoke, triggering panic among those present and raising questions of what if.

• December 13, 2001 and December 13, 2023-what happened on these days?

• Parliament security breach-What happened exactly?

• For Your Information-The two persons who entered the Lok Sabha chamber on Wednesday (December 13) and opened canisters that emitted yellow smoke were carrying authorisation passes by BJP MP Pratap Simha.
According to PTI, Manoranjan D, one of the accused, introduced co-accused Sagar Sharma as a friend to the MP’s office and got passes issued to them on the pretext of watching the new Parliament. Manoranjan D had been pursuing Simha and his office for the pass for over three months, reported PTI.

• Who is Pratap Simha?

• What is the process of issuing visitor passes for Parliament?

• How are visitor passes to Parliament issued?

• Is the MP supposed to know the applicant personally, or bear any sort of responsibility for his conduct?

• What helped two men dodge layers of security inside Parliament House?

• Do You Know- Fewer security staff, reduced height of the visitors’ gallery from the House floor in the new Parliament building, an increase in the number of visitors of late, and shoes not being checked — these are among factors that contributed to Wednesday’s Lok Sabha security breach, officials in the Parliament Security Services and Delhi Police told The Indian Express.
It is also learnt that the Delhi Police security wing had conducted a meeting to review security arrangements in and around Parliament. This was after Khalistan separatist leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, on December 6, threatened to attack Parliament “on or before December 13”.
A senior police officer confirmed that a meeting was conducted and discussions were held to increase deployment, but said it was not connected to Pannun’s threat. Over the past month, Delhi Police has increased deployment from 250 personnel to 300.
According to sources in Delhi Police, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D reached the visitors’ gallery shortly before 1 pm. The gallery — there are six in total — is located above where the MPs sit, and the front-most row is roughly 10-and-a-half feet above them.
This height is less than what it used to be in the earlier Parliament House which, officials said, enabled the men to jump. “There’s no significant barrier or wall to stop such a thing from happening,” an officer said.
Afterwards, in a meeting of the Lok Sabha Speaker and different floor leaders, a suggestion was made to install glass in front of the visitors’ galleries.
A personnel of the Parliament Security Services — it includes the CRPF and Delhi Police – told The Indian Express that they have been receiving “hundreds of visitors every day”, especially since the new Parliament was inaugurated, while the staff strength is limited.
Sources said 301 security officers are usually deployed inside Parliament, but on Wednesday, 176 were present.
“We have students and people coming in buses… We have to check the pass and ID of each one,” an officer said.
Another officer said the two men had hidden colour smoke canisters inside their shoes, which aren’t typically checked.
“We have scanners and metal detectors. There’s also frisking done at all points. However, we don’t usually check shoes… Prima facie, the smoke bombs appear to be made of plastic, so the machines didn’t pick them up,” an officer said, adding that the fact that the two men came on an MP’s recommendation also helped them get through the layers of security.

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Parliament security breach: Who is BJP MP Pratap Simha, who recommended visitor passes for the accused; how they are issued

📍Back in 1994, two other incidents of jumping into Lok Sabha: what happened then?

For first time, nations strike deal to move away from fossil fuels

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: General issues on Environmental ecology, Bio-diversity and Climate Change

Mains Examination: General Studies III: Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment.

Key Points to Ponder:

• What’s the ongoing story-Countries at COP28 meeting in Dubai struck a new climate deal on Wednesday that included a mention of a transition away from fossil fuels for the first time and operationalised a loss and damage fund that is meant to provide financial help to developing countries in recovering from climate disasters.

• The COP28 climate meeting delivered some important outcomes-What are those?

• What is the global stocktake?

• What was agreed at COP28 regarding global stocktake?

• “COP28 disappointed on that front”—on which aspect was COP28 a big disappointment?

• For Your Information-COP28 was being seen as possibly the last opportunity to ensure that the world had some hopes of keeping within the 1.5 degree Celsius warming threshold. The main agenda at COP28 was to carry out a Global Stocktake (GST), a comprehensive assessment of where the world was in its fight against climate change and what more needed to be done to meet the climate objectives. The GST is mandated by the Paris Agreement to be a periodic exercise, the first one in 2023 and every five years thereafter.
COP28 was being held at a time when global warming was breaking new records. The year 2023 is already confirmed to emerge as the hottest year ever. Several months this year set new temperature records. More than 80 days this year happened to be at least 1.5 degree Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times.
At the same time, every assessment showed that the world was not doing enough, and that the 1.5 degree target was rapidly slipping out of hand. COP28, therefore, was expected to use the GST to stimulate more ambitious climate actions, particularly between now and 2030.
However, COP28 disappointed on that front. There was little in the final agreement to accelerate climate action in the short term.
Fossil fuel phase-out: This was the most hotly contested issue at COP28, and the reason for a prolonged deadlock. The role of fossil fuels in causing global warming had never been even acknowledged in any earlier COP decision, but this was getting increasingly untenable. After much deliberations, the final agreement called upon countries to contribute towards “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, “so as to achieve net zero by 2050”. There were no time schedules and no targets. Some countries were extremely disappointed that the term “fossil fuel phase-out” had not been used. But even if it was, it would have a similar effect in the absence of any timeline. Production and consumption of fossil fuels are unlikely to be curbed significantly in the near term, but it is an important, rather unavoidable, measure in the 2050 timeframe.
Tripling of Renewable Energy: This was an expected outcome, and the only one that contributes to additional emission reductions between now and 2030. The COP28 agreement calls upon countries to contribute to tripling of global installed capacity of renewable energy, and doubling of annual improvements in energy efficiency. Together, these two measures have the potential to avoid emissions of about 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between now and 2030, more than all the net result of all the other climate actions being currently taken. Tripling is a global target, and it is not incumbent on every country to individually triple its current installed capacity. It is thus not clear how this tripling would be ensured.
Phase-down of coal: Despite being a fossil fuel, just like oil or natural gas, coal has received a separate mention in the agreement. This is because coal was already singled out for phase-down in the Glasgow conference in 2021. There was a move to stipulate that no new coal fired power plants could be opened without an in-built carbon capture and storage facility, but this was strongly resisted by India, China, South Africa and other countries. It was dropped, and finally the Glasgow language was reiterated. There is nothing about how this phase-down is to be measured, or from what baseline.
Methane emission cuts: The agreement talks about “accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030”. Methane is the most widespread greenhouse gas apart from CO2, accounting for nearly 25 per cent of all emissions. It is also about 80 times more potent than CO2 in causing global warming. Methane emission reductions can therefore bring substantial benefits. But several countries, including India, are extremely opposed to any mandate to cut methane emissions, mainly because one of the major sources happens to be agriculture and livestock.
Cutting methane emissions could involve tweaking agricultural patterns which could be extremely sensitive in a country like India. Possibly in deference to the concerns of such countries, the agreement does not mention any targets for methane emission cuts for the year 2030, although a group of about 100 countries had made a voluntary commitment, in Glasgow in 2021, to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
Loss and Damage Fund: For the poor and vulnerable countries, this was the most important outcome. A decision to set up a Loss and Damage Fund had been taken last year in Sharm el-Shaikh but it had not been created, and no money had been promised. COP28 operationalised this fund on the opening day of the conference, and several countries, including hosts UAE, made funding commitments. By the end of the conference, commitments worth about US$ 800 million had been made. The money is meant to provide financial help to countries trying to recover from climate-induced disasters.
Global Goal on Adaptation: This was another important step developing countries had been waiting for. Historically, adaptation hasn’t received enough attention, or resources, as compared with mitigation activities, mainly because adaptation is largely a local endeavour. Its benefits also are mostly local.
But developing countries had been arguing that a global framework for adaptation was necessary to bring more attention to it. Accordingly, the Glasgow conference had decided to set up a two-year work programme to define the contours of this framework. The work programme resulted in the identification of some common adaptation goals, important for the entire world. These included reduction in climate-induced water scarcity, attaining climate-resilience in food and agricultural production, supplies and distribution, and resilience against climate-induced health impacts.

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍COP28: Much done, but still not enough

India shifts stand, backs UNGA resolution on ‘immediate ceasefire’

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.

Key Points to Ponder:

• What’s the ongoing story-More than two months after the Israel-Hamas war broke out, India has, for the first time, voted in favour of a draft resolution in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that demanded an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” and unconditional release of all hostages.

• Why shift in New Delhi’s position?

• What was earlier stand?

• UN General Assembly adopted the resolution at an emergency special session-Know in detail

• For Your Information-The 193-member UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the resolution at an emergency special session on Tuesday, with 153 nations voting in its favour, 10 voting against and 23 abstentions. In fact, every country in Asia voted in favour of the resolution.
Those voting against included Austria, Israel and the US, while Germany, Hungary, Italy, Ukraine and the UK were among those who abstained.
The resolution, introduced by Egypt, demanded “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire” and reiterated its “demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, notably about the protection of civilians”.
It also demanded the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access”. The resolution, however, did not name the Hamas.
Austria and the US had moved separate amendments to the draft text. The amendment tabled by Austria called for the insertion of the line “held by Hamas and other groups” after the word “hostages” in the main draft, and also called for ensuring “immediate” humanitarian access.
The amendment tabled by the US called for the insertion of a paragraph in the main draft: “unequivocally rejects and condemns the heinous terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting October 7 and the taking of hostages”.
India voted in favour of both the amendments. However, the two amendments to the draft resolution could not be adopted since they failed to get the required two-thirds majority of votes.
The Austria-introduced amendment got 89 votes in favour, 61 against and 20 abstentions; the US-proposed amendment got 84 votes in favour, 62 against and 25 abstentions.
With the UNGA adopting the resolution, India welcomed the fact that the international community was able to find “common ground” to address the multiple challenges facing the region.

• What is India’s political attitude towards Israel?

• What is India’s political attitude towards Palestine?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Explained: How has India’s policy on Israel and Palestine evolved over time?

EXPRESS NETWORK

Kerala moves SC against Govt’s cap on borrowing limit

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Economic and Social Development-Sustainable Development, Poverty, Inclusion, Demographics, Social Sector Initiatives, etc.

Mains Examination: General Studies III: Government Budgeting.

Key Points to Ponder:

• What’s the ongoing story-The Kerala government has approached the Supreme Court against the Centre imposing a ceiling on the amount it can borrow, saying this had “brought the operation of” its “budget… to a grave crisis” and was violative of the principles of fiscal federalism.

• What is the Article 131 of the constitution is all about?

• What is the net borrowing ceiling for states?

• How do states in India borrow?

• What Article 293 (3) of the Indian Constitution says?

• What is Off-budget borrowings?

• What is the limit of off-budget borrowing?

• Why is there a borrowing limit?

• Why Kerala government has approached the Supreme Court against the Centre imposing a ceiling?

• For Your Information-In an original suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Kerala said “unless the Net Borrowing Ceiling, as fixed by the Kerala Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003, based on which” its “budget… has been drawn up and approved by the Legislature is restored”, the State “is legitimately apprehensive that its treasury operations will be halted or starkly curtailed. This is a dire situation looming ahead, the immediate consequences… will be catastrophic”.
It added that “the reduction in borrowing limits will have an extremely deleterious impact and long-term economic damage to the State which will be irremediable in the short or even in the medium term. Reversing the anticipated negative financial and economic consequences of the measures imposed by the defendant may take a very long period and protracted and costly efforts”.
The plea said “Constitution bestows fiscal autonomy upon States to regulate its finances under various articles” and “States have been exercising these powers to prepare and manage their Budget, all these decades post-Independence”.
It said that “the ability to determine the borrowing of the State in order to balance the budget and make up the fiscal deficit is exclusively within the domain of the States” and added that “if the State is not able to borrow to the extent required based on” its budget, “the State would not be able to complete its State Plans for the particular financial year. Therefore, it is essential for… the State and the people of the State that the State is able to exercise its constitutional rights… and its borrowings are not impeded in any manner”.
The suit said the Finance Ministry by amendments made to Section 4 of Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003… imposed a Net Borrowing Ceiling on Kerala, thereby limiting its borrowings from all sources, including open market, further reducing the Net Borrowing Ceiling by including aspects into the “borrowing” of the State which, otherwise, are not “borrowings” as contemplated under Article 293 of the Constitution and by imposing conditions that curtail the “exclusive constitutional powers” of the State.

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Equating states’ off-budget borrowings with their debt will clarify extent of indebtedness

THE IDEAS PAGE

In custody, civil liberties

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Indian Polity and Governance-Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.

Mains Examination: General Studies II: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary-Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity.

Key Points to Ponder:

• What’s the ongoing story– Anup Surendranath , Zeba Sikora Writes: The government has in quick succession withdrawn the Criminal Law Bills and then reintroduced newer versions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS-II to replace the IPC, 1860), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS-II to replace the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill (BSB-II to replace the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

• What were the committee’s suggestions, and what has changed now?

• The use of handcuffs-what has changed?

• Mercy Petitions-what has changed?

• Preventive detention powers- what has changed?

• “One particular aspect of the BNSS will have a significant impact on civil liberties but it has barely received any attention”-Discuss

• “The expansion under the proposed BNSS heightens the risk of exposure to police excesses”-Comment

• “Many of the positive aspects of the Bills depend on fundamental transformations in our criminal justice system”-Elaborate

• “BNS II brings the definition of “terrorist act” in line with its definition under Section 15 of the UAPA, which is comparatively narrower than the scope of the offence under BNS I”-Discuss

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Revised criminal reform Bills in Parliament: What has changed, and why

ECONOMY

GPAI members back equitable AI access in New Delhi declaration

Syllabus:

Preliminary Examination: Current events of national and international importance.

Mains Examination: General Studies III: Awareness in the fields of IT, Space, Computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology and issues relating to intellectual property rights.

Key Points to Ponder:

• What’s the ongoing story-The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), an alliance of 29 member countries, has unanimously adopted the New Delhi declaration underscoring the need to mitigate risks arising from the development and deployment of AI systems, and promoting equitable access to critical resources for AI innovation including computing and high quality diverse datasets.

• The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), an alliance of 29 member countries, has unanimously adopted the New Delhi declaration-Know in detail

• What does the GPAI New Delhi declaration on AI say?

• For Your Information-“We recognise the rapid pace of improvement in advanced AI systems and their potential to generate economic growth, innovation, and jobs across various sectors as well as to benefit societies,” the declaration said.
The declaration said that a global framework for use of AI should be rooted in democratic values and human rights; safeguarding dignity and well-being; ensuring personal data protection; the protection of applicable intellectual property rights, privacy, and security; fostering innovation; and promoting trustworthy, responsible, sustainable, and human-centred use of AI.
GPAI members also promoted equitable access to critical resources for AI innovation including computing, high-quality diverse datasets, algorithms, software, testbeds, and other AI-relevant resources.
The declaration also agreed to support AI innovation in the agriculture sector as a new “thematic priority”.
It said that the GPAI will pursue a diverse membership, with a particular focus on low- and middle-income countries to ensure a broad range of expertise, national and regional views, and experiences based on shared values.
Senegal, a current member of the grouping, was elevated to the steering committee of the GPAI.
While the GPAI New Delhi declaration addresses the need to tackle AI-related risks, it largely supports innovation in the technology in various sectors, including agriculture and healthcare. The essence of the declaration can be summed up as follows: AI is inherently good and is a catalyst for economic growth, but some harms need to be mitigated along the way.
By contrast, the declaration that was signed at the UK AI Safety Summit last month put security and safety risks related to AI in the centre of the discussions. At the Bletchley Park meeting, 28 major countries including the United States, China, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and India, and the European Union agreed to sign on a declaration saying global action is needed to tackle the potential risks of AI.
The declaration noted the “potential for serious, even catastrophic, harm, either deliberate or unintentional, stemming from the most significant capabilities of these AI models”, as well as risks beyond frontier AI, including those of bias and privacy. “Frontier AI” is defined as highly capable foundation generative AI models that could possess dangerous capabilities that can pose severe risks to public safety

• How does the New Delhi declaration contrast with the Bletchley declaration?

• So, has India been changing its position on the regulation of AI?

Other Important Articles Covering the same topic:

📍Innovation or safety? How Delhi declaration found middle path between promotion and regulation of AI

For any queries and feedback, contact priya.shukla@indianexpress.com
The Indian Express UPSC Hub is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Updates.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.