CURRENT AFFAIRS – 20/09/2023

• The Bill was introduced in the new Parliament House, but certain conditions prevent its immediate implementation.

• The women’s reservation can only be implemented after a delimitation exercise using post-Bill census data.
• The next delimitation exercise is scheduled for 2026, making the earliest implementation in the 2029 general election.
• Bill Details:
  • The Bill is referred to as the “Nari Shakti VandanAdhiniyam.”
  • It was introduced by Law Minister Arjun Meghwal in the Lok Sabha.
  • The number of women members in the Lok Sabha will increase from 82 to 181 when the law is enacted.
• Sub-Quota for SC and ST:
  • Within the women’s quota, one-third of seats will be reserved for women from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  • No separate quota is provided for women from other backward classes.
• Duration of the Law:
  • Once enacted, the law will be in force for 15 years.
  • Seats reserved for women will be rotated after every delimitation exercise.
• Underrepresentation of Women:
  • The Bill notes the limited representation of women in State legislatures and Parliament, with only 15% women MPs in the Lok Sabha and about 10% in many State Assemblies.
• Historical Attempts:
  • Previous attempts to pass a women’s reservation Bill were made in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2008.
  • The 2008 Bill, which did not include the delimitation clause, ultimately lapsed when the Lok Sabha dissolved in 2014.
• Possible Increase in Lok Sabha Seats:
  • The clause linking implementation to delimitation suggests the government may plan to increase the number of Lok Sabha seats.
  • The new Parliament building’s Lok Sabha chamber can accommodate 888 MPs.

• Delimitation is a process used in democratic countries to redraw the boundaries of electoral constituencies or districts.
• It is done periodically to ensure that each constituency represents roughly the same number of voters, thus maintaining the principle of “one person, one vote.”

• Constitutional Provisions:
• The Delimitation Commission of India is established under the provisions of Article 82 for the Lok Sabha and Article 170 for State Legislative Assemblies of the Constitution of India.
• Composition:
• The Delimitation Commission is typically composed of a retired Supreme Court Judge as the Chairperson, and the Election Commissioner of India and the State Election Commissioner of the concerned state as ex-officio members.
• In India, such Delimitation Commissions have been constituted 4 times –
  • in 1952 under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952,
  • in 1963 under Delimitation Commission Act, 1962,
  • in 1973 under Delimitation Act, 1972 and
  • in 2002 under Delimitation Act, 2002.
• The last delimitation exercise for parliamentary constituencies was conducted in 2002-2008, and for state legislative constituencies, it was conducted in 1973-1976.
  • These exercises were based on the 1971 census data.
• 87th Amendment Act, 2003:
  • The 87th Amendment Act of 2003 amended the Constitution to specify that delimitation should be based on the 2001 census data, rather than the previous 1991 census.
  • This was done to ensure that constituency boundaries more accurately reflected the population distribution at that time.
• The Delimitation Commission in India is a high power body whose orders have the force of law and cannot be called in question before any court.
• When the orders of the Delimitation Commission are laid before the Lok Sabha or State Legislative Assembly, these legislative bodies do not have the authority to modify or amend the orders.
  • The orders of the Delimitation Commission are final and binding.

• This allegation has triggered a diplomatic crisis between the two countries, with Canada expelling an Indian diplomat and India expelling Canada’s Station chief for intelligence.
• The situation has also garnered attention from the United States and Australia, who share intelligence with Canada as part of the “Five Eyes” agreement.

• Trudeau’s Accusation:
  • Trudeau’s accusation of Indian government involvement in Nijjar’s killing has strained bilateral ties between Canada and India.
  • He claimed to have shared evidence with India and discussed the matter with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
• Diplomatic Expulsions:
  • In response to Canada’s expulsion of an Indian diplomat, India summoned the Canadian High Commissioner and expelled Canada’s intelligence Station chief.
  • This tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats escalated tensions.
• Canada’s NATO Alliance:
  • Unlike confrontations with Pakistan, Canada is part of the western NATO alliance and has a significant Indian and Indian-origin Canadian population.
  • The rupture in relations could have a broader impact.
• Analysis and Recommendations:
  • Trudeau must prioritize publicly proving the serious allegations he made against India or admit that he cannot substantiate them.
  • India’s concerns about Canadian safe havens for anti-India, separatist Khalistani groups need to be addressed.
    • Incidents targeting Indian diplomats and community centers have raised these concerns.
  • New Delhi should consider how it wishes to proceed with its ties with Canada.
    • Despite efforts to reset relations in recent years, diplomatic tensions and allegations have strained the relationship.
  • The acrimonious meeting between Trudeau and Modi and the latest allegations have put India-Canada free trade talks on hold, signaling a setback in economic relations.

• The “Five Eyes” is an intelligence alliance comprising five English-speaking countries:
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
• These five countries cooperate closely on intelligence matters, particularly in the collection and sharing of signals intelligence (SIGINT).
• The alliance originated during World War II and was formalized in the post-war years as a mechanism for intelligence-sharing and collaboration.

• Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Canadian citizen of Indian origin who lived in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada, located southeast of Vancouver.
• He immigrated to Canada from Punjab in 1997 and initially worked as a plumber. He was married and had two sons.
• Connection with the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF)
  • According to the Indian government, Nijjar was believed to be the leader of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF), a banned militant organization advocating for the establishment of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state.
  • India’s Ministry of Home Affairs had notified KTF as a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in February 2023.
  • Nijjar was accused of actively operating and networking for KTF, training its members, and financing its activities.
• Visits to Pakistan and Associations:
  • Nijjar reportedly visited Pakistan in 2013-14 to meet with Jagtar Singh Tara, who is serving a life sentence in India for his involvement in the assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh in 1995.
  • He was also known to be friendly with Dal Khalsa leader Gajinder Singh, one of the hijackers of an Indian Airlines flight in 1981, who is currently in Pakistan.
• Allegations Against Nijjar:
  • India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) had declared a cash reward of Rs 10 lakh for Nijjar and accused him of involvement in several cases.
  • He was wanted in connection with an attack on a Hindu priest in Jalandhar in 2021, leading to the NIA announcing a reward for his arrest.
  • Nijjar had allegedly made provocative statements, posted objectionable content, and shared content on social media platforms to incite hatred and promote insurrectionary imputations.
  • He was also associated with Sikhs For Justice, a separatist organization banned in India, and was seen in Australia during voting for the so-called Khalistan Referendum.
• Property Attachment and Wanted Lists:
  • His properties in Punjab were attached in 2020 in relation to a case against Sikhs For Justice for their online campaign for the so-called Khalistan Referendum.
  • Nijjar’s name was on a wanted list provided by former Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh to Prime Minister Trudeau during Trudeau’s visit to India in 2018.
  • He was named in an FIR registered by the NIA in December 2020, accusing him of conspiring to create fear, lawlessness, and disaffection among people, as well as inciting them to rise against the Government of India.

• The idea of a distress-sharing formula in the Cauvery River dispute has been discussed since the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s interim order in June 1991.

• Past Attempts and Current Situation:
  • A serious effort to establish a distress-sharing formula was made in 2002-03 due to poor monsoon rains, but no comprehensive solution was reached.
  • Recent submissions by Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and the deposition of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) before the Supreme Court emphasize the need for an acceptable formula.
  • The Tribunal and the Supreme Court referred to the principle of pro-rata sharing during distress but did not provide specific guidelines.
• Divergent Approaches by States:
  • Tamil Nadu considers elements such as the deficit in inflows to Karnataka’s reservoirs compared to the last 30 years’ average flows and rainfall patterns in various Cauvery catchment areas.
  • Karnataka insists that the overall distress situation cannot be calculated until the end of January, considering both southwest (June-September) and northeast (October-December) monsoons.
  • Karnataka, as an upper riparian state dependent on monsoon for various needs, raises concerns about meeting its requirements.
• CWMA’s Deliberations and Actions:
  • The CWMA deliberated on factors like rainfall, monsoon forecast, and inflows/outflows in the Cauvery basin but failed to satisfy both states.
  • It directed Karnataka to release a certain amount of water but noted significant shortfalls in inflows and rainfall in Karnataka’s reservoirs.
• Current Scenario and Tamil Nadu’s Position:
  • Tamil Nadu awaits the Supreme Court’s intervention to receive its due water quota for one-and-a-half months (half of August and the whole of September).
• Importance of Transparency:
  • The Cauvery dispute has been affected by political considerations, and a proactive approach to finding a solution has been lacking.
  • The CWMA and its assisting body, the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC), should make their meeting proceedings available to the public to dispel misconceptions in both states and promote transparency.

• 1892: Agreement Between Princely States
  • A pre-indepe ndence agreement was signed between the princely state of Mysore (now part of Karnataka) and the Madras Presidency (now part of Tamil Nadu) to share the waters of the Cauvery River.
• 1924: Agreement Modified
  • The 1892 agreement was modified to increase the share of water allocated to the Mysore state.
• 1970: Tamil Nadu’s Request for Tribunal
  • Tamil Nadu requested the central government to form a tribunal to address the water-sharing issue as disputes arose regarding water allocation.
• 1972: Formation of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)
  • The Indian government formed the CWDT to adjudicate the water-sharing dispute among the riparian states—Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry (formerly Pondicherry).

• 1990-1991: Interim Orders of CWDT
  • The CWDT issued interim orders in 1990 and 1991 to provide temporary water-sharing arrangements while the tribunal continued its proceedings.
• 2002: CWDT’s Final Award
  • The CWDT issued its final award in 2002, which allocated a specific quantity of water to each of the riparian states during normal and distress years.
• 2007: Supreme Court’s Direction to Modify CWDT Award
  • The Supreme Court directed the modification of the CWDT’s 2002 award and asked Karnataka to release a certain quantity of water to Tamil Nadu.
• 2016-2017: Protests and Agitations
  • Disputes and protests erupted in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the sharing of Cauvery water, leading to tensions and violence.
• 2018: Supreme Court’s Judgment
  • In February 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgment, modifying some aspects of the CWDT’s 2002 award.
  • The Supreme Court declared the Cauvery River a national asset, emphasizing the need for equitable water-sharing among the riparian states.
  • The Supreme Court largely upheld the water-sharing arrangements that had been finalized by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT).
  • The verdict resulted in a reduction in the allocation of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu compared to the CWDT’s award.
  • Karnataka was allocated 284.75 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft), while Tamil Nadu received 404.25 tmcft.
  • Kerala was allocated 30 tmcft of Cauvery water, and Puducherry received 7 tmcft.
  • The Supreme Court also established the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) to oversee water-sharing and implementation.
• 2021: Tamil Nadu’s Request for Additional Water
  • Tamil Nadu requested the Supreme Court to direct Karnataka to release additional water as per the tribunal’s award.
• 2022: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Tamil Nadu’s Request
• In February 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Tamil Nadu was entitled to receive a higher quantum of Cauvery water from Karnataka.

• The Cauvery River, also spelled as Kaveri, is one of the major rivers in India, flowing primarily through the southern states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
• The Cauvery River originates from the Western Ghats in the state of Karnataka.
• The river’s source is a small spring known as Talakaveri (Talacauvery) located in the Brahmagiri Hill in the Coorg (Kodagu) district of Karnataka.
• It is situated at an elevation of approximately 1,341 meters (4,400 feet) above sea level.
• The Cauvery River flows eastward through the Deccan Plateau, passing through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
• It covers a distance of about 800 kilometers (497 miles) before emptying into the Bay of Bengal.
• Tributaries:
  • The Cauvery River is fed by numerous tributaries, the most significant of which include the Kabini River, Hemavati River, Arkavathi River, and Bhavani River, among others.
• Waterfalls:
  • The river passes through several picturesque landscapes, including the famous Shivanasamudra Falls in Karnataka.

Facilitating degrees within a degree

(General Studies- Paper 1)

Source : TH

India lacked a National Higher Education Qualifications Framework (NHEQF) until recently, despite global efforts to establish such frameworks in the late 1990s.

• The idea of NHEQF was discussed at the 60th meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education in 2012 and was assigned to the University Grants Commission (UGC).
• The UGC has now introduced the NHEQF, but there have been some concerns arising from multiple guidelines, frameworks, and documents related to higher education qualifications in India.

Key Highlights

• Multiplicity of Frameworks:
  • The UGC has introduced both the NHEQF and the National Credit Framework separately, along with the Academic Bank of Credits for credit recognition and transfer.
  • This multiplicity of frameworks creates ambiguity and complicates the understanding of qualifications in a cross-cultural context.
• Incomprehensive and Vague Provisions:
  • The NHEQF lacks clear eligibility conditions and pathways for students to enter different program levels.
  • Disciplines like agriculture, law, medicine, and pharmacy are notably absent from the framework, despite their importance.
  • The document draws heavily from the European Bologna process, which may not fully suit the diverse and complex Indian higher education system.
• Limited Recognition of Education’s Purpose:
  • The NHEQF does not adequately emphasize the broader purpose of education beyond livelihood and workforce preparation.
  • Sociocultural and socio-economic factors influencing learning are not sufficiently highlighted.
• Potential Elitism and Meritocracy:
  • The framework may create an elitist higher education system by equating four-year undergraduate degrees with postgraduate diplomas and setting high eligibility criteria for admission to PhD programs.
• Implementation Challenges:
  • Practical difficulties may arise in implementing the NHEQF, particularly in terms of credit allocation and hours of study required per semester.
  • The framework’s approach to learning outcomes, borrowed from the Dublin descriptors, may not be universally applicable across disciplines and measurable in the same way.

What is National Higher Education Qualifications Framework (NHEQF)?

The National Higher Education Qualifications Framework (NHEQF) is a framework developed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in India to standardize and regulate higher education qualifications in the country.

• Under the NHEQF, the higher education qualifications such as a certificate, diploma, and degree will be awarded based on the demonstrated achievement of learning outcomes and academic standards expected of graduates of a programme of study.
• The framework intends to provide a “nationally accepted and internationally comparable and acceptable qualifications framework”.
• The framework divides education into eight levels, with the first four levels falling under the National School Education Qualification Framework (NSEQF), and the last four levels being governed by the NHEQF.
• NHEQF covers levels 4.5 to 8 in the education continuum.
• Key features and components of the NHEQF include:
  • Qualification Levels:
    • The framework defines various qualification levels, starting from Certificate programs at the lowest level and progressing through Diploma, Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees.
    • Each level corresponds to a specific number of credits and years of study.
  • Credit System:
    • The NHEQF incorporates a credit system that assigns credits to courses or modules based on the academic workload and learning outcomes.
    • It enables students to accumulate credits from different institutions and programs and facilitates credit transfer and recognition.
  • Learning Outcomes:
    • The framework outlines specific learning outcomes expected at each qualification level.
    • These learning outcomes describe the knowledge, skills, and competencies that a student should acquire upon completing a particular program.
  • Program Duration:
    • It outlines the minimum and maximum duration of programs at each qualification level.
    • For example, a Bachelor’s degree program may have a minimum duration of three years, while a Master’s program may require two years of study.
  • Credit Transfer and Accumulation:
    • The NHEQF promotes credit accumulation and transfer across institutions and programs, allowing students to build their qualifications progressively by earning and transferring credits.
  • Employability and Mobility:
    • The NHEQF aims to enhance the employability of graduates by aligning qualifications with the needs of the job market.
    • It also facilitates academic and professional mobility, both nationally and internationally.

Do States get a say in constitutional amendments?

(General Studies- Paper II)

Source : TH

The Union government has formed a committee to examine the feasibility of simultaneous elections to State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha, known as the ‘one nation, one election’ idea.

• The Law Ministry has outlined seven terms of reference for the committee, including examining whether constitutional amendments needed for simultaneous elections would require ratification by the States.
• This has raised concerns about the impact on federalism, as implementing the proposal without State consent could affect the balance of power.

Key Highlights

• Constitutional Amendment Process
  • Article 368 governs the process of amending the Indian Constitution.
• Three Procedures for Constitutional Amendments
  • Simple Majority:
    • Certain provisions can be amended like ordinary legislation through a simple majority vote in each House of Parliament, without a specific quorum.
    • Examples include amendments related to state organization, legislative councils, and tribal areas.
  • Special Majority:
    • Most amendments require a “special majority,” which means approval by at least two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House of Parliament and by a majority of the total membership of each House.
    • This majority is required at all stages of the amendment process.
  • Special Majority + State Ratification:
    • A third category of amendments demands both a special majority in Parliament and ratification by at least half of the state legislatures.
    • The time limit for state ratification is not specified, but it must occur before the President’s assent to the amendment.
  • Constitutional Amendments Requiring State Ratification: These provisions require ratification by state legislatures to be amended and mainly pertain to the federal structure of the Constitution. They are as follows:
    • Election of the President (Articles 54 and 55): Changes in provisions related to the election of the President of India.
    • Executive Power (Articles 73 and 162): Changes affecting the extent of executive powers of the Union and State governments.
    • Judiciary (Articles 124–147 and 214–231): Changes related to the Union judiciary and High Courts.
    • Distribution of Powers (Articles 245 to 255): Amendments affecting the distribution of legislative and administrative powers between the Union and States.
    • Seventh Schedule: Amendments impacting the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, which outline the division of powers between the Union and States.
    • Representation of States (Article 82): Changes altering the representation of States in Parliament.
    • Article 368 Itself: Amendments to Article 368, which governs the amendment process.
  • Examples of Ratification:
    • The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, establishing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), was ratified by sixteen State legislatures but was later struck down by the Supreme Court.
    • The Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST), was ratified by more than half of the State legislatures.
  • B.R. Ambedkar’s Concerns on Federal Structure:
    • B.R. Ambedkar expressed strong support for state ratification in the amendment process to safeguard the federal structure of the Constitution.
    • He believed that allowing certain constitutional amendments without state input would undermine the fundamental aspects of the Constitution.
    • Allowing unrestricted amendments by a simple majority would disrupt the separation of powers among the three branches of government, leading to chaos.
  • Striking Down Constitutional Amendments for Lack of Ratification
    • Anti-Defection Case (KihotoHollohan v. Zachillu):
      • In this case, the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution was challenged.
      • The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but declared Paragraph 7 of the Schedule invalid because it lacked ratification by half of the States.
      • The Court invoked the doctrine of severability to separate Paragraph 7 from the rest of the Schedule.
    • Co-operative Societies (Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah):
      • The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011, which introduced Part IX B in the Constitution to deal with co-operative societies.
      • The Court held that the amendment required ratification by at least half of the State legislatures as it dealt with an exclusive State subject.
      • The majority judgment made Part IXB operative only concerning multi-State cooperative societies, while the minority judgment invalidated the entire amendment.
    • Time Limit for Ratification
      • The Indian Constitution does not specify a time limit for State legislatures to ratify a constitutional amendment.
      • In the U.S., a reasonable time period for ratification has been mentioned, but what constitutes a “reasonable time” is a political question and depends on various factors.
    • State Rescinding of Ratification
      • The Indian Constitution does not provide a mechanism for a State to rescind its ratification.
      • In the U.S., once a State has ratified an amendment and communicated it, it cannot rescind its ratification.
      • However, it can ratify an amendment even if it had previously rejected it.
      • Permitting States to rescind ratification could create confusion and add rigidity to the amending process.
    • Law Commission’s Report on Simultaneous Elections
      • In August 2018, the Law Commission of India, chaired by Justice B. S. Chauhan, released a draft report on simultaneous elections, stating that they are not feasible under the existing constitutional framework.
    • Constitutional Amendments Required:
      • The Law Commission emphasized that constitutional amendments, changes to the Representation of the People Act 1951, and amendments to the Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are necessary before conducting simultaneous elections.
      • A constitutional amendment for simultaneous elections must receive ratification from at least 50% of the States.
    • Federal Structure Challenges:
      • Experts caution that implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations would infringe upon the federal structure of the Constitution.
      • Existing State Assemblies would need to be dissolved, which currently have different tenures.
      • Dissolution can occur voluntarily with the recommendation of the ruling government in the State and the Governor’s assent or due to a breakdown of Constitutional machinery with the involvement of the President.
      • Amending Article 172, which governs the tenure of State legislative Assemblies, would be necessary for simultaneous elections but may infringe on the federal structure, especially in States ruled by Opposition parties.
    • Challenges with Amending Article 172:
      • Amending Article 172 would require the dissolution of existing State Assemblies, impacting their federal autonomy.
      • States ruled by Opposition parties are unlikely to voluntarily recommend dissolution, making it challenging for the Union government to synchronize elections across all States without infringing on the federal structure.
    • Achieving simultaneous elections faces significant complexities due to the federal nature of Indian democracy and the varying tenures of State Assemblies.

WHO releases its first-ever report on global impact of high BP

(General Studies- Paper II)

Source : TH

The World Health Organization (WHO) released its first-ever report on the global impact of high blood pressure, noting that approximately four out of every five people with hypertension are not adequately treated.

• The report highlights that scaling up coverage for hypertension treatment could avert 76 million deaths between 2023 and 2050.

Key Highlights

• Hypertension in India
  • Hypertension is the most important risk factor for death and disability in India.
  • Less than one-fourth of hypertensive patients in India had their blood pressure under control during 2016–2020.
  • The 2019–2020 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) reported a hypertension prevalence of 24% in men and 21% among women in India, an increase from previous years.
  • India runs the India Hypertension Control Initiative program under the National Health Mission, recognized for its positive impact on hypertension control within the primary healthcare system.
• Global Prevalence and Impact of Hypertension
  • Hypertension affects one in three adults worldwide and is a leading risk factor for various health problems, including stroke, heart attack, heart failure, and kidney damage.
  • The number of people living with hypertension doubled from 650 million to 1.3 billion between 1990 and 2019.
  • Nearly half of people with hypertension globally are unaware of their condition.
  • Over three-quarters of adults with hypertension live in low- and middle-income countries.
• Recommendations for Combating Hypertension
  • Lifestyle changes, including healthier diets, tobacco cessation, and increased physical activity, can help lower blood pressure.
  • Some individuals may require medication to control hypertension effectively and prevent complications.
  • Early detection, effective management, and prioritizing hypertension treatment are cost-effective interventions in healthcare.
• Economic Benefits of Improved Hypertension Treatment
  • The WHO emphasizes that improved hypertension treatment programs yield economic benefits that outweigh costs by about 18 to 1.
  • Strengthening hypertension control should be part of every country’s journey toward universal health coverage and resilient health systems, built on primary healthcare.

What is Hypertension?

• Hypertension, commonly known as high blood pressure, is a medical condition characterized by elevated or increased blood pressure within the arteries.
• Blood pressure is the force exerted by the blood against the walls of the arteries as it circulates through the body.
• It is typically measured in millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and expressed as two numbers: systolic pressure over diastolic pressure.
  • Systolic Pressure: The higher number represents the pressure when the heart beats and pumps blood into the arteries.
  • Diastolic Pressure: The lower number represents the pressure when the heart is at rest between beats.
• Normal blood pressure is usually defined as around 120/80 mmHg.
• Hypertension occurs when blood pressure consistently exceeds 130/80 mmHg.
• Hypertension is a significant health concern because it can strain the heart, damage blood vessels, and increase the risk of serious health problems, including:
  • Heart Disease: High blood pressure can lead to heart attacks, heart failure, and other cardiovascular issues.
  • Stroke: It is a leading cause of stroke, which is a sudden interruption of blood supply to the brain.
  • Kidney Disease: Hypertension can damage the kidneys and lead to chronic kidney disease.
  • Vision Problems: It may affect the blood vessels in the eyes, leading to vision impairment or even blindness.
  • Aneurysms: High blood pressure can cause the weakening and bulging of blood vessel walls (aneurysms), which can be life-threatening if they rupture.
• Hypertension often develops over years without noticeable symptoms, earning it the nickname “the silent killer.”

About WHO

• The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.
• Established on April 7, 1948, WHO is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and operates as a global authority on health-related matters.
• WHO is governed by the World Health Assembly (WHA), which is the highest decision-making body in the organization.
• WHA consists of representatives from all member states and meets annually to set policies, approve budgets, and make important decisions.
• The day-to-day operations are overseen by the Director-General, who is appointed by WHA and serves a five-year term.
• The Director-General is currently Dr. TedrosAdhanom

Azerbaijan- Armenia dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh

(General Studies- Paper II)

Source : TH

On September 19, Azerbaijan launched what it termed an “anti-terrorist operation” in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, reigniting tensions in the area.

• Concerns have arisen that this could lead to a resumption of full-scale hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, who engaged in a six-week war in the region in 2020.

Key Highlights

• Background
  • Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed region, had been under ethnic Armenian control since the end of a separatist war in 1994.
  • However, Azerbaijan regained territories, including parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, during the 2020 six-week war.
  • A Russian peacekeeping force was deployed to the region under an armistice agreement, but tensions persisted.
  • Azerbaijan accused Armenia of smuggling weapons into Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to a blockade of the road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, resulting in food and medicine shortages in the region.
  • Recent tensions also involve Armenia’s strained relations with Russia, a traditional ally, over issues such as the Russian peacekeepers’ role and military exercises with the United States.
• Historical Background:
  • Imperial History: Nagorno-Karabakh has a complex history involving various empires and powers, including Persia, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire.
  • In the early 20th century, it was part of the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic.
  • In 1923, Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, transferred Nagorno-Karabakh from Soviet Armenia to Soviet Azerbaijan as an autonomous region within Azerbaijan.
    • This decision laid the groundwork for future disputes.
  • As the Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, ethnic tensions between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh escalated.
• Key Events and Conflict Phases:
  • 1988-1994 War:
    • The conflict turned into a full-scale war in 1988, leading to significant casualties and population displacement.
    • The war officially ended in 1994 with a ceasefire brokered by Russia, but sporadic clashes continued.
  • Status Quo:
    • Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts fell under the control of ethnic Armenian forces, creating a de facto independent entity, the Republic of Artsakh (which remains unrecognized by the international community).
    • The area has been governed separately from Azerbaijan ever since.
  • Tensions and Skirmishes:
    • Despite the ceasefire, periodic clashes and skirmishes occurred along the Line of Contact (LoC), causing casualties and straining relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
  • Key Disputes and Issues:
    • Territorial Claims:
      • Armenia claims Nagorno-Karabakh as part of its territory, while Azerbaijan asserts its sovereignty over the region and demands the return of the surrounding districts controlled by Armenian forces.
    • Refugees and Displaced Persons:
      • The conflict led to a significant number of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) on both sides.
      • The issue of their return and compensation remains a major challenge.
    • International Mediation:
      • The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, France, and the United States, has been the primary forum for negotiations and mediation.
      • However, a comprehensive peace agreement has not been reached.