Centre to certify Shrimp farms

• Frozen shrimp is India’s largest exported seafood item.
• It constituted 50.58% in quantity and 73.2% in terms of total U.S. dollar earnings from the sector during 2019-20.
• Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Odisha, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu are the major shrimp-producing States, and around 95% of the cultured shrimp produce is exported.
• To bolster confidence in India’s frozen shrimp produce, the country’s biggest seafood export item, the Centre has kicked off a new scheme to certify hatcheries and farms that adopt good aquaculture practices.
• India exported frozen shrimp worth almost $5 billion in 2019-20 to the U.S. and China — its biggest buyers.
• But a combination of factors had hurt export volumes in recent months, including container shortages and incidents of seafood consignments being rejected because of food safety concerns.

Shapari Scheme

• The Marine Products Exports Development Authority (MPEDA) has developed a certification scheme for aquaculture products called Shaphari, a Sanksrit word that means the superior quality of fishery products suitable for human consumption.
• We already have a National Residue Control Programme for food safety issues in farm produce and pre-harvest testing system in place, but this certification was proposed as a market-based tool for hatcheries to adopt good aquaculture practices and help produce quality antibiotic-free shrimp products to assure global consumers.
• “Overall, certified aquaculture products will help exporters to export their consignments to markets under stringent food safety regulations without the fear of getting rejected,” the official explained.
• The Shaphari scheme is based on the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization’s technical guidelines on aquaculture certification and will have two components — certifying hatcheries for the quality of their seeds and, separately, approving shrimp farms that adopt the requisite good practices.
• The certification of hatcheries will help farmers easily identify good quality seed producers.
• Those who successfully clear multiple audits of their operations shall be granted a certificate for a period of two years.
• “The entire certification process will be online to minimise human errors and ensure higher credibility and transparency,” the official said, adding that the guidelines for certification of farms are under preparation in consultation with stakeholders.

Judicial Appointments

Context:

CJI Sharad A. Bobde had recommended Justice Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana, the seniormost judge of the Supreme Court, for appointment as the 48th Chief Justice of India.

About NV Ramana:

• Student leader working for farmers and industrial workers to journalist for a leading Telugu newspaper to a first-generation lawyer.
• He was Additional Advocate General for Andhra Pradesh before being called to the State High Court Bench in 2001.
• Justice Ramana was the Delhi High Court Chief Justice prior to his elevation to the apex court. As CJI, Justice Ramana has a tenure of 16 months.
• Responsible for making India’s legal aid programme the largest in the world wherein legal aid is not only provided on the basis of ‘means test’ rather on basis of fixed categories.
• Justice Ramana has said one of his primary objectives, besides providing easy access to justice, would be to improve the judicial infrastructure through a special purpose vehicle called the ‘National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation’ to act as a nodal agency.

For CJI Appointment:

• The President of India appoints the CJI and the other SC judges.
• As far as the CJI is concerned, the outgoing CJI recommends his successor.
• In practice, it has been strictly by seniority ever since the supersession controversy of the 1970s.

For SC Judges:

• For other judges of the SC, the proposal is initiated by the CJI.
• The CJI consults the rest of the Collegium members, as well as the senior-most judge of the court hailing from the High Court to which the recommended person belongs.
• The consulters must record their opinions in writing and it should form part of the file.
• The Collegium sends the recommendation to the Law Minister, who forwards it to the Prime Minister to advise the President.

For Chief Justice of High Courts:

The Chief Justice of High Court is appointed as per the policy of having Chief Justices from outside the respective States.

The Collegium takes the call on the elevation.

High Court judges are recommended by a Collegium comprising the CJI and two senior-most judges.

The proposal, however, is initiated by the outgoing Chief Justice of the High Court concerned in consultation with two senior-most colleagues.

The recommendation is sent to the Chief Minister, who advises the Governor to send the proposal to the Union Law Minister.

Collegium System :

Why in News

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) questioned the government about the delay in clearing Collegium recommendations for judicial appointments to various High Courts (HC).

Collegium System: It is the system of appointment and transfer of judges that has evolved through judgments of the SC, and not by an Act of Parliament or by a provision of the Constitution.

Evolution of the System:

First Judges Case (1981):

• It declared that the “primacy” of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)s recommendation on judicial appointments and transfers can be refused for “cogent reasons.”
• The ruling gave the Executive primacy over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years.

Second Judges Case (1993):

• SC introduced the Collegium system, holding that “consultation” really meant “concurrence”.
• It added that it was not the CJI’s individual opinion, but an institutional opinion formed in consultation with the two senior-most judges in the SC.

Third Judges Case (1998):

• SC on President’s reference expanded the Collegium to a five-member body, comprising the CJI and four of his senior-most colleagues.
• The SC collegium is headed by the CJI and comprises four other senior most judges of the court.
• A HC collegium is led by its Chief Justice and four other senior most judges of that court.
• Names recommended for appointment by a HC collegium reaches the government only after approval by the CJI and the SC collegium.
• Judges of the higher judiciary are appointed only through the collegium system and the government has a role only after names have been decided by the collegium.
• The government’s role is limited to getting an inquiry conducted by the Intelligence Bureau (MHA) if a lawyer is to be elevated as a judge in a High Court or the Supreme Court.
• It can also raise objections and seek clarifications regarding the collegium’s choices, but if the collegium reiterates the same names, the government is bound, under Constitution Bench judgments, to appoint them as judges.

Criticism of the Collegium System:

• Opaqueness and a lack of transparency.
• Scope for nepotism.
• Embroilment in public controversies.
• Overlooks several talented junior judges and advocates.
• Attempts to reform the Appointment System:
• The attempt made to replace it by a ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission was struck down by the court in 2015 on the ground that it posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.

Some Constitutional Provisions related to appointing of Judges

• Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution provides that the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President after consultation with such a number of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose.
• Article 217 of the Indian Constitution states that the Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Way Forward

It is time to think of a permanent, independent body to institutionalize the process with adequate safeguards to preserve the judiciary’s independence guaranteeing judicial primacy but not judicial exclusivity.

It should ensure independence, reflect diversity, demonstrate professional competence and integrity.

Instead of selecting the number of judges required against a certain number of vacancies, the collegium must provide a panel of possible names to the President to appoint in order of preference and other valid criteria.

British Era Lighthouses of Odisha

The Ministry wants to develop them as hubs of tourism under the Sagarmala project.

• The British-era False Point lighthouse, a 129-ft massive minaret-like structure of red-white bands with a huge embossed star, is visible from quite a distance from the Bay of Bengal. Its location close to massive mangrove vegetation infested with crocodiles makes it an adventurous tourist place on the eastern coast.
• Barely 40 km away, the Paradip lighthouse is another imposing structure. It also holds tourism potential because of its proximity to the port town and Cuttack and Bhubaneswar cities (100 km). It was commissioned in the 1980s.
• Another century-old one is Gopalpur in the Ganjam district. The 150-year-old tower used to assist ships sailing between Rangoon and the coromandel coast ports and is already a tourist place. Chilika Lake and the Gopalpur beach will be added attractions if it is developed as a place of tourist interest.
• The Chandrabhaga lighthouse, 10 km from the world-famous Konark temple, offers a breathtaking view of the sea and its height enables tourists to get a panoramic view of the town. It had withstood the severity of cyclones such as the Super Cyclone (1999), Phailin (2013) and Fani (2019).
• The Puri lighthouse, four km from the 12th-century Shree Jagannath Temple, is also a tourist place. Situated on the golden beach of Puri, it is 65 km from the Biju Patnaik International Airport, Bhubaneswar, and eight km from the Puri railway station.

Union Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways seeks to develop 65 lighthouses in public-private-partnership mode.

People are Free to Choose Religion: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to the Centre to ban black magic, superstition, and deceitful religious conversion.

About the case in the SC

• A petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking to control black magic, superstition & mass religious conversion of SC/STs. The petition also mentions the religious conversions through intimidation, threats & gifts.
• The plea argued that such forceful religious conversions by use of black magic are common throughout the country.
• These incidents are against Articles 14 (right to equality), 21(right to life), and 25 (right to religious freedom). Also, they are against the principles of secularism(part of the basic structure of the Constitution).
• The plea also said that the Centre and States obligated under Article 46 to protect the SC/ST community from social injustice and other forms of exploitation.
• The petitioner also referred to the 1977 Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others case.
  • In this case, the Supreme Court Constitution bench explained the “word ‘propagate’ used in Article (25).
  • The court held that it means transmitting or spreading information from person to person or from place to place.
  • Further, the court also held that the Article does not grant the right to convert another person to one’s own religion.

Supreme Court’s Observation

• The Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition. It observed that there is no reason why a person above 18 can’t choose his religion.
• The Court observed that the fundamental right under Article 25 provides people to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. It is subject to public order, morality and health.
• Further, the court said that the Religious faith is a part of the fundamental right to privacy. Hence, every person is the final judge of their own choice of religion. Courts cannot sit in the judgment of a person’s choice of religion or life partner.
• In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India(2017), the Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Right to Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty. Thus, it comes under Article 21 of the Indian constitution

Tech developed for Improved Lithium-ion Battery Performance

Researchers from IIT Guwahati have developed a technique to improve the performance of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, which power most of the portable devices used today.

New Technology

• The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was jointly awarded to Stanley Whittingham, John Goodenough and Akira Yoshino for work that led to the development of lithium-ion batteries.
• These batteries are used in most mobile phones, smartphones, tablets, laptops and power banks, among other devices.
• Today, most Electrical Vehicles (EV) use Li-ion batteries as well, but are slowly reaching their theoretical limits of being able to provide roughly up to 300-watt hour per kilogram of energy.
• These batteries can also be used to store solar and wind power, which means that with their widespread use it may even be possible to live in a fuel free society.

Disadvantages

• Li-ion batteries are susceptible to overheating and are prone to damage at high voltages since they are made with flammable and combustible materials.
• Such batteries also start losing their capacity over time

Alternatives to Li-ion batteries

• In January 2020, researchers from Australia claimed that they developed the world’s most efficient lithium-sulfur (Li-S) battery, capable of powering a smartphone for five continuous days
• Li-S batteries are generally considered the successors of Li-ion batteries because of their lower cost of production, energy efficiency and improved safety.
• Their cost of production is lower because sulfur is abundantly available.

Li ion battery - AspireIAS- Click to Read More

Afghanistan crisis for UPSC

Part of: GS Prelims and GS-II- IR

Historical Background

The Saur Revolution had taken place in Afghanistan in 1978 which installed a communist party in power. Nur Muhammad Taraki became the head of the state replacing the previous president Daoud Khan. Taraki’s government introduced many modernisation reforms that were considered too radical and left them unpopular, especially in the rural areas and with the traditional power structures. The communist government also had a policy of brutally suppressing all opposition. Even unarmed civilians opposing the government were not spared. This led to the rise of various anti-government armed groups in the country. The government itself was divided and Taraki was killed by a rival, Hafizullah Amin, who became the president. The Soviet Union, which at that time, wanted a communist ally in the country, decided to intervene.

The Soviet army was deployed on 24^th December 1979 in Kabul. They staged a coup and killed Amin, installing Babrak Karmal as the president. Karmal was a Soviet ally. This intervention was seen as an invasion by the USA and other western nations. While the Soviet army had control of the cities and towns, the insurgency groups called the Mujahideen had the rural parts of Afghanistan under their control. A bitter war was fought between both groups. The Soviet Union, which had planned to stay in for 6 months to a year in Afghanistan found itself stuck in a war that was proving to be too costly.

The Mujahideen did not relent in their pursuit to ‘drive out’ the Soviets. They had the support of many countries like the USA, Pakistan, China, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They were given assistance like arms and training needed to fight the Soviets. The soviets followed a policy of wiping out the rural regions in order to defeat the Mujahideen. Millions of land mines were planted and important irrigation systems were destroyed. As a result, millions of Afghan refugees took refuge in Pakistan and Iran. Some came to India as well. It is estimated that in the Soviet-Afghan war, about 20 lakh Afghan civilians were killed.

In 1987, after the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, he announced that his government would start withdrawing troops. The final soviet troops were withdrawn on 15 February 1989. Now, the government of Afghanistan was left alone to fight the Mujahideen. Finally, they succeeded in taking control of Kabul in 1992. Again, the Mujahideen had different factions within and they could not agree on power sharing. The country collapsed into a bloody civil war.

The Taliban

In 1994, a group of fundamentalist students wrought control of the city of Kandahar and started a campaign to seize power in the country. They were called the Taliban. Many of them were trained in Pakistan when they were in refugee camps. By 1998, almost entire Afghanistan was under the control of the Taliban. Many of the Mujahideen warlords fled to the north of the country and joined the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taliban. This time, Russia lent support to the Northern Alliance, though they were fighting against them earlier. The Taliban ruled the country under a strict interpretation of the Sharia law and much of the progress with regard to women and education that the country had seen earlier, was reversed. Girls were forbidden from attending schools and women were banned from working. The Taliban-ruled country also became a safe haven for international terrorists. Only Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia recognised the Taliban government.

In 2001, a US-led coalition defeated the Taliban and established another government in place. However, Afghanistan still sees resistance from the Taliban in certain pockets.

The US fighting a war in Afghanistan and why has it lasted so long?

1. On 11 September 2001, attacks in America killed nearly 3,000 people. Osama Bin Laden, the head of Islamist terror group al-Qaeda, was quickly identified as the man responsible.
2. The Taliban, radical Islamists who ran Afghanistan and protected Bin Laden, refused to hand him over. So, a month after 9/11, the US launched air strikes against Afghanistan.
3. As other countries joined the war (ISAF), the Taliban were quickly removed from power. But they didn't just disappear - their influence grew back and they dug in.
4. Since then, the US and its allies have struggled to stop Afghanistan's government from collapsing and to end deadly attacks by the Taliban.
5. The mission, he said, was "to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime".
6. The first targets were military sites belonging to the hardline Taliban group that ruled the country. Training camps for al-Qaeda, the terror group run by 9/11 plotter Osama Bin Laden, were also hit.
7. But 18 years on, it's hard to argue the US mission has been fulfilled - the Taliban may play a part in ruling Afghanistan again if peace talks do eventually succeed.

The Taliban first took control of the capital Kabul in 1996 and ruled most of the country within two years. They followed a radical form of Islam and enforced punishments like public executions. Within two months of the US and its international and Afghan allies launching their attacks, the Taliban regime collapsed and its fighters melted away into Pakistan.

A new US-backed government took over in 2004, but the Taliban still had a lot of support in areas around the Pakistani border and made hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the drug trade, mining and taxes. As the Taliban carried out more and more suicide attacks, international forces working with Afghan troops struggled to counter the threat the re-energised group posed.

In 2014, at the end of what was the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since 2001, Nato's international forces - wary of staying in Afghanistan indefinitely - ended their combat mission, leaving it to the Afghan army to fight the Taliban. But that gave the Taliban momentum, as they seized territory and detonated bombs against the government and civilian targets. In 2018, the Taliban was openly active across 70% of Afghanistan.

Where did the Taliban come from?

• Afghanistan had been in a state of almost constant war for 20 years even before the US invaded.
• In 1979, a year after a coup, the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan to support its communist government. It fought a resistance movement - known as the mujahideen - that was supported by the US, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia, among other countries.
• In 1989, Soviet troops withdrew but the civil war continued. In the chaos that followed, the Taliban (which means "students" in the Pashto language) sprang up.
• They first rose to prominence in the border area of northern Pakistan and southwest Afghanistan in 1994. They promised to fight corruption and improve security and, at that time, many Afghans were tired of the excesses and infighting of the mujahideen during the civil war.
• It's thought the Taliban first appeared in religious schools, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia, which preached a hardline form of Islam.
• They enforced their own austere version of Sharia, or Islamic law, and introduced brutal punishments. Men were made to grow beards and women had to wear the all-covering burka.
• The Taliban banned television, music and cinema and disapproved of girls' education.
• And because the Taliban gave shelter to militants from the al-Qaeda group, it made them an immediate target for an attack by US, Afghan and international forces in the wake of 9/11.

Why has the war lasted so long?

• There are many reasons for this. But they include a combination of fierce Taliban resistance, the limitations of Afghan forces and governance, and other countries' reluctance to keep their troops for longer in Afghanistan.
• At times over the past 18 years, the Taliban have been on the back foot. In late 2009, US President Barack Obama announced a troop "surge" that saw the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan top 100,000.
• The surge helped drive the Taliban out of parts of southern Afghanistan, but it was never destined to last for years.
• As a result, the Taliban were able to regroup. When international forces withdrew from fighting, Afghan forces left to lead the charge were easily overwhelmed. To make matters worse, Afghanistan's government, which is full of tribal division, is often hamstrung.

5 Main reasons why war is still going on:

• a lack of political clarity since the invasion began, and questions about the effectiveness of the US strategy over the past 18 years;
• the fact each side is trying to break what has become a stalemate - and that the Taliban have been trying to maximise their leverage during peace negotiations
• an increase in violence by Islamic State militants in Afghanistan - they've been behind some of the bloodiest attacks recently
• There's also the role played by Afghanistan's neighbour, Pakistan.
• There's no question the Taliban have their roots in Pakistan, and that they were able to regroup there during the US invasion. But Pakistan has denied helping or protecting them - even as the US demanded it does more to fight militants.

How has the Taliban managed to stay so strong?

The group could be making as much as $1.5bn (£1.2bn) a year, a huge increase even within the past decade. Some of this is through drugs - Afghanistan is the world's largest opium producer, and most opium poppies - used for heroin - are grown in Taliban-held areas.

But the Taliban also make money by taxing people who travel through their territory, and through businesses like telecommunications, electricity and minerals.

Foreign countries, including Pakistan and Iran, have denied funding them, but private citizens from the region are thought to have done so.

The figures for Afghan civilians are more difficult to quantify. A UN report in February 2019 said more than 32,000 civilians had died. The Watson Institute at Brown University says 42,000 opposition fighters have died. The same institute says conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan have cost the US $5.9 trillion since 2001. The US is still conducting air strikes against the Taliban, instigated by the third president to oversee the war, Donald Trump. But he is keen to reduce troop numbers before he faces another election in November 2020. The Taliban now control much more territory than they did when international troops left Afghanistan in 2014. Many in Washington and elsewhere fear that a full US troop pull-out would leave a vacuum that could be filled by militant groups seeking to plot attacks in the West. The Afghan people, meanwhile, continue to bear the brunt of the long and bloody conflict.

What do the Taliban and the United States want?

The negotiations appear to be focused on four elements:

• Withdrawal of Foreign Forces: Both sides agree on the full withdrawal of the fourteen thousand U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, as well as of additional foreign forces, but they disagree on the timeline. The United States is reportedly offering a two-and-a-half-year deadline, while the Taliban insists on nine months.
• Counterterrorism Assurances: The Taliban has agreed to prevent Afghanistan from being used by terrorist groups, but negotiators disagree over how to define the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist.”
• Intra-Afghan Dialogue: Washington has urged Afghan government and Taliban leaders to begin official talks on how Afghanistan will be governed after the war, but the Taliban refuses to negotiate with the government until after it has reached a deal with the United States.
• Comprehensive Cease-fire: U.S. negotiators seek a permanent cease-fire among U.S., Taliban, and Afghan government forces prior to a peace deal, but the Taliban insists on putting off a cease-fire until U.S. troops have withdrawn.

Reasons for India to be part of the reconciliation process with the Taliban:

• Regional Stability: Security and Stability are foundations upon which development can be built on. A peaceful neighbourhood and trouble-free regional climate will provide space for the regimes to focus more on development as threats of violence by the Taliban in the region will be minimized.
• Counter China and Pakistan's vested interests: India should play a considerable role through the Quadrilateral group plus 2 talks to thwart the efforts of china to place puppet regimes which can play according to their own vested interests. This can be counterproductive for India's aspirations and concerns.
• Connectivity with Central Asia: India's trade with Central Asia and reaping benefits from the enhanced connectivity will be largely dependent on Afghanistan's domestic environment. A peaceful and cooperative Afghanistan will be a key pin in India's central Asia policy. The latest trilateral transit agreement between India. Iran and Afghanistan are significant steps in this direction.
• TAPI for Energy security: Violence-free Afghanistan is a desideratum for finishing the project of TAPI and sustaining the benefits from it through energy supplies from Turkmenistan.
• Gateway to "Link west" policy: Afghanistan will act as a gateway to India's increasing rigour on its west Asia policy.
• Minerals of Afghanistan: The cost of access to minerals will be minimum and helpful in expanding the production of Indian Industries.

US- Taliban Deal

Recently, the U.S. signed a deal (at Qatar's capital-Doha) with the Taliban that could pave the way towards a full withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Afghanistan over the next 14 months and represent a step toward ending the 18-year-war in Afghanistan. Along with this, a separate joint declaration was also signed between the Afghan government and the US in Kabul.

The peace deal is expected to kick off two processes- a phased withdrawal of US troops and an ‘intra-Afghan’ dialogue. The deal is a fundamental step to delivering a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire and the future political roadmap for Afghanistan's peace process and the Central region.

Background of the Deal

• On 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks in America killed nearly 3,000 people. Osama Bin Laden, the head of Islamist terror group al-Qaeda, was quickly identified as the man responsible.
• The Taliban, radical Islamists who ran Afghanistan at that time, protected Bin Laden, refused to hand him over. So, a month after 9/11, the US launched airstrikes against Afghanistan.
• The US was joined by an international coalition and the Taliban were quickly removed from power. However, they turned into an insurgent force and continued deadly attacks, destabilising subsequent Afghan governments.
• Since then, the US is fighting a war against the Taliban.
• Donald Trump’s 2017 policy on Afghanistan, was based on breaking the military stalemate in Afghanistan by authorising an additional 5,000 soldiers, giving US forces a freer hand to go after the Taliban, putting Pakistan on notice, and strengthening Afghan capabilities.
• However, the US realised that the Taliban insurgency could not be defeated as long as it enjoyed safe havens and secure sanctuaries in Pakistan, the US changed track and sought Pakistan’s help to get the Taliban to the negotiating table.
• The negotiations began in September 2018 with the appointment of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to initiate direct talks with the Taliban. After nine rounds of US-Taliban talks in Qatar, the two sides seemed close to an agreement.

Salient Features of the Deal

• Troops Withdrawal: The US will draw down to 8,600 troops in 135 days and the NATO or coalition troop numbers will also be brought down, proportionately and simultaneously. And all troops will be out within 14 months.
• Taliban Commitment: The main counter-terrorism commitment by the Taliban is that the Taliban will not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qaeda, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.
• Sanctions Removal: UN sanctions on Taliban leaders to be removed within three months and US sanctions by August 27. The sanctions will be out before much progress is expected in the intra-Afghan dialogue.
• Prisoner Release: The US-Taliban pact says up to 5,000 imprisoned Taliban and up to 1,000 prisoners from “the other side” held by Taliban “will be released” by March 10.

Challenges in the Deal

• One-Sided Deal: The fundamental issue with the U.S.’s Taliban engagement is that it deliberately excluded the Afghan government because the Taliban do not see the government as legitimate rulers. Also, there is no reference to the Constitution, rule of law, democracy and elections in the deal.
  • Taliban is known for strict religious laws, banishing women from public life, shutting down schools and unleashing systemic discrimination on religious and ethnic minorities, and has not made any promises on whether it would respect civil liberties or accept the Afghan Constitution.
  • Therefore, the Shariat-based system (political system based on fundamental Islamic values) with the existing constitution is not easy.
• Issues with Intra-Afgan Dialogue:
  • President Ashraf Ghani faces a political crisis following claims of fraud in his recent re-election.
  • The political tussle is between Ashraf Ghani (who belongs to the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan- the Pashtun) and Abdullah Abdullah (whose base is among his fellow Tajiks, the second largest group in Afghanistan).
  • If there are any concessions made by Mr Ghani’s government to the Taliban (predominantly Pashtun) will likely be interpreted by Mr Abdullah’s supporters as an intra-Pashtun deal reached at the cost of other ethnic groups, especially the Tajiks and the Uzbeks.
  • Consequently, these ethnic fissures may descend into open conflict and can start the next round of civil war.
• Thus, the lifting of the US military footprint and the return of a unilateral Taliban could set the stage for the next round of civil war that has hobbled the nation since the late 1970s.
• Problem with Prisoner's Swap: The US-Taliban agreement and the joint declaration differ:
  
  • The US-Taliban pact says up to 5,000 imprisoned Taliban and up to 1,000 prisoners from “the other side” held by Taliban “will be released” by March 10.
  • However, the joint declaration lays down no numbers or deadlines for the prisoner's swap. Afghanistan President held that there is no commitment to releasing 5,000 prisoners. He also held that such prisoners' swap is not in the authority of the US, but in the authority of the Afghan government.
• Also, the Taliban is fragmented or divided internally. It is composed of various regional and tribal groups acting semi-autonomously.
  • Therefore, it is possible that some of them may continue to engage in assaults on government troops and even American forces during the withdrawal process.
  • It is unclear if there is a date for the complete withdrawal of US troops or for concluding the intra-Afghan dialogue, or how long the truce will hold.

Impact of the Deal on Other Stakeholders

• US: The promise to end America’s “endless wars” in the greater Middle East region was one of the central themes of US President Donald Trump’s election campaign in 2016. This deal may demonstrate progress on that front in his bid for re-election later this year.
  
  • Although, the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as a state under the name of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (key demand of the Taliban), many experts are of the view that this deal is a little more than a dressed-up U.S. surrender that will ultimately see the Taliban return to power.
• Pakistan: The deal provides the strategic advantage to Pakistan, who is a long-time benefactor of the Taliban.
• China: After the launch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Pakistan is seen as more of a protectorate state of China. Thus, China may leverage Pakistan's influence on the Taliban, to propel its strategic projects like the Belt and Road Initiative.

Impact of this Deal on India

This deal alters the balance of power in favour of the Taliban, which will have strategic, security and political implications for India. The deal may jeopardise the key stakes of India in Afghanistan:

• India has a major stake in the stability of Afghanistan. India has invested considerable resources in Afghanistan's development.
• India has a major stake in the continuation of the current Afghanistan government in power, which it considers a strategic asset vis-à-vis Pakistan.
  
  • An increased political and military role for the Taliban and the expansion of its territorial control should be of great concern to India since the Taliban is widely believed to be a protégé of Islamabad.
• As Afghanistan is the gateway to Central Asia, the deal might dampen India’s interest in Central Asia.
• Withdrawal of US troops could result in the breeding of the fertile ground for various anti-India terrorist outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Way Forward

An independent, sovereign, democratic, pluralistic and inclusive Afghanistan is crucial for peace and stability in the region. In order to ensure this:

• The Afghan peace process should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled.
• Also, there is a need for the global community to fight against the global concern of terrorism. In this context, it high time to adopt the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (proposed by India at UN in 1996).

Though the deal is a good step, the road ahead would not be easy. Achieving lasting peace in Afghanistan will require patience and compromise among all parties.

India - Afghanistan: Heart of Asia Conference

• Calling for a “double peace” both inside Afghanistan and in the region, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said India supports the Intra-Afghan Negotiations (IAN), in a rare direct reference to the Taliban at the 9th Heart of Asia conference in Tajikistan.
• Mr. Jaishankar attended the meet along with Foreign Ministers of 15 countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Central Asian states.
• “India has been supportive of all the efforts being made to accelerate the dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban, including intra-Afghan negotiations,” the Minister said and referred to his participation in the inaugural virtual session of the Doha talks in September 2020.

‘Engage in good faith’

• “If the peace process is to be successful, then it is necessary to ensure that the negotiating parties continue to engage in good faith, with a serious commitment towards reaching a political solution,” he added. India has not in the past referred directly to the Taliban, and the government has not opened any public engagement with the militant group.
• Mr. Jaishankar said India views the escalation in violence against civilians in and the “continued involvement of foreign fighters” in Afghanistan with “grave concern” and pushed for Heart of Asia members to ensure a permanent ceasefire.
• Speaking at the same conference, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said Pakistan “fears that any space gained by ISIS and Al-Qaeda could accentuate the threat of terrorism,” and cautioned against the role of “spoilers”, both “within and outside Afghanistan”.
• In a departure from the recent past, however, Mr. Jaishankar and Mr. Qureshi were present for each other’s speeches during the conference, unlike previous boycotts by the two sides at a number of conferences since 2019.
• However, despite speculation over an ongoing India-Pakistan peace process and a back-channel dialogue, Mr. Jaishankar and Mr. Qureshi did not make any public contact during the day-long conference, and were seen avoiding eye contact during the joint photo opportunity they both participated in.
• Speaking at the conference in Dushanbe, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani, who spoke to both foreign ministers in separate meetings, thanked neighbouring countries for their support.
• He also lauded a number of regional connectivity initiatives including India’s air corridor programme and Chabahar port project, as well as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline.

Russia calls for an inclusive solution for Afghanistan peace talks

• A solution to the Afghan civil war should balance the ethnic and religious groups of Afghanistan and no group should be left out of the final settlement, said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov here on Tuesday after holding bilateral discussions with his Indian counterpart Dr. S. Jaishankar.
• Mr. Lavrov said India and Russia were working for stability and connectivity in the region, and urged that “military alliances” should not come up in Asia.

‘Part of Afghan society’

• “The Taliban movement is a part of Afghan society. Decision on the settlement in Afghanistan should foresee the participation of all political, ethnic and religious groups in the country. Otherwise, the solution will not be stable. This decision has to be based on balance of ethnic, political and religious interests, including in the legislative bodies,” Mr. Lavrov said.
• “Any exclusion of any group from this process will not lead to an implementable and sustainable agreement which can lead to resumption of hostilities, which is not the desire of the stakeholders,” he said in response to a question after both the Ministers issued press statements.
• Dr. Jaishankar said there is a need to “harmonise” the interests of various stakeholders that are active in and around Afghanistan.
• “For India, what happens in Afghanistan impacts our security directly. I shared our approach that for a durable peace there would require harmonising the interest of all — both within and around that country,” Mr. Jaishankar said. “The peace process should be based on foundational principles to which we all subscribe and a political solution should mean independent, sovereign, united and democratic Afghanistan,” he added.

Missile defence system

• Apart from the Afghan situation, the major issue on the agenda for Tuesday’s talks was expected to be the delivery of the Russian S400 missile defence system and the threat of U.S. sanctions that the delivery could attract.
• However, the Ministers said the “specific” issue did not come up during the discussion.
• However, Mr. Lavrov acknowledged that the U.S. exerts pressure on any country that wants to sign military and industrial contracts with Russia.