SYNOPSIS- IASbaba’s TLP 2016 [16th May] – UPSC Mains GS Questions [HOT]

ARCHIVES

SYNOPSIS- IASbaba’s TLP 2016 [16th May] – UPSC Mains GS Questions [HOT]

1. The Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) needs to be phased out so that automatic route of approval for various sectors can become the norm. In fact a similar proposal has been made by the Government. How far this change can help the start-up ecosystem in India? Analyse.

• Intro:

FIPB was constituted in 1992 in the wake of LPG reforms to attract and expedite foreign investment. Currently it is authorized to handle investments up to INR  5000 crores.

India currently ranks 130 out of 180 countries, it needs policies which will help reap the demographic dividend, help in starting business increase its national income etc.

• Body:
• Need to phase out FIPB:

1. The country is moving towards market economy very rapidly, and many sectors have been opened up under the automatic route, as more sectors will be opened up subsequently, importance of FIPB will be reduced as number of projects coming up for FIPB clearance are decreasing year by year
2. FIPB was devised to expedite the clearance processes, but due to absence of any time frame, and need of inter-ministerial consultations, it is causing time delays in projects causing escalation of project costs.
3. Even after FIOB approval is got, many other approvals are needed to start any business RBI, forest clearance certificate etc, this red tape is hurting business sentiments increasing time and cost overruns.

• Effect on Start-ups :

1. Funds: startup needs capital especially equity capital for which permission under automatic route will be conducive.
2. Permissions and clearances: since under automatic route, permission of RBI is sufficient, the red-tapism can be cut short
3. Time: projects can be started within very short time that will help create more employment,
4. Ease of doing business: easy permissions, availability of funds, enabling policies like Startup India etc. can cumulatively increase the ease of doing business ranking of India.
5. Negotiating power of startups: entrepreneurs can be certain of the costs and timelines, which will help them to negotiate better with the investors(both Angel investors and venture capitalists)
6. It will help in developing more hybrid investment instruments which will help in increasing custom made investments.
7. The decision to phase out FIPB has to be done after weighing the pros and cons carefully as many sectors such as defense and telecomm are concerned with the security of the state.

• Conclusion:

Write a suitable conclusion.

Best answer: GAUT

FIPB was envisaged during the start of liberalization era in Indian economy to allow FDI in various sectors of economy but with time FDI has been allowed through automatic route through various reforms and FIPB is losing its relevance.

Scrapping of FIPB may help Indian start up ecosystem:

1. India has a promising start up ecosystem and is in a dire need of investment which can be easily availed if Investment is routed through direct means.
2. GOI is already supporting start ups through start up India and stand up India scheme. This can give a further push to above schemes.
3. Delay in investment due to red tap can be do away with and it will improve the ease of doing business which is good for start ups.
4. The anathema of jobless growth in the Indian economy can be effectively tackled.

However there are sensitive sectors like defence and telecom where still some regulations are required because of their strategic nature and security concern of the nation. So it is highly desirable that there should be some mechanism to protect our strategic sector from vulnerability before scraping FIPB. Other important dimension would be to understand vulnerability of Indian economy to international shock which can trigger situation like Asian crisis of 1998.

Thus we have to evaluate the significance of FIPB in the changing paradigm of Indian economy vis a vis international scenario before taking such decision

2. Defamation law as it stands can lead to a chilling effect on the publication of free and independent news. The Government and the Judiciary should reconsider their support to criminalizing defamation. Critically examine the statements in light of the violence committed against two journalists recently.

Introduction:

Journalism is the fourth pillar of democracy. Unfortunately Journalists are targeted all over the world. According to recent report of International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), 2297 journalist have been killed since 1990. Presently when intensity and complexity of crime is increasing, environment is terribly neglected, crony capitalism common, human right violation is rampant and powerful people have interest in suppressing and harassing journalists, freedom and rights of journalists needs to be protected and strengthened. Defamation law on the contrary impedes publication of free and independent news.

In favor:

1. Right to Reputation is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. As the Article deal with protection of life and personal liberty which encompass right to live with human dignity where reputation comes under human dignity.
2. Right to free speech and expression need to balance with Right to Reputation, otherwise it may cause disturbance in public discourse.
3. In current political state, Politicians offend and try to tarnish the image of other party. This political gimmick causes inconvenience to the other party who might be honest. So sec 499 can be savior to it.
4. Unrestricted freedom of speech without some restriction can stymie the democracy as it common fact that Social media and press without knowing real cause try to defame person incessantly.

Not in Favor:

1. It stifles legitimate criticism of the government and thus impedes the effort to bring transparency in governance.
2. Leads to self censorship by media and generation of fear psychosis.
3. Used by politicians and big shots to harass the journalist who risk their lives in the search of truth?
4. It acts as a shield for public servants, politicians and institutions to avoid critical scrutiny.
5. Impediment to right to freedom of speech and expression of the media.

Conclusion:

1. Sections 499 and 500 of IPC impose criminal liability for defamation. Owing to its colonial origin and unsuitability in the modern society, many countries like Sri Lanka treat defamation as a civil liability. Although the Supreme Court held that criminal defamation does not have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression, it has its limitations which must be kept in mind.
2. With the Press Council of India having no powers to punish, the self-monitoring of the Press and Journalists will be given an impetus by the defamation. However, the cases of genuine protection of reputation and suppression of diverging and dissenting views need to be differentiated for the 4th pillar of democracy to thrive.
   Need is to suppress the personal attacks, while giving the right to express the opinions of dissent in a dignified manner.

Best answer: Black Mamba

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3655/6171/original.jpg

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3655/6172/original.jpg

3. The Health Ministry has invited views on passive euthanasia. What are your views on the same? Give a reasoned argument.

Introduction:

After 14 years of debates and several draft Bills, the government has said it is ready to frame a law on passive euthanasia, the act of withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing the death of a terminally ill patient. It doesn‘t suffer only the problem of Legalization but also consist the issues relating to Morality, Ethics and Religion.

The government’s latest stand represents forward movement in the quest for a legislative framework to deal with the question whether patients who are terminally ill and possibly beyond the scope of medical revival can be allowed to die with dignity.

The question was raised with a great deal of passion in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who lay in a vegetative state in a Mumbai hospital between 1973 and 2015. The Court ruled that passive euthanasia is permissible, and brain-dead patients need not be kept alive by support systems or artificial feeding.

(Note: Based on your views, choose any 1 part of the body)

Body: Arguments against Euthanasia (should contain any 3-4 points)

1. Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. It is the duty of the State to protect life and the physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm patients. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case 1996 has held that “the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die”.
2. Neglect of Healthcare by State: If euthanasia is legalized, then there is a grave apprehension that the State may refuse to invest in health (working towards Right to life). Legalized euthanasia has led to a severe decline in the quality of care for terminally-ill patients in Holland.
3. Malafide Intention: In the era of declining morality and justice, there is a possibility of misusing euthanasia by family members or relatives for inheriting the property of the patient.
4. Commercialization of Health Care: Passive euthanasia occurs in majority of the hospitals across the county, where poor patients and their family members refuse or withdraw treatment because of the huge cost involved in keeping them alive. If euthanasia is legalized, then commercial health sector will serve death sentence to many disabled and elderly citizens of India for meager amount of money.
5. Palliative Care Supporters: The practice of palliative care counters the view of euthanasia, as palliative care would provide relief from distressing symptoms and pain, and support to the patient as well as the care giver. Research has revealed that many terminally ill patients requesting euthanasia have major depression, and that the desire for death in terminal patients is correlated with the depression. They need palliative and rehabilitative care. Whenever, there is no cure, the society and medical professionals become frustrated and the fellow citizens take extreme measures such as suicide, euthanasia or substance use. In such situations, palliative and rehabilitative care comes to the rescue of the patient and the family.

(Or)

Body: Arguments In Favor Of Euthanasia

1. Right To Die With Dignity: ‘Right­ to ­die’ supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to die with dignity.
2. Care-givers Burden: The caregiver’s burden is huge and cuts across various domains such as financial, emotional, temporal, physical, mental and social.
3. Refusing Care: Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through naso­-gastric tube. Recognition of right to refuse treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia.
4. Encouraging Organ Transplantation: Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This in turn will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only euthanasia gives ‘Right to die’ for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life’ for the organ needy patients.

Conclusion:

The Constitution of India reads ‘right to life’ in a positive direction of protecting life. Hence, there is an urgent need to fulfill this obligation of ‘Right to life’ by providing ‘food, safe drinking water and health care’. On the contrary, most of the States till date have not done anything to support the terminally ill people by providing for hospital care. If the State takes the responsibility of providing reasonable degree of health care, then majority of the euthanasia supporters will definitely reconsider their argument.

At the end, we can conclude that passive euthanasia should be allowed, however, subject to safeguards and fair procedure. A terminally ill patient, who has no chance of recovery rather to endure unbearable pain for the remaining years of his life, should be allowed to die so that, spending money, facilities, and time on such a person would be of no utility but the waste of the same.

There is also an urgent need to invest in our health care system, so that poor people suffering from ill health can access free health care. Investment in health care is not a charity; ‘Right to Health’ is bestowed under ‘Right to Life’ of our constitution.

Best answer: SVSR

Passive euthanasia refers to intentional halting of medical support, and leaving the sufferer to the course of nature, to get relief from unendurable pain and suffering. Moreover, for instance, when you go without any consideration, against the road accident victim suffering with fatal injuries, it is also a kind of passive euthanasia as it is also the case of non-extension of support. Although, it is not illegal to do so, it raises moral obligation on the individual.

In our context, it has various advantages and disadvantages, and so a hypothetical question to answer as it involves the ‘life’ of an individual which we give utmost importance. Advantages like relief from physical suffering, mental agony, easing family burdens, cost savings etc., show the positive side of the passive euthanasia. Nevertheless, assumptions like future medial advancements, medical miracles and moral obligations stop us to take decision. Many a times, we have seen these miracles like sudden recovery of persons whom doctors are certified incurable.

If government intends to allow passive euthanasia, it should be allowed in exceptional cases brain dead patients and that too with the permission of constituted authorities. They need to come to a conclusion with proper analyses and various levels of clearances keeping in mind treatments under research, availability in other countries etc. This should be properly and effectively explained to the patient or his/her family before getting consent.