Rajesh Nayak

th

26 August-2015
Editorials

Shadow-boxing to what avail?

To begin with, the LoC ceasefire must be revived.
The last few months, and particularly the last few weeks, with over 160 violations on both sides
combined, are of immediate concern.
Indian troops and villagers living along the LoC should not have to pay the price for political tensions
between the two countries.
It is necessary to restore the balance between security and diplomacy: the announcement and
structure of the NSA talks seemed to indicate that Indias foreign policy establishment has taken a
back seat on several important issues.
While security issues remain paramount for the country, external relations are best coated with some
amount of diplomacy.
Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which a democracy possesses; and they
require, on the contrary, the perfect use of almost all those faculties in which it is deficient.
A democracy is unable to regulate the details of an important undertaking, to persevere in a design,
and to work out its execution in the presence of serious obstacles.
It cannot combine its measures with secrecy, and it will not await their consequences with patience.
Diplomacy is to be conducted purposefully with an aim at conciliation neither side should put the
other in an embarrassing position with its own public opinion.
The temptation to gratify public opinion at home must be resisted. In the long run it helps nobody.
It is not easy to reconcile the political necessity of keeping public opinion satisfied with the claim of
diplomacy which mandates concessions and reconciliation. But the task must be performed by any
leader worth the name.

Why is Kashmir a vexing problem?

The state has 3 sub-regions - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. In Kashmir valley
muslims are predominant. However, both in Jammu and Ladakh, non-muslims such
as Hindus and Buddhists are dominant. Many Muslims would like to join Pakistan,
but all non-Muslims want to be with India [EDIT: there is a controversy here on how
many Muslims actually want to be a part of Pakistan. See the comment thread]. The
Muslim part sits in between the Hindu part and Buddhist part. This means cutting
away the Muslim part and merging with Pakistan is not easy.
The region is extremely cold (with some of the coldest temperatures in the inhabited
world), snow bound, land locked and hilly (having some of the tallest mountains in
the world). Given the geography and the terrain, cutting it up is not as easy as it looks
on the map.

Rajesh Nayak
The hills are considered strategically important to both India and Pakistan. The hills
of Kashmir slope into the crucial region of Punjab on both sides of the border.
Controlling the hills are important for both the armies.

The region carries the Indus water that is extremely crucial for both Pakistan and
northern India. Water is the most precious resource in the dry subcontinent and you
have to be extremely careful in how you carve the resources.
The status of Hindus in Pakistan is infinitely worse than that of the Muslims in India.
Although its minority record is not spotless, India has had a couple of Muslim
presidents and there are muslim leaders in every spectrum - business, sports,
entertainment, arts and sciences. That means any solution that involves Hindus
ending up in Pakistan is far worse than a solution involving Muslims ending up in
India.
Terrorism. The region adjoins extremely troubled regions such as northern Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Xinjiang of China and central Asia. This means an independent
Kashmir can become a breeding ground of terrorists as a weak Kashmiri government
can't prevail over lethal terrorists. It could become a sort of Somalia and become a
bigger headache for the whole region.
Pandora's box. India is a highly heterogeneous country and removing Kashmir could
embolden other separatist groups all over the nation. This is why India has to be
inflexible at times dealing with the problem.
Significant developments in the last 69 years:
1. India conserving its position as the worlds largest democracy.
2. India moving ahead from an economic perspective, embracing liberalization, opening its
economy, being seen as a key contributor to the global economy, growing consistently at
around 8% for over 10 years now.
India as an economic powerhouse is the second biggest economic story of the last 20 years,
after China.
3. Pakistan flirting between democracy and dictatorship. Growing concerns among the
global community about Pakistan deteriorating into a terrorist state.
There have been some of the issues which impacts on India- Pakistan relations. Kashmir
issue, water disputes, terrorism, territorial disputes are main irritating factors in IndiaPakistan relations.

Hollow promise of special status

A number of States have staked their claim for the Special Category status in recent years.
The issue has again taken centre stage.
The reason given by the Minister was that the Fourteenth Finance Commission (FFC) had
increased the tax devolution to States from 32 per cent to 42 per cent of the divisible pool of
central taxes obviating the need for specific categorising.
Given the emotive discourse around the demand, understanding the issues involved in it will
facilitate a dispassionate stand on the subject both by the Union government and the States.
Under the D.R. Gadgil formula for the distribution of central plan assistance, which became
operational during the fourth Five Year Plan, the requirements of Assam, Jammu and

Rajesh Nayak
Kashmir and Nagaland were to be met first and the balance of central assistance distributed
to the remaining States based on certain criteria.
At the time of the formulation of the fifth Five Year Plan, it was decided to include Himachal
Pradesh, other Northeastern States and Sikkim in the above category. For the first time,
these 10 States were categorised as Special Category States to distinguish them from others.
Later on, Uttarakhand was accorded the Special Category.
Traits for categorization
Special Category status had been granted in the past by the Union government to States having
certain characteristics based on the recommendations of the National Development Council.
These included:

i)
hilly terrain;
ii)
low population density and/or sizeable share of tribal population;
iii)
strategic location along borders with neighbouring countries;
iv)
economic and infrastructure backwardness; and
v)
Non-viable nature of State finances.
Under the revised Gadgil-Mukherjee formula, which was in operation till 2014-15, 30 per
cent of the normal central assistance was earmarked for Special Category States and the
remaining 70 per cent to General Category States.
Special Category States were entitled to get such assistance in the grant-loan ratio of 90:10
as compared with 30:70 ratios for other States.
In addition to their earmarked share in normal central assistance, special plan assistance for
projects (90 per cent grant) and untied special central assistance (100 per cent grant) were
being given only to Special Category States.
Other benefits to Special Category States include assistance for externally-aided projects in
the grant-loan ratio of 90:10, whereas such assistance to other States is on back-to-back
basis.
The matching contribution in respect of Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) is usually lower
for Special Category States, more particularly, for those in the Northeastern region.
Though all the Special Category States are provided with central incentives for the
promotion of industries, there is no explicit linkage between the incentives and the special
status.
The package of incentives is different for the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal
Pradesh, Uttrakhand and the States located in the Northeastern region. These packages have
more to do with their backwardness than the status.
Following the increase in tax devolution to States from 32 to 42 per cent of divisible pool of
central taxes, the Centre has dispensed with normal plan assistance, special central
assistance and special plan assistance from 2015-16 onwards.
The Special Category status is not so special anymore following the above changes.
The only attraction that remains is the benefit of assistance for externally aided projects (90
per cent grant). But even this will be of limited benefit if any new state is accorded special
category for a limited period of five years or so as disbursal of external assistance cannot be
substantial in such a limited period. The benefit of lower matching contribution for Special
Category States for CSS is unlikely to be substantial with the reduction of assistance to State
plans.

New criteria

Rajesh Nayak
Following the demand for Special Status by Bihar, a committee was appointed under Dr. Raghuram
Rajan in 2013. This committee suggested that States classified as Special Category States and those
seeking inclusion in that category, would find that their need for funds and special attention more
than adequately met by a basic allocation to each State and the categorisation of some as least
developed.

Of contamination and cover-ups

Thirty years after the Bhopal disaster, the recent upsurge of interest in the Kodaikanal mercury
pollution case has made one thing clear.
Neither the central government nor any State government has done anything towards putting in
place a policy for environmental remediation of contaminated sites or rehabilitation of affected
people.
Arrayed against those affected by pollution stands a veritable army of scientific institutions, State
and Central Pollution Control Boards, the Environment Ministry and the wealthy polluters with huge
budgets to hire lawyers, and buy science and media space.
Toxic hotspots and affected people can be found across the country alongside polluting factories.
Successive governments have worked out elaborate policies to promote industrialisation, but none to
address the inevitable fallout of unregulated industrial activity.
Fourteen years after the 1984 gas leak, Union Carbide in 1998 dusted off a few shelves in its Bhopal
factory, moved some toxic waste from the floor to sacks and drums, and handed over the site to the
State government, claiming to have cleaned it up. But the factory site remains dangerously
contaminated and continues to claim lives and maim children. Now, activists are trying hard to
uphold the polluter pays principle to ask for a thorough clean-up of the site.
Lower standards
The case of Kodaikanal seems to be no different. Where public participation, good science and
polluter pays ought to be the legs on which any policy for remediation stands, in Kodaikanal, the
Central and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Boards (CPCB and TNPCB) have opted for secrecy, paid
science and public pays as the principles for environmental remediation following severe mercury
contamination around Hindustan Unilevers thermometer manufacturing factory.
In the U.K., Unilevers home country, the site would have to be cleaned up to 1 mg/kg to be fit for
residential purposes. In India, Unilevers proposal is 20 mg/kg, a number that is 20 times more lax
than British standards, and 200 times more than naturally occurring background levels.
After Unilevers thermometer factory was shut down in March 2001, the company prepared a report
that claimed to account for every kilogram of mercury used in 18 years of operation. The report
explained that of the 125,676 kg of mercury imported, all but 559 kg could be accounted for, and that
the latter figure was the loss to the environment. As per this figure, only 170 kg of mercury remained
on site, mixed with soil and vegetation and subject to the proposed cleanup.
Supreme Court ignored
Before environmental remediation, a detailed and independent assessment of the depth and spread
of contamination is required. Despite requests from the public and directions by the Supreme Court
Monitoring Committee (SCMC) urging the TNPCB to independently assess contamination, the

Rajesh Nayak
regulator has taken not a single soil sample in the last 14 years and Unilevers report remains the
basis for the clean-up.
Any policy for remediation of contaminated sites should be based on sound science. And science is
sound only when scientists and their work are subject to public scrutiny. That is why activists and
residents are calling for transparency and public participation as the only way to keep government
bodies and experts from toeing the corporate line.
If question will come than :
Environmental Remediation:

Environmental remediation refers to reducing radiation exposure, for example, from

contaminated soil, groundwater or surface water. The purpose is more than just eliminating
radiation sources; it is about protecting people and the environment against potential harmful
effects from exposure to ionizing radiation.
Community participation:
In preparation for any significant remediation there should be extensive community consultation. The
proponent should both present information to and seek information from the community. The
proponent needs to learn about "sensitive" (future) uses like childcare, schools, hospitals, and
playgrounds as well as community concerns and interests information. Consultation should be open,
on a group basis so that each member of the community is informed about issues they may not have
individually thought about. An independent chairperson acceptable to both the proponent and the
community should be engaged (at proponent expense if a fee is required). Minutes of meetings
including questions asked and the answers to them and copies of presentations by the proponent
should be available both on the internet and at a local library (even a school library) or community
centre.

As contaminated sites can ultimately lead to undesired health effects for local people, appropriate
actions must be taken. Remediation of contaminated land areas or other contaminated media, such
as surface or groundwater is applied in two ways:
(1) By applying actions to the contamination itself. This can lead to isolation, immobilization or removal
of the actual source of radiation, for example by means of decontaminating areas, surfaces and
environmental media.
(2) Evaluating risks related to radiation exposure to people and thinking of ways of breaking the
pathways between the radiation source and people. This approach might lead to evacuation, area
isolation or changing land use and the local populations living habits.
National policy and strategies set up societal values regarding the environment and the
population. Policy and strategies for implementing remediation need to be complemented by a
consistent and well dimensioned regulatory framework.
Regulations define in detail how clean clean is, i.e. the requirements that will need to be met in
each given situation; the level of site characterization to be accepted before and after the
remediation works; and the acceptable end state of the site.
The overall process should be transparent, be communicated to the relevant stakeholders and
allow for their participation in the decision making process.

Rajesh Nayak
An important factor for a successful remediation project is for those people whose lives are
affected by the contaminated site to be involved in and to contribute to the remediation
process as they have a stake in the end result.
It is not only an ethical matter but a moral obligation to involve various stakeholders in the
remediation process.
Listening to stakeholders opinions, capturing their perspectives and taking them into account
from the very beginning of the remediation process assists the decision making process for
taking the most appropriate approach.
The Things to Know about Environmental Remediation
Environmental remediation refers to actions applied to the source of contamination or to the
exposure pathways that may connect people to the source. Removing the source or breaking the
pathways reduces exposures.
A contaminated site does not automatically pose health risks to people. In some cases, natural
background radiation is higher than that of contaminated sites.
The more informal term clean up is often used synonymously with environmental remediation. The
terms rehabilitation and restoration are also commonly used in the context of environmental
remediation.
Contaminated sites were created in the past because of poor operational practices and lack of
appropriate or effective environmental laws and regulations. In some cases, regulators inadequate
oversight led to contaminated sites. Such sites have also been created by nuclear and radiological
accidents, and by nonnuclear industries.
Environmental remediation is a site specifi c action that depends on the environmental characteristics
of a particular site, the type of contamination and available technologies. Hence, the costs for
remediation also vary from site to site.
Regarding contamination after an accident, there are already over sixty approaches that can be
implemented in the remediation of the affected sites.
There are several environmental remediation programmes in the world, for example, remediation of:
Nuclear sites under the environmental management programme of the United States Department of
Energy in the United States of America;
Uranium mining sites in the former East Germany, i.e. the Wismut project, and the former uranium
mining and milling sites in Central Asia;
Contaminated sites caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents;
A contaminated site caused by a radiological accident in Goinia, Brazil.