📰 Making it difficult to ‘Other’ the Muslim
TalkToAMuslim marks a symbolic victory; but it is shameful that Muslims should be made to initiate such an outreach
•A new hashtag, #TalkToAMuslim, began trending on Twitter earlier this week. In what is an ironic comment on the times, a campaign seeking to counter communal polarisation itself fell prey to polarisation. In a matter of hours, social media was riven into two hostile camps: one scathing in its criticism of the hashtag, and the other steadfast in its defence of it.
•Both Hindus and Muslims participated in the campaign, which involved individuals posting a selfie with a placard that held a message and the hashtag. Muslims posted selfies with messages that said, “I am an Indian Muslim, I’m human too! You can talk to me. #TalkToAMuslim.” Placards of the Hindu participants typically read, “I’m a Hindu. I talk to Muslims. Guess they are humans too, #TalkToAMuslim.”
The context
•The immediate trigger for the campaign was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s attack on Congress president Rahul Gandhi, after he met with a group of intellectuals from the Muslim community. BJP leaders ‘accused’ Mr. Gandhi of turning the Congress into a “Muslim party”.
•It is indeed troubling that talking to Muslims — which is all that Mr. Gandhi did — could even be formulated as an accusation. In no sane society can an accusation of this kind, first of all, make any sense as an accusation, and second, gain traction among vast swathes of public opinion. Recent events, however, suggest that India is hurtling away from sanity at great speed. In this context, the #TalkToAMuslim campaign represents nothing more than an attempt — a feeble and not a particularly smart one — to apply the brakes.
•The hashtag is, of course, condescending towards Muslims insofar as the framework of the interaction is premised on Muslims making themselves available to help non-Muslims relinquish their bigotry. Majoritarian bigotry is not a problem that could be solved by the minorities. Moreover, by pitching religious identity as the primary reason for talking to a person, the campaign ends up reinforcing precisely what it seeks to counter: the reduction of personhood to religious identity.
•Another criticism directed against #TalkToAMuslim is that it is elitist, and that it would only help well-heeled Muslims and Hindus to engage in mutually beneficial virtue signalling. They could use this hashtag activism to acquire useful social capital, and then go back to their privileged lives, while poor Muslims would have to carry on as before, acutely conscious of the ever-present danger of the lynch mob and of the state machinery’s impotence before it.
The ‘Othering’ of the Muslim
•Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to dismiss the campaign or the arguments put forward by those who participated in it. Their rationale can be summed up as follows: at present, Muslims are being ‘Othered’ — not just in the loose sense of the word, which is often used to signify a people being marginalised, but also in the classical sense of the term ‘Other’. It refers to a phenomenon where the (Othered) minority becomes a foil against which the majority constructs its collective ‘self’ or identity. Put another way, in the Hindutva universe, Muslim-hatred is the glue that aggregates a vast number of individuals from different castes, classes, and ethnicities into a homogeneous political community of Hindus.
•Take away the Muslim ‘Other’ in this case, and all you are left with are disparate individuals who happen to do puja, follow caste norms, and worship some Hindu gods — there is neither a collective that politically self-identifies as a ‘Hindu community’, nor a cause for such a self-identification. This putative ‘Hindu community’ cannot come into existence without a prior or contextual invocation of the Muslim ‘Other’, which naturally requires that the Muslim be ‘othered’.
•The Nazis, experts in ‘Othering’, followed its logic to the end point, which was the detention camp. If the ongoing, energetic ‘Othering’ of the Indian Muslim is to be countered, what options are available? One would be to get the majority to imagine them as members of the same community to which they belong — the community of friends, acquaintances and citizens. This is what the hashtag aimed to do. It sought to mobilise talk between Muslims and Hindus so that it became difficult to ‘Other’ the Muslim as this demonic entity whose only mission is to be the Hindu’s enemy — on the face of it, a ridiculous notion, but one that seems to work rather well for those polarising the nation along religious lines.
•To the extent that this campaign serves to name the pathology — the notion that talking to Muslims is a problem — it has value. Naming the pathology is vital if one wants to stop the pathology from being normalised. Hindus who have never had a meaningful conversation with a Muslim may or may not end up talking to one as a result of this hashtag.
•Still, even if nothing comes of it at the material level, the hashtag represents a minor victory in the symbolic realm, for it is important to publicly say it — to say, ‘talk to a Muslim’ — for it is not unimaginable that, in the foreseeable future, it may prove unthinkable to say even this, with or without a hashtag. In that sense, saying #TalkToAMuslim is both the means and the end of the campaign. It is shameful that Indian Muslims should feel compelled to initiate such an ‘outreach’ to the majority community. But the shame of it is not theirs to bear.
📰 Details of 2015 Naga agreement emerge
‘Framework agreement’ recognises uniqueness of Naga history.
•The government has informed a Parliamentary panel that it signed a framework agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) after it agreed on a settlement within the Indian federation with a “special status.”
•R. N. Ravi, interlocutor for the Naga talks, told the committee that it was a departure from their earlier position of “with India, not within India,” and that the government called it a framework agreement and signed it. This is the first time that details of the agreement signed at the residence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on August 3, 2015, have emerged.
•The details are part of the 213th report on the security situation in the Northeastern states tabled by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. The committee was also informed that the “contours” had not been spelt out in the framework agreement that was “just about the recognition of the uniqueness of the Naga history by the Government of India”, and some special arrangements will have to be made for the Nagas.
•“On being asked what the special arrangement will be, the Committee was told that with respect to Nagaland...Article 371A of the Constitution makes it clear that they are special and a special status has been accorded to them. A similar kind of status, with some local variation, and some change to the Nagas in the neighbouring States can be explored,” the report said. According to the report, Mr. Ravi also informed the committee that the Nagas had now reached a common understanding with the government that “boundaries of the States will not be touched” and “some special arrangements would be made for the Nagas, wherever they are.”
•“The Interlocutor apprised the committee about the broad status of the negotiations that boundaries of any State will neither be changed nor altered. Initially, the Nagas had stuck to the idea of unification of Naga inhabited areas, resolutely maintaining their stand of ‘no integration, no solution.’ However, they have now reached a common understanding with the Government that boundaries of States will not be touched,” the report said. The NSCN-IM has been fighting for ‘Greater Nagaland’ or Nagalim — it wants to extend Nagaland's borders by including Naga-dominated areas in neighbouring Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, to unite 1.2 million Nagas. The Chief Ministers of the three States have warned against any tinkering with its boundaries.
•“While briefing the committee, R. N. Ravi, interlocutor for Nagas, stated that the Government has been talking with the NSCN-IM for the last 20 years and their position from the very beginning has been that Nagas were exceptional, Nagas were not Indians, Nagas were sovereign and any settlement could be reached only on the basis of the fact that this is a settlement between two sovereigns“During the course of the last several years, the Government started opening out and reaching out to civil society organisations, Naga tribal bodies and other stakeholders other than the NSCN-IM,” the report said.
📰 Lynching & the law
Supreme Court order highlights the bigotry and prejudice behind the mob violence
•The Supreme Court order calling for a special law to deal with lynchingsends a strong message about the growing phenomenon of mob violence. From vigilante violence targeting cattle traders in the name of cow protection, it has taken a new turn. While the former was organised vigilantism, the recent spate of killings seemingly comprises impulsive and unplanned acts of violence, fuelled by rumour and panic-inducing social media messaging. Last year the apex court reminded the Centre and the States they cannot remain silent while vigilantes take the law into their own hands in the name of cow protection. It asked all States to appoint nodal officers in each district to curb mobs. While the incidence of lynching and violence committed by self-styled gau rakshaksappear to have reduced since then, the killing and attacks on those mistaken to be child-kidnappers have had a disquieting rise. The police say the circulation of videos and other messages about child-lifters through messaging apps is the main reason. In its 45-page order, the Supreme Court has significantly located lynching and vigilante violence in a socio-political framework linked to disrespect for an inclusive social order, rising intolerance and growing polarisation. There is an implicit indictment of the preponderant mood of the times when it says that “hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated”.
•Besides directing specific preventive, punitive and remedial measures, a three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India has mooted the idea of making lynching a separate offence. It says a special law would “instil a sense of fear” among those involved. Whether a special law is enough to ensure a greater level of deterrence is open to question, especially so when murder and mob violence are covered by existing provisions. But in sending this message out, the apex court has ensured that the issue cannot be brushed under the carpet and, ipso facto, has forced those who govern us to pay special attention towards curbing this madness. Any legislation though should be comprehensive, covering not only incidents of lynching, but also the extent to which criminality can be apportioned among rumour-mongers, instigators, principal offenders and those who are accessories to the crime. Whether it must penalise (and if so how) those who do nothing to stop such crimes or help bring the offenders to book, is another issue worth considering. The judgment places the onus on the law and order machinery to prevent and punish lynchings. But we must heed what it says on the role of bigotry, non-acceptance of plurality and diversity in creating an atmosphere where human beings are dehumanised: one in which freedom of speech, expression and personal choices are endangered.
📰 Dangerous law: on Israel’s ‘nation state’ law
Israel’s ‘nation state’ law undermines its Arab minority and obstructs the peace process
•The ‘nation state’ law passed by Israel’s Parliament amid strong protests by Opposition lawmakers, has raised concerns about its commitment to peace in the region. The legislation, which will become one of Israel’s powerful Basic Laws that have constitutional status, lays down that “Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it”. The law strips Arabic, the first language of 1.8 million citizens, of its national language status; states that Jerusalem, “whole and united”, is its capital; and vows to “promote and encourage” the establishment and consolidation of Jewish settlements, which it sees as a national value. Supporters of the Bill say it is aimed to boost Israel’s Jewish identity and will not discriminate against minorities. But the reality looks more complicated in Israel and the occupied territories. As it is, the Arab community, which makes up a fifth of Israel’s population, faces discrimination when it comes to opportunities and rights. The Israeli right’s anti-minority politics is no secret. By providing exclusive right to national self-determination only to the Jewish people and by downgrading Arabic’s status, the law sends a clear message. For decades, the Israeli far-right sought Jewishness as the ethnic religious character of the state. The new Basic Law sets the stage for that transition, challenging the basic concepts of equality, which even Israel’s declaration of independence promised to all its inhabitants. Arab MPs have called the legislation racist and a form of apartheid aimed at creating two systems within one country.
•The emphasis on Jerusalem and the promise to promote settlements pose a direct threat to any peace process with the Palestinians. Jerusalem remains a disputed territory, with Palestinians seeing its eastern part as the capital of their future state. Israel’s claim over the city remains a key point of dispute between the two sides. Besides, if Israel sees Jewish settlements as a national value and continues to promote them in the Palestinian territories, it cannot command confidence when it says it is still committed to the two-state solution. The law further erodes the credibility of Israel’s professed support of an independent Palestinian state. Israel has just passed two other pieces of legislation — one places limits on Palestinians under occupation in accessing Israel’s High Court, and the other bans individuals and groups seeking political action against the country or the prosecution of Israeli soldiers abroad, from entering Israeli school premises. Together, these laws allow the Israeli state to institutionalise discrimination against the minorities at home, deepen occupation in the Palestinian territories and stifle even the limited rights of the Palestinians living under occupation.
📰 India to expand polar research to Arctic as well
•Three decades after its first mission to Antarctica, the government is refocusing priorities to the other pole — the Arctic — because of opportunities and challenges posed by climate change.
•This month, it has renamed the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) — since 1998, charged with conducting expeditions to India’s base stations to the continent — as the National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research. It’s also in talks with Canada and Russia, key countries with presence in the Arctic circle, to establish new observation systems, according to a source. Now, India only has one Arctic observation station near Norway.
•Along with the Arctic, India’s earth sciences community also views the Himalayas as a “third pole” because of the large quantities of snow and ice it holds, and proposes to increase research spends towards understanding the impact of climate change in the Himalayas. It has already established a high-altitude research station in the Himalayas, called HIMANSH, at Spiti, Himachal Pradesh.
•“…The Hon’ble Minister for S&T and Earth Sciences has approved the renaming of National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR), Goa to National Centre for Polar and Ocean Research (NCPOR), Goa,” says a July 5 notification by the Ministry of Earth Sciences.
•While annual missions to maintain India’s three bases in Antarctica will continue, the new priorities mean that there will be more expeditions and research focus on the other poles, the source. M. Rajeevan, Secretary, earth science ministry, wasn't available for comment.
•Climate change, said the source, was a decisive factor in India re-thinking priorities. Sea ice at the Arctic has been melting rapidly — the fastest in this century. That means several spots, rich in hydrocarbon reserves, will be more accessible through the year via alternative shipping routes.
•India is already an observer at the Arctic Council — a forum of countries that decides on managing the region’s resources and popular livelihood and, in 2015, set up an underground observatory, called IndARC, at the Kongsfjorden fjord, half way between Norway and the North Pole.
•A big worry for India is the impact of melting sea ice on the monsoon. Over the years scientists across the world are reporting that the rapid ice-melt in the Arctic is leading to large quantities of fresh water into the seas around the poles. This impedes the release of heat from the water and directs warm water into the seas around India, the theory goes, and eventually weakens the movement of the monsoon breeze into India. “Therefore we need more observations and stations in the Arctic countries to improve understanding of these processes,” the source added.
📰 A vote of no confidence from the farmers
There is enough evidence to show that the government has failed farmers and agricultural labourers in a big way
•As the Lok Sabha debates the vote of no confidence today, representatives of farmers from across the country will be marching outside Parliament under the banner of All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC), an umbrella body of 201 farmer organisations. Farmers have already passed a vote of no confidence against this government. Far from helping the farmers, this government has actually harmed them in their hour of crisis. This is a strong indictment, backed by solid evidence.
•Here, it is not conclusive to give data on sluggish agricultural growth during this regime. Agricultural production suffered due to consecutive droughts for which it is unfair to blame the government. Nor can we use the data on farmer suicides to make a conclusive argument, as this government has tinkered so much, both with the definition of the term and data collection on it, that the data has been made unusable. Further, in any case, the data on farmer suicides has not been released for 15 months now.
Ten arguments
•Here are ten concrete, evidence-based, arguments on why the farmers of India express their vote of no confidence against this government.
•First, this government has failed to act on any of its major election promises in 2014. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s manifesto promised nothing short of “highest priority to agricultural growth, increase in farmers income and rural development”. The government’s own Economic Survey 2018 has already conceded that farmers’ real income has “remained stagnant”, recording a 1.9% growth over four years. The concrete promise of higher public investment in agriculture did not materialise; in fact, it has declined in terms of its share of GDP.
•The new farm insurance scheme, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, has consumed thrice as much money as earlier schemes without either increasing the proportion of farmers who benefited from it, or giving a fair claim to the farmers. The promise of “welfare measures” — for farmers above 60, small farmers and farm labourers — was forgotten. The National Land Use Policy was never enacted. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act was not reformed. We don’t even have a ‘promises vs. delivery’ report card yet.
The MSP promise
•Second, the Narendra Modi government actually reneged on its biggest promise of ensuring “50% profit over the cost of production” to the farmers. In February 2015, it filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court refusing to implement this promise on the ground that it will “distort” the agricultural market. As pressure from farmer organisations mounted, the government shifted the goalpost in the 2018 Budget by changing the definition of cost of production for the purpose of calculating the Minimum Support Price (MSP).
•Third, not only did the government not fulfil its promise of “cost+50%” as MSP, it did not even maintain the routine annual increase in MSP. It began this by stopping the bonus over the MSPs announced by State governments. Over the nearly five-year period, the percentage increase in MSP by this government has actually been lower than the hike by both the previous governments.
•Even this government’s much-publicised recent hike in MSP this year is lower than the year-on-year increase announced by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in 2008-09. The Modi government’s failure to implement the MSP that it announced forced the farmers into distress sale of Kharif and Rabi crops, amounting to at least ₹50,000 crore, in 2017-18.
•Fourth, this government is guilty of perhaps the most lackadaisical response to nationwide droughts in 2014-15 and 2015-16. The central government’s response was limited to a revision in the eligibility cap for compensation and a routine raise in the compensation amount but also included cuts in contribution to States from the National Disaster Relief Fund. Despite repeated push from the Supreme Court, the government did not take any proactive steps in terms of either declaration of drought, improvement in ration delivery, or response to drinking water crisis specified in its own Manual for Drought Management. The Supreme Court had to reprimand the central government.
Choking the MGNREGS
•Fifth, the Modi government’s lack of political will in implementing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) has hit the rural poor in general and farm labourers in particular. After making a determined but unsuccessful attempt to dismantle the MGNREGS, the Modi government has choked this programme of adequate and timely funds and reneged on its legal obligation to provide timely wages and compensation for delayed payments.
•Sixth, from imposing Minimum Export Price on potatoes in 2014 to importing sugar from Pakistan, this government has followed anti-farmer trade policies. Farm exports were systematically discouraged, leading to a decline in agricultural exports from $43 billion on 2013-14 to $33 billion in 2016-17. At the same time, import of lentil, chana, wheat, sugar and milk powder was allowed that led to a crash in crop prices.
•Seventh, the Modi government’s ill-advised and shoddily implemented policy of demonetisation dealt a severe blow to agricultural markets, especially to fruit and vegetable markets, just when the farmers were recovering from the consecutive droughts. A sudden shrinking of cash led to demand contraction and fall in prices, whose effects are being felt even now.
•Eighth, the government’s crude attempt to regulate livestock market by imposing ban on livestock movement and its protection to those guilty of lynching the suspected “cow smugglers” has disrupted livestock economic cycle, leading to loss of income on the one hand and aggravation of the widespread problem of animals destroying crops on the other.
•Ninth, for the adivasi farmer, this is surely the most insensitive government. In a series of moves, this government has diluted the Forest Rights Act and various other environmental and forest conservation laws substantially in order to help the transfer of common land and water resources from the adivasis to industry.
•And finally, the Modi government made not one but four attempts to bring an ordinance so as to nullify the historic Land Acquisition Act of 2013 and take away the few concessions that farmers had won after 120 years. Further, the government has effectively bypassed this law in the land acquisitions done by central agencies like the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and has also allowed State governments to nullify the provisions benefitting the land-owning farmers.
•Notwithstanding its recent attempts at damage control, this government has justly acquired the reputation of being the most anti-farmer government in the history of independent India. Whatever the fate of the no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, the Modi government would find it hard to win a vote of confidence brought by the farmers.
📰 Should WhatsApp be held accountable for lynchings?
WhatsApp needs to change its platform to enable messages to be either public or private
•Misinformation and propaganda have flooded our messaging apps and little is being done by law enforcement agencies, the government, and WhatsApp to fix this.
Primary responsibility
•The primary responsibility to fix this lies with law enforcement agencies. A mob takes the law into its hands if it believes that either law enforcement agencies are incapable/unwilling to help or that its crimes will go unpunished. A lynching is a lynching, whether or not it was precipitated by a WhatsApp forward. Mob violence is not an act of nature: someone leads the mob and there is often politics behind such acts, perhaps even protection.
•Law enforcement agencies shut down the Internet to prevent the forwarding of messages and possible riots. In 2017, according to data from the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), India had 70 Internet shutdowns. We’re halfway through 2018 and we have already reached that number. An Internet shutdown is a suspension of the constitutional right to free speech; a disproportionate act of censorship of all speech in response to the actions of a few. The data suggest that there are no shutdowns in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru, while smaller towns bear the brunt of such actions. The lack of capacity of law enforcement agencies in smaller towns to deal with these situations is a worrying sign, especially in the run-up to elections. The data also indicate that the States with the maximum Internet shutdowns are where the BJP is in power or in a coalition: Jammu and Kashmir (before the government collapsed), and then Rajasthan, Haryana, U.P. and Gujarat.
•State governments need to build law enforcement capacity and ensure prosecution in case of mob violence. A new law covering lynchings will be ineffective if our criminal justice system is incapable of enforcing the law. The Centre needs to do better while engaging with messaging and social media platforms: it took the Information Technology Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, till 2018 to ask WhatsApp about action being taken to address misinformation. This is despite the fact that three years ago, T.N. Seema, a Rajya Sabha MP, had asked the Home Ministry to clarify “the mechanism existing with government to deal with the danger of high-tech rumour-mongering kind of Internet-rumour-bombs which may lead to communal tension and fear among the common masses.”
•It is important for platforms like WhatsApp to not be legally accountable for the messages being sent through them. That would amount to holding telecom operators accountable for the calls that you make. However, that doesn’t mean that WhatsApp isn’t responsible for helping ensure that users are held to account for their messages.
What WhatsApp should do
•WhatsApp needs to change its platform to enable messages to be either public or private. Messages between individuals should remain private and not be those that can be forwarded. However, if a message creator wants to enable the forward ability of that message, the chat should be treated as public, and attributed with a unique ID linked to the original creator. This will allow WhatsApp to shut down such a message across its network once it is reported, and identify the creator when a court-directed request is made by law enforcement agencies. This will ensure accountability, allow the platform to remain neutral, and ensure that illegal speech is addressed. It’s important to remember that incorrect or false information is not illegal and people could be mistaken. It is messages with incitement of violence that need to be addressed. However, given the apathy from the government, law enforcement agencies, and WhatsApp, there is likely to be more mob violence and lynchings.
📰 Regulating foreign universities in India
An earlier Bill attempted to provide a framework
•Reports this year said the government has renewed its push for foreign universities in India. The development comes after the UPA government’s detailed law on foreign varsities, their entry and regulation — the Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulations of Entry and Operations) Bill of 2010 — lapsed. This Bill was meant to introduce a comprehensive regulatory mechanism to prevent students from falling for the attractions offered by these establishments.
•Due to a regulatory regime or policy, it has been difficult to make a meaningful assessment of the operations of foreign educational institutions. The statement of objects and reasons of the 2010 Bill says that this has given chances to adopt various unfair practices and for commercialisation.
•At present, only the All India Council for Technical Education has notified regulations for the entry and operation of foreign universities and institutions imparting technical education in India. The objective of the Bill was to maintain high standards of education. The Bill provided that a foreign educational institution shall not impart education in India unless it is recognised and notified by the Central government as a foreign education provider under the proposed legislation. The quality of education, curriculum, methods of imparting education, and the faculty should be the same as those employed by the institution in its main campus. The institution should maintain a corpus fund of not less than ₹50 crore or such sum as may be notified by the Central government.
•The Centre can refuse to recognise and notify a foreign educational institution as a foreign education provider if it is not in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, etc. The Centre can withdraw the recognition and rescind the notification of a foreign education provider on the grounds of violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation or the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, or any other law.
•Any person who is associated with an unrecognised foreign educational institution and who offers or gives admission to any person as student, or collects fee or awards any degree, shall be liable to a penalty of ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh in addition to a refund of the fee and confiscation of any gains made out of it.
•Any disputes under the Bill would be heard under the National Educational Tribunal, also a forum proposed.
📰 Canada’s biggest public pension fund to step up investment in India
Eyes India’s $87 billion spending on infrastructure in financial year 2019
•Canada’s biggest public pension scheme sees India as its main focus for investment in Asia as the country pours money into infrastructure development.
•Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which manages Canada’s national pension fund, has invested nearly C$7 billion ($5.30 billion) in India since entering the market a decade ago and is looking for opportunities to invest in Indian infrastructure, power and real estate projects.
‘India, a focus market’
•“As a long-term investor, Asia-Pacific is very important... India is our focus market in Asia-Pacific,” Suyi Kim, senior managing director and head of Asia Pacific, CPPIB told Reuters in an interview on Thursday.
•Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government plans to boost the economy and create more jobs by tripling public spending on infrastructure to ₹5.97 trillion ($87 billion) in the financial year ending next March, from levels seen in 2014/15, as India heads towards elections by next May.
•Some of CPPIB’s recent deals have been with private sector lender Kotak Mahindra Bank and real estate developer Phoenix Mills Ltd.
•“We’re going to continue to expand our real estate, power, renewable and infrastructure investments,” Ms. Kim said.
•The fund would also be interested in the consumer sector, she said, but did not specify further.
•CPPIB currently owns shares in some leading fast moving consumer goods companies like ITC Ltd., Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Britannia Industries Ltd.
•The fund also expects more deals with logistics platform IndoSpace Core, its joint venture with Indian property developer IndoSpace.
📰 Wildlife scientists satellite-collar a dhole
•In a first, wildlife scientists have collared a dhole, the Indian wild dog, with a satellite transmitter to study the habits of the endangered species.
•With less than 2,500 individuals surviving in the wild globally, the dhole is already extinct in about 10 Asian countries.
•It took a team of scientists from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) over 10 days to to track down a pack of 14 dholes in Bishanpura meadow in the Mukki range of the Kanha National Park. The team tranquilised an adult female, tested its health and fixed a tracking collar around its neck as the rest of pack cautiously observed from a distance.
•“We don’t know a lot of aspects of their ecology, which makes conserving dholes far more difficult than tigers,” said Y.V. Jhala, senior scientist at WII.
•Conservation ecologists believe the renewed efforts can help protect dholes.
