COP29: Erosion of Climate Commitments and Trust

GS 3: Environment and Biodiversity: Key Takeaways from COP29

Why is it in the news?

• The COP29 meeting in Baku ended with disappointment, especially regarding climate finance. Developed countries agreed to mobilize only $300 billion annually for developing nations, a modest increase from the current $100 billion mandate.
• However, this falls significantly short of the $1 trillion estimated as necessary. Worse, this increase will only begin in 2035, far from the immediate scale-up required.
• This outcome reflects a trend of underwhelming results from annual climate conferences over the past 15 years, leaving their discussions disconnected from the temperature targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
• Despite scientific calls for a 43% reduction in global emissions by 2030 (from 2019 levels), assessments show that even in the best scenarios, emissions will reduce by just 2%.

An Unstable Multilateral System

• The ineffectiveness of the international climate framework stems from its inherent instability. Unlike most international agreements, which favour the powerful, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) disproportionately holds developed nations accountable.
• This framework, based on the “polluter pays” principle, assigns responsibility for cutting emissions and providing financial and technological support solely to developed nations. While this aligns with equity and fairness, it defies the norms of international relations, where power dynamics usually dictate rules.
• The 1997 Kyoto Protocol amplified these principles, assigning specific emission reduction targets to developed countries, further disrupting the global power structure.

Efforts to Undermine the System

• The dismantling of the climate framework began soon after the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005. Developed nations, led by the U.S., sought to erode the differentiation between developed and developing countries in climate responsibilities.
• While the U.S. played a key role in shaping Kyoto, it never ratified the agreement. Attempts to replace it with a new system began in Copenhagen in 2009 but succeeded only with the 2015 Paris Agreement.
• The Paris Agreement diluted Kyoto’s principles, making emission reductions a “nationally determined” responsibility for all countries, effectively removing the burden solely from developed nations.

Insufficient Emission Reductions

• The shift in responsibilities under the Paris Agreement has resulted in inadequate emission reductions. The European Union is expected to cut emissions by about 60% from 2019 levels by 2030, while the U.S. aims for a 45% reduction from 2019 levels, far below the equity-based expectation of 80-90%. This falls short of the global target of a 43% reduction by 2030.
• While Donald Trump is often criticized for undermining climate efforts, even under Joe Biden’s administration, the U.S. lags significantly.

Climate Finance and Responsibility Dilution

• Another critical area of erosion is climate finance. Developed countries argue that rising financial requirements and the increasing wealth of some developing nations warrant broader contributions.
• Although attempts to expand the contributor base have faced resistance, particularly from China, this issue remains central in climate finance negotiations.
• At COP29, developed nations capped their financial commitment at $300 billion, with no provisions for further increases. This reflects a broader trend of diluting financial and technological responsibilities previously assigned exclusively to developed countries.

Declining Trust in Climate Talks

• The steady dismantling of the climate framework has eroded trust among developing nations. The dilution of commitments on emissions and finance is only part of the issue; the erosion extends across multiple aspects of the climate structure.
• Despite its flaws, the UNFCCC remains a platform where small nations, such as Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, can voice concerns and access some climate funds, albeit insufficient.
• However, the effectiveness of the climate talks as a global forum to combat climate change has diminished significantly, reducing their role to one of limited utility in addressing this urgent crisis.

UNSC Resolution 1701: Basis for the Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire

GS 2: International Relations: Cessation of hostilities

Why is it in the news?

• On November 27, Israel and Lebanon agreed to a ceasefire following a 13-month conflict that intensified in September. The agreement, approved by Israel’s security cabinet and backed by the United States, was announced by US President Joe Biden, who emphasized it as a “permanent cessation of hostilities.”
• The ceasefire aims to prevent groups like Hezbollah from threatening Israel’s security. Hostilities along the UN-demarcated Blue Line, separating Israel and Lebanon, had escalated significantly during Israel’s October 2023 assault on Palestine.
• The ceasefire proposal builds on UNSC Resolution 1701 from 2006, which aimed to address similar conflicts but was never fully implemented.

About UNSC Resolution 1701

• UNSC Resolution 1701, passed on August 11, 2006, aims to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and establish a buffer zone for a permanent ceasefire. The resolution was a response to the 2006 war, during which over 1,000 Lebanese and 170 Israelis lost their lives.
• The resolution builds on earlier agreements, including the Taif Accords and UNSC Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), to ensure:

1) Disarmament: All armed groups in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, must disarm, leaving the Lebanese State as the sole authority.

2) Sovereignty: No foreign forces can operate in Lebanon without government consent.

3) Arms Control: No weapons can be supplied to Lebanon unless authorized by its government.

4) Landmine Information: Israel must provide maps of landmines it placed in Lebanon.

5) Border Security: Both parties must respect the Blue Line, with security arrangements to prevent hostilities. This includes creating a demilitarized zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River, monitored by the Lebanese authorities and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

• The resolution also authorized expanding UNIFIL to 15,000 peacekeepers to monitor hostilities, secure the area with Lebanese troops, and facilitate the return of displaced civilians.

Provisions of the Current Ceasefire Proposal

The US-backed ceasefire aligns with Resolution 1701 and sets specific measures:

• Cessation of Hostilities: A 60-day period is established to allow Hezbollah fighters to retreat 40 kilometres away from the Israel-Lebanon border.
• Israeli Withdrawal: Israeli ground forces will withdraw from Lebanese territories occupied since October 2023.
• Hezbollah Monitoring: Lebanon will rigorously monitor Hezbollah’s movements south of the Litani River to prevent regrouping. This will be overseen by UN peacekeepers, the Lebanese military, and a multinational committee.
• Israeli Conditions: Israel has vowed to resume military operations if the agreement is breached.

Conclusion

• The ceasefire proposal seeks to enforce the principles of Resolution 1701, aiming to create a more stable and secure border region.
• However, its success depends on the effective implementation of measures and the cooperation of all parties involved.

Surge in Worker Deletions from MGNREGA Job Cards

GS 2: Polity and Governance: MGNREGA

Why is it in the news?

• The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) guarantees 100 days of work annually to rural households. Job cards, which list all registered adults in a household, are essential for accessing this work.
• Deletions from these cards are governed by specific provisions under Schedule II, Paragraph 23 of the Act, and detailed guidelines in Master Circulars issued by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD).
• These guidelines allow deletions under specific circumstances: permanent migration, duplicate or forged job cards, or reclassification of a Gram Panchayat into a Municipal Corporation.
• All deletions require due process, including verification by a Programme Officer, documentation in the Management Information System (MIS), and reporting to the Gram Sabha or Ward Sabha.

Rising Deletions Linked to Aadhaar-Based Payment Systems

• The number of worker deletions saw a dramatic increase, from 1.49 crore in 2021-22 to 5.53 crore in 2022-23—a 247% rise. Over the past four years, 10.43 crore MGNREGA workers have been deleted nationwide.
• This surge coincided with the Union Government’s push to make Aadhaar-based payment systems (ABPS) mandatory. ABPS requires seeding workers’ Aadhaar numbers with their job cards, and field officials were instructed to boost compliance rates.
• Reports, including a study suggest that job cards were often deleted arbitrarily to improve ABPS compliance percentages without following due verification processes.

Sampling Analysis of Worker Deletions

• An analysis of deletions from 1,914 villages across 21 States reveals concerning trends. Of the 2.98 lakh workers deleted in the sample, 1.65 lakh were removed in 2022-23 alone, with around 30,000 deleted in the last six months.
• Official reasons for deletions often included “Duplicate Applicant” and “Non-existent in Panchayat,” but many workers deleted as “Not willing to work” had actively sought or performed work during the same financial year.

Questionable Deletion Reasons and Violations

• The reason “Not willing to work” accounted for 83% of deletions in the ongoing financial year, up from 63% in 2021-22. In several cases, workers deleted under this category had actively participated in MGNREGA.
• Furthermore, reasons like “Village becomes urban” were inconsistently applied. For example, in 153 villages of the sampled data, only some workers were deleted under this category, contrary to the Act’s mandate to delete all job cards in urbanized villages.
• These discrepancies highlight lapses in adherence to prescribed processes, with deletions often carried out without worker knowledge or Gram Sabha involvement, violating the legal right to work.

Implications

• The surge in deletions raises serious concerns, especially since official reasons claim 71% of workers are “not willing to work” despite high rural unemployment. While the government denies a link between ABPS implementation and deletions, circumstantial evidence suggests otherwise.
• Responses to RTI applications show no systematic verification of deletion reasons by the MoRD, further underscoring the arbitrariness of the process.

Recommendations

• Ensuring fairness and transparency in MGNREGA requires strict adherence to verification protocols, independent audits, regular reviews, and active involvement of Gram Sabhas.
• Training Gram Panchayats to conduct impartial inquiries, including worker representatives in decision-making panels, and strengthening grievance redress mechanisms are essential.
• Public consultations and proactive measures can safeguard the right to work and uphold MGNREGA’s mandate of social justice and employment.

Remembering the Women Who Shaped India’s Constitution

GS 2: Polity and Governance: Women contribution to constitution

Why is it in the news?

• On Constitution Day (November 26), President Droupadi Murmu acknowledged the pivotal role played by women in drafting the Indian Constitution. The Constituent Assembly, tasked with formulating the Constitution of independent India, had 299 members, including 15 women.
• Among them were notable figures such as Sarojini Naidu, Sucheta Kripalani, and Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit. However, lesser-known women, coming from diverse backgrounds, also significantly contributed to debates on gender, caste, and reservations.

Ammu Swaminathan (1894-1978)

• Ammu Swaminathan, hailing from Palakkad, Kerala, became actively involved in politics after her marriage at a young age. Witnessing the oppression of widows, particularly her mother, she opposed the societal restrictions imposed on them.
• Swaminathan contested the Central Legislative Assembly elections in 1945 on a Congress ticket and later became a member of the Constituent Assembly.
• She made notable contributions during discussions on the Hindu Code Bill, advocating for gender equality. Post-independence, she was elected to the Lok Sabha from Dindigul, Tamil Nadu.

Annie Mascarene (1902-1963)

• Born in Trivandrum in a Latin Christian family, Annie Mascarene faced the challenges of her social status as a member of a lower caste. Despite these barriers, she pursued law and became an advocate for universal adult franchise.
• Mascarene actively campaigned for equal voting rights, even while facing political opposition. She joined the Congress party and, as part of the Constituent Assembly, advocated for a strong central government while ensuring the autonomy of local governments.
• She contested as an independent candidate in 1952 and won from Thiruvananthapuram.

Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul (1909-2001)

• Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul came from a privileged background, being the daughter of a politician with royal roots in Punjab. Despite facing objections from conservative groups, she pursued education and became politically active.
• Her participation in politics began in 1936, and she won a non-reserved seat, despite criticism. Though she was part of the Muslim League, she opposed the idea of separate electorates based on religion.
• Her complex views on the creation of Pakistan led her to choose to stay in India post-independence, and she later became a Rajya Sabha member in 1952.

Dakshayani Velayudhan (1912-1978)

• Dakshayani Velayudhan, born into the Pulaya community, became the first Dalit woman to graduate in science in Cochin (now Kochi) and the first Dalit woman in the Cochin Legislative Council.
• Despite facing discrimination, she pursued higher education and later became involved in politics, being elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1946.
• Velayudhan opposed Ambedkar’s idea of separate electorates for Dalits, arguing that it would harm nationalism. Though she couldn’t continue her political career due to financial difficulties, she remained active in the Dalit movement.

Renuka Ray (1904-1997)

• Renuka Ray, born in Pabna (now in Bangladesh), came from a family of intellectuals. After meeting Gandhi in 1920, she left college to join the freedom struggle, working to raise awareness across the country.
• After her marriage, Ray continued her activism, focusing on women’s rights, including divorce and inheritance. She represented women’s organizations in the Central Legislative Assembly in 1943 and later became a member of the Constituent Assembly.
• Ray opposed reservations for women in legislatures, arguing it would hinder their growth and undermine their capacity. She went on to serve as a Lok Sabha MP in 1957.

Conclusion

• These women, from different walks of life, made invaluable contributions to shaping the Indian Constitution. Despite facing personal and societal challenges, they championed the cause of gender equality, social justice, and national unity.
• Their legacies continue to inspire and are an integral part of India’s democratic foundation.

SC Ruling: Incorporation of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in the Preamble

GS 2: Polity and Governance: Preamble

Why is it in the news?

• On November 25, 2024, marking 75 years since the adoption of India’s Constitution, the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble.
• The addition of these terms, made through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act of 1976, was a key point of contention but was retained by the court despite challenges.
• This amendment, enacted during the Emergency period, added “SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC” to the Preamble.

History of the Original Preamble

• The Preamble of the Constitution serves as a guiding statement outlining the values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. When India’s Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, the Preamble began with the declaration of India as a “SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.”
• The original Preamble did not include the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular.’ These concepts were discussed early in the Constituent Assembly debates but were initially excluded.
• Notably, in 1949, Constituent Assembly member Hasrat Mohani proposed a version of the Preamble that would have made India a “Union of Indian Socialistic Republics,” but his motion was rejected.
• Similarly, in 1948, Professor K.T. Shah’s proposal to incorporate ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ into the Constitution was also rejected, although there was support for their inclusion in the Preamble.

Introduction of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ During the Emergency

• The inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ was part of a larger series of amendments made under the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency (1975-77). This amendment, often called the “mini-constitution” due to the broad changes it introduced, sought to strengthen the central government’s power.
• It also inserted ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ into the Preamble, aiming to explicitly outline the ideals of socialism, secularism, and national unity. These changes, however, were made amid widespread restrictions on civil liberties.
• Despite the controversial nature of the 42nd Amendment, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Preamble’s updated language.

Challenges to the Preamble’s Phrasing

• The changes to the Preamble were later challenged in 2020, with several petitions filed in the Supreme Court arguing that the inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ was against the framers’ intent.
• Petitioners argued that the framers deliberately excluded ‘secular’ from the Constitution and that the term ‘socialist’ limited the government’s flexibility in economic policymaking.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

• In its ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed these challenges, citing the “obvious and manifest” flaws in the arguments. The court explained that when the Constitution was drafted, the term ‘secular’ was considered imprecise, with some scholars interpreting it as opposition to religion.
• However, over time, India developed its own understanding of secularism, where the state neither supports nor opposes any religion, thus embodying a unique secular ethos.
• The court also affirmed that the word ‘socialism’ had evolved in the Indian context, emphasizing economic and social justice. It clarified that the term did not imply the nationalization of industries or the elimination of the private sector but rather focused on ensuring social and economic justice for all citizens, particularly marginalized groups.

Impact of the 42nd Amendment

• The Supreme Court ruled that the amendments made through the 42nd Amendment did not restrict the government’s ability to implement policies, as long as those policies did not infringe on fundamental rights or the Constitution’s basic structure.
• The court also noted that there was no justification for challenging the changes after a gap of 44 years, emphasizing the importance of respecting the Constitution’s evolving interpretation in the modern context.