📰 Cabinet approves PM SHRI scheme
Government schools will be selected if a State agrees to implement NEP in ‘entirety’
•The Union Cabinet on Wednesday approved the ‘PM Schools for Rising India’ (PM SHRI) scheme to turn existing government schools into model schools for implementation of the National Education Policy, 2022.
•The scheme will be implemented as a Centrally sponsored scheme with a total project cost of ₹27,360 crore, with the Centre’s share being ₹18,128 crore for the period of five years from 2022-23 to 2026-27 for transforming nearly 14,500 schools across the country.
•However, schools will be selected only if the State government agrees to implement the NEP “in entirety with the Centre laying down commitments for supporting these schools for achieving specified quality parameters” to become PM SHRI schools, according to a press statement of the Ministry of Education. These schools will also be “monitored vigorously” to assess their progress in implementing NEP.
•The scheme has been announced at a time when some States, including Tamil Nadu, continue to oppose the NEP for imposing a centralised education system on the entire country when education is a State subject as well as enforcing the three-language policy under which students will learn three languages out of which two have to be native to India. Other grounds for opposition include mandatory school entry at three years, which could leave out many from marginalised communities, promotion of vocational courses from Class 6 at the cost of formal education, as well as the option to exit schools in Class 10 with the option to re-enter in Class 11.
•“A school will receive nearly ₹2 crore, and the money will be transferred directly to the school’s account through Direct Benefit Transfer. The principal or the local committee will be given the flexibility to determine the use of 40% of the fund,” Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said at a press conference.
•The PM SHRI scheme also provides a “School Quality Assessment Framework” which will be developed for measuring key performance indicators for carrying out quality evaluation of schools selected from the current academic year.
•The quality parameters that will be evaluated once a school is selected for the scheme will include implementation of NEP 2020, student registry for tracking enrolment and learning progress, improvement in learning outcomes of each child to achieve levels above State and national average, linkage of school with higher education institutions and local entrepreneurial ecosystem for mentoring as well as creating “students rooted in the heritage of India, proud of values of Bharat, conscious of duties towards society and responsibilities towards nation-building”.
•Earlier, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wrote a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the scheme and said there was a need to pay attention to all government schools, which he said were worse than “kabaadkhana” (scrapyard). “You have only prepared a scheme for 14,500 schools. There are more than 10 lakh government schools in the country,” he wrote
📰 Rajpath, Central Vista lawns renamed ‘Kartavya Path’
Proposal passed day before PM inaugurates revamped avenue
•Rajpath and Central Vista Lawns in the national capital will now be known as “Kartavya Path” after the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), in a special council meeting on Wednesday, approved a proposal to rename the iconic stretch.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi will inaugurate the revamped Central Vista Avenue, which encompasses the stretch, lawns and adjoining areas, on Thursday.
•Referring to the renaming, Union Minister and NDMC member Meenakshi Lekhi said that the name “Rajpath” reflected a “colonial mindset”, which had to be done away with since “India adopted a democratic system after Independence”. During British rule, Rajpath was known as Kingsway. Ms. Lekhi said the change came into effect “immediately” after the council meeting. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is also an NDMC member, was not present at the meeting.
•NDMC vice-chairman Satish Upadhyay said the stretch and area from India Gate to the Rashtrapati Bhavan will now be known as “Kartavya Path”.
Renaming signages
•A senior official at the Central Public Works Department said that vinyl films will be pasted on signages in 14 locations highlighting the renaming. “The work will be completed before the inauguration of the revamped Central Vista Avenue on Thursday,” said the official.
•The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), in a statement, said the renaming of the stretch symbolises a shift from the “erstwhile Rajpath being an icon of power to Kartavya Path being an example of public ownership and empowerment”.
•The statement issued by the PMO said Mr. Modi will on Thursday also unveil a statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose at India Gate, where a hologram of the late freedom fighter was installed earlier this year.
📰 The Spirit of 1971
India and Bangladesh must focus on future cooperation based on past partnership
•Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s ongoing state visit to India and meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi have resulted in positive outcomes and seven agreements, which include the conclusion of the first water sharing agreement in 26 years, the launch of free trade agreement talks, and infrastructure projects particularly in the railways sector. The water sharing agreement on the Kushiyara, which was preceded by the first Joint River Commission meeting in 12 years, is a particularly hopeful sign on resolving water management, and a very contentious issue, of 54 trans-boundary rivers. While there has been a smaller agreement on the withdrawal of 1.82 cusecs from the Feni in the interim period, the Kushiyara agreement is the first time the Centre has been able to bring on board Assam and other north-eastern States, for the agreement since the 1996 Ganga water treaty. However, the Teesta agreement, of 2011, held up by West Bengal, remains elusive, a point Ms. Hasina made several times. Clearly, the Teesta river agreement will require more efforts by the Modi government, and flexibility from the Mamata Banerjee-led State government, if the deal is to be sealed soon. The timeline grows more important for Ms. Hasina, who is due to hold elections at the end of next year, after three terms in office. Much of her focus was also on attracting investment by Indian industry, which now constitutes a small fraction of Bangladesh’s FDI inflows. Ms. Hasina made particular mention of two dedicated Special Economic Zones for Indian companies, coming up at Mongla and Mirsarai.
•Ms. Hasina’s visit, which follows her previous state visit in 2017, and Mr. Modi’s visit to Bangladesh in 2021, have set India-Bangladesh ties on a firmer footing, and on course for closer engagement in trade, connectivity and people-to-people ties. However, the positive trend in ties goes further back, to Ms. Hasina’s advent to power in 2009, her unilateral moves to shut down terror training camps, and to hand over more than 20 wanted criminals and terror suspects to India. It is incumbent on New Delhi, which has benefited from such outcomes and the turnaround in relations with what used to be an inimical neighbour, to be equally sensitive to Dhaka’s concerns, particularly when it comes to comments made by ruling party leaders on deporting Rohingya refugees, comparing undocumented migrants to “termites”, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and more recent references to annexing Bangladesh for “Akhand Bharat”. While cross-border sensitivities in South Asia often run high over such political rhetoric, it is necessary that New Delhi and Dhaka remain focused on their future cooperation, built on their past partnership, and what is referred to as the “Spirit of 1971”.
📰 The evolving role of CSR in funding NGOs
Beyond signing cheques, corporates are recognising that what’s good for society is good for business
•When COVID-19 spurred a nationwide lockdown in India in 2020, a grave need for localised social support emerged. Giving, both private and public, flowed to NGOs working towards combating pandemic-induced challenges such as loss of livelihood for vulnerable communities, food banks, and health and medical support.
•In any such social effort, programme expenses attract the big cheques — especially when they come from corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in India. For example, an NGO working on education outcomes might receive funding for books, other online resources, teacher training, curriculum design, etc. But NGOs have other expenses too. In order to achieve long-term and sustained impact, they need to pay for administrative and support expenses not specifically tied to programmes— for instance, rent, electricity, technology and human resource costs. These organisational development and indirect costs, combined with programme expenses, make up an NGOs’ true costs. And underfunding an NGO’s true costs reduces the efficacy and impact of the very programmes that funders support.
•To understand how funders and NGOs perceive an NGO’s true costs, and what it takes to build a financially resilient social sector, we surveyed and interviewed over 500 NGOs, funders and intermediary organisations across India as part of our multi-year Pay-What-It-Takes-India initiative.
The funder archetypes
•Based on a recent survey of nearly 80 diverse social sector funders, we discovered three distinct funder archetypes — programme proponents, adaptive funders, and organisation builders. The three archetypes represent different beliefs in terms of how philanthropy becomes impact. And those beliefs manifest in different practices around funding indirect costs and organisational development. Programme proponents value programme outcomes above all. Adaptive funders are not rigid and support indirect costs and organisational development, if the NGO makes a case. Organisation builders see value in investing in stronger organisations in addition to programmes.
•CSR funders, who now represent a fifth of all private giving in India, principally fall under programme proponents. They mostly contribute little or no money to organisational development and limit what they pay for indirect costs to a fixed rate often below 5%. Our 2020 primary research showed that NGOs’ indirect costs range from 5% to 55%, depending on their mission and operating model, much as a corporate’s sales and administration costs vary significantly by industry and product.
•These practices are partly a consequence of CSR funders’ focus on regulatory compliance — amendments to the CSR law in 2021 include substantial financial penalties for non-compliance. Roughly 90% of the CSR funders are relatively small, unlisted companies — and companies that spend less than ₹50 lakh annually on CSR are not required by law to have a CSR committee. They generally leave decision-making and action plans to company boards, who may have little to no experience working with NGOs or on social impact. Hence, their priorities tend to sway towards risk avoidance, compliance, and cost minimisation. Several larger companies have added CSR to the responsibilities of their HR or administration or communications head, rather than hiring professional leads, experienced in the social sector.
•Further, not every company is aware of all the facets of the CSR rules they are complying with. For instance, the 5% cap on administrative overhead costs is applicable only to a business’ internal CSR operation cost, not to the grantee’s administrative costs, as is widely perceived. Many CSRs make errors on safety with the unintended consequence of leaving an NGO with unpaid bills or worse still, drawing on its scarce core funding from other donors to pay for these essential costs.
•How might this change? For one thing, companies can pool their resources with other mission-aligned CSR or social sector stakeholders, increasing their collective impact potential, and also hire or tap into professionals with experience working with NGOs. Since 2020, the number of philanthropic collaboratives, such as the Migrants Resilience Collaborative that supports migrant workers or Revive Alliance that finances semi- and unskilled workers, have more than doubled.
Learn from peer organisations
•In addition, CSR funders would learn from peers who view organisational development and indirect costs differently. For example, ASK Foundation, the CSR arm of ASK Group, is working to enable better livelihoods for rural communities. Until four years ago, the ASK gave annual programme grants to NGOs, limited indirect cost coverage to between 5% and 10%, and did not provide organisational development expenses. Then, it shifted to a multi-year grant making approach and started providing up to 20% support for indirect costs. The shift in practice came after the CSR team presented benchmarks of the higher rates paid by peer CSR organisations and the beneficial effects of a stronger NGO partner on its programme outcomes. These peer examples and impact stories were instrumental in ASK getting board approval for changing its NGO funding policy.
•The pandemic also exposed how vulnerable NGOs are to financial stress. Our research revealed that 54% of NGOs had less than three months in reserve funds in September 2020. This number stood at 38% before the pandemic. Without adequate reserves, NGOs cannot pay salaries or bills when faced with an unexpected funding shortfall.
•The CSR programmes cannot currently contribute to NGO reserves/corpus by law. However, by covering indirect costs and organisational development, they still help to relieve financial pressure and make organisations more resilient. What’s more, corporates have considerable accounting and finance capabilities that they can offer to NGOs, in addition to their funding. NGOs don’t have clear financial reporting standards and many lack the internal capabilities to undertake a true-cost analysis. A corporate that has developed a relationship of mutual trust with an NGO could offer volunteer financial analysis services to help the NGO calculate true costs and communicate with other funders, and build financial resilience.
•Not many CSR funders think this way right now, but CSR practices are maturing. As our research has shown, more CSR decision-makers are shifting their focus from compliance with CSR laws to the social impact they are making. CSR funders are following several themes to make this transition, such as hiring professionals, coming together in collaboratives, and defining and publishing their impact metrics to hold themselves accountable. The idea is to move beyond signing cheques to recognising that, ultimately, what’s good for Indian society is also good for business.
If India is to become a defence power, then an Indo-U.S. military collaboration in every field is necessary
•India and the U.S. will undertake joint military drills in October in Auli, Uttarakhand. Auli is at an altitude of 10,000 feet and some 95 km from the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
•The time is ripe for the inaugural India-U.S. joint space military exercise. First, this single act will push India’s defence partnership into a new orbit. Second, it will send a strong message to a common adversary. Third, it will have other ripple effects for the wider Quad.
•Space has been singled out as a critical area of cooperation in the recent Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) meeting between India and the U.S. For the first time in history, both countries are jointly staring at a common adversary. Nothing binds friends together as sharing the same displacement anxiety.
A military domain
•Space as a military domain is a well-accepted fact. In 2019, the U.S. stood up its space force as a branch under the department of the Air Force. At the time, it became the world’s only independent space force. In India, historically, space has remained the sole jurisdiction of its civilian space agency, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). However, the successful demonstration (dubbed Mission Shakti) of anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test in 2019 changed things forever. The same year, India conducted its first ever simulated space warfare exercise (IndSpaceX) with an eye on Chinese threats.
•Furthermore, the launch of the tri-service Defence Space Agency (DSA) has permanently taken the military away from the shadows of civil space. The government has also set up the Defence Space Research Agency (DSRA) to help develop space-based weapons for the DSA. Space is as much recognised as a military domain as land, water, air and cyber.
•India and the U.S. do drills on land, in air and at sea. Why not extend it to the fourth domain? It is inevitable as both countries can expect the exact same conversation happening in their adversary’s strategy rooms.
•It will have actionable spill overs for the Quad, transform the moribund DTTI from a talk shop and send the right message to the adversary.
•The lowest hanging fruit would be a joint anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test. It is essentially a missile launched from the Earth’s surface to destroy a satellite passing overhead. Both countries have demonstrated capability in this. The test would be against a simulated orbital target as that does not create space debris and is not included in the wording of the U.S. moratorium.
•Eventually, this will lead to other space military collaborations such as directed energy weapons, rendezvous and proximity operations (RPOs), co-orbital ASATs (in space micro satellites as a kinetic kill option), etc.
Space programmes
•Every country worth its weight in salt is working on the military aspects of space. France conducted its first space military exercise, ASTERX, in 2021. China is marching ahead to the Cis-Lunar space (region beyond the geosynchronous orbit) with an ambition to establish a permanent presence on the Moon by 2024.
•The doctrine in space is still evolving with the U.S. urging partner countries to lay down rules and norms. China and Russia have released a draft binding treaty of their own. Red lines and norms will eventually emerge but until then it provides an ideal new theatre to push Indo-U.S. military collaboration forward.
•Space has assets that form the bedrock of the modern economy — GPS (PNT — position navigation timing), telecom networks, early warning systems for missiles and weather forecasts all are enabled by our satellites in GEO or LEO orbits.
•But there could be some expected pushback from the usual naysayers. First, it will provoke our eastern neighbour and compel them to draw a new redline. Second, our eastern neighbour will use our western neighbour as a proxy state. Third, it will derail the ongoing Core Commanders dialogue in Ladakh. Fourth, the United States cannot be trusted. Fifth, it will fastback militarisation for space. Our response to all the above is that it is an inevitable trend unfortunately, notwithstanding our action or inaction.
•Changing times now require us to innovate on doctrines, technologies and deterrence. Xi Jinping is on his way to building a “world-class” Chinese military by 2049. If India is to become a space power and if the Indo-U.S. partnership is to become the alliance of alliances, then imaginative steps will be needed.
•It is time for the India-U.S. military collaboration to get bolder and travel from mountains to outer heavens.
📰 The mandatory requirements for packaged commodities
Why is it necessary to list out the constituents of a product on the front packaging?
•The Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division has notified a draft amendment to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011.
•The Department of Consumer Affairs has suggested that at least two prime components should be declared on the package’s front side along with the brand name. Currently, manufacturers list the ingredients and nutritional information on the back of the packaging.
•Public comments were solicited from all stakeholders, including industries, associations, consumers, and voluntary consumer organisations.
•The story so far: The Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division has notified a draft amendment to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011. As stated in the notification, the Department of Consumer Affairs Legal Metrology Division has observed that many manufacturers/packagers/importers do not clearly label necessary declarations or prime constituents on the front of packaged commodities, which are deemed essential to be disclosed in order to protect consumer interests.
What are the mandatory provisions under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011?
•It is mandatory under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 to ensure a number of declarations, such as the name and address of the manufacturer/packer/importer, the country of origin, the common or generic name of the commodity, the net quantity, the month and year of manufacture, the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and consumer care information. As a consumer-oriented policy, all prepackaged commodities should also be inspected.
•As stated in Rule 2(h), the “principal display panel”, in relation to a package, means the total surface area of a package containing the information required in accordance with these rules, namely that all the information should be grouped together and given in one place — the pre-printed information could be grouped together and given in one place and the online information in another place.
•Additionally, Rule 9(1)(a) provides that the declaration on the package must be legible and prominent. The consumers’ ‘right to be informed’ is violated when important declarations are not prominently displayed on the package.
•If there is more than one major product, Rule 6(1)(b) states that “......the name or number of each product shall be mentioned on the package.” This sub-rule is however, not applicable to mechanical or electrical commodities.
What are the proposed amendments?
•As many blended food and cosmetic products are sold on the market, the key constituents need to be mentioned on the product packaging. It is common for consumers to assume that brands’ claims are accurate, but such claims are usually misleading. Additionally, the front side of the package must contain the percentage of the composition of the unique selling proposition (USP). As the name suggests, a USP also known as a unique selling point, is a marketing strategy designed to inform customers about the superiority of one’s own brand or product. Listing the USP of a product on the front of the package without disclosing its composition percentage violates consumer rights. Also, packages displaying key constituents must display a percentage of the content used to make the product. For example, if a brand sells aloe vera moisturiser or almond milk/biscuits, then the maximum percentage of the product should be aloe vera and almond, otherwise, the product name is misleading.
•The Department of Consumer Affairs, Legal Metrology Division has suggested that at least two prime components should be declared on the package’s front side along with the brand name. Currently, manufacturers list the ingredients and nutritional information only on the back of the packaging.
•The proposed Section 6(1)(ba) states that when a commodity contains more than one constituent, the front side of the package must include a declaration of two or more of the commodities’ prime constituents along with the brand name. This declaration must also include the percentage/quantity of the USPs of the product in the same font size as the declaration of the USPs. However, mechanical or electrical commodities are excluded from this sub-rule.
•Moreover, public comments were solicited from all stakeholders, including industries, associations, consumers, and voluntary consumer organisations, in order to obtain their viewpoints.
•When the new provision of Section 6(1) (ba) is added, consumers will not be misled by the fake claims of manufacturers relating to the content in blended foods and cosmetics.
📰 Content moderation on Wikipedia
What are the mechanisms Wikipedia uses to ensure that users do not have unrestricted editorial privilege?
•India has summoned officials of Wikipedia, in response to cricketer Arshdeep Singh’s Wikipedia page being edited with misleading information that stated he was a “khalistani”.
•To increase Wikipedia’s reliability and also to prevent vandalism and disruptive edits, there are restrictions on edits to the content that Wikipedia hosts. One of these restrictions is to allow certain “protections” to be accorded to particular articles. An article may have varying degree of protection depending on the vulnerability of the article to vandalism, disruption and abuse.
•In the case of social media platforms, platform owners such as Meta or Twitter are responsible for exercising due diligence in content moderation through individuals on their payroll. However, in Wikipedia, the situation is slightly different given that content moderation decisions are not taken by employees.
•The story so far: On Tuesday, India summoned officials of Wikipedia, in response to cricketer Arshdeep Singh’s Wikipedia page being edited with misleading information that stated he was a “khalistani”. This was done by online trolls after Arshdeep Singh dropped a catch in India’s match against Pakistan. The Minister of State for Electronics and IT, Rajeev Chandrashekhar tweeted that “no intermediary operating in India can permit this type of misinformation” as it violated the government’s expectation of a safe and trusted internet. To determine the role and liability of the Wikimedia Foundation (the owner of Wikipedia), in such instances, it is important to understand how content on the platform is moderated.
What is Wikipedia and its model for functioning?
•Since its inception in 2001, Wikipedia has become a household name. It describes itself as a “multilingual free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers through open collaboration and a wiki-based editing system”. Unlike traditional encyclopedias that have entries from pre-identified authors, all of Wikipedia’s encyclopedic content is user generated. This means that anyone can contribute to its pool of knowledge by making edits to existing pages for updation or correction and can even add new pages.
•While this model has its advantages in so far that it allows democratisation of knowledge,unhindered access to edit has also resulted in concerns relating to the reliability of information that it hosts.
Are there no control mechanisms for content on Wikipedia?
•Even though majority of the content is user generated, the Wikimedia Foundation has instituted some content moderation practices.
•First, to increase its reliability and also to prevent vandalism and disruptive edits, over time restrictions have been placed on edits to the content that Wikipedia hosts. One of these restrictions is to allow certain “protections” to be accorded to particular pages. A page may have varying degree of protection depending on the vulnerability of the page to vandalism, disruption and abuse. To implement this system of protection, Wikipedia classifies users depending on the edit rights that they have. For example, one of the highest levels of protection that can be accorded to a page is “full protection”. This means that only those users (called administrators) that have been given full edit rights (as per Wikipedia community review process) can make modifications. A slightly lower level of protection is “semi protection”. “Semi protected” pages cannot be edited by unregistered users. Another category of protection is “pending changes”, which means that changes made will not be reflected on the page unless the changes are accepted by an editor with those rights.
•Second, given that edit rights are widespread there have been instances of “content disputes” and “edit warring”. Content disputes occur when editors disagree with each other’s content. This could also lead to edit warring where editors repeatedly override each other’s contribution in a specific page. In such circumstances also, administrators can provide temporary or permanent protection to a page to prevent edits.
•However, most of the individuals that perform tasks for Wikipedia such as those holding the designation of bureaucrats, administrators or other editors with varying levels of edit rights are not employees of Wikimedia. These individuals gain such designations and exercise attendant rights through a community review process. Essentially, the more the trust they gain from the Wikipedia community, the greater is their degree of editorial responsibility. They are not given or removed from a particular designation by the Wikimedia Foundation per se.
•Although Wikimedia’s terms of use state that it “generally does not contribute, monitor or delete content” there are ways in which the Wikimedia Foundation exerts control over Wikipedia. First, the Wikimedia Foundation legally controls the servers on which Wikipedia’s content is hosted. This means that even though they do not have ownership of the user generated content hosted on Wikipedia, they are in control of the user activity information generated on the servers. Second, Wikimedia Foundation also exercises control on who the “system administrators” of Wikipedia are. System administrators are in a position to exercise considerable power because they can take decisions of blocking users or reversing edits in some circumstances, which can have content moderation implications.
Therefore, can the Wikimedia Foundation be held responsible for the content that Wikipedia hosts?
•There is no settled position on this. Typically, the architecture of Wikipedia is that of an intermediary i.e. it hosts content generated by its users. Under most laws regulating online content, intermediaries are endowed with immunity from the user generated content they host, provided they maintain some due diligence over their platforms. Intermediaries are afforded this immunity because first, the sheer volume of content generated makes it impossible to monitor this content and second, being personally responsible for user content would inundate them in legal battles making operations at that scale infeasible.
•In previous challenges to content on Wikipedia, there have been rulings that the Wikimedia Foundation does not own the content, and does not have the legal responsibility for it. However, administrators or editors have taken heed of the content concerns arising out of the situation and have made suitable edits. In case volunteer editors do not make suitable edits, Wikimedia, as per its terms of use states that it can “contribute, monitor or delete content” for legal compliance. Therefore, it is arguable that since Wikimedia can exercise such power, it can be held responsible for illegal content being hosted on Wikipedia.
What can the Indian government do if it is aggrieved by content on Wikipedia?
•In India, for intermediaries to claim the “safe harbour” of not being responsible for the content they host, under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, they must abide by due diligence requirements under the Act and its Rules. As per the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, there are certain categories of information that an intermediary should not allow to be hosted or uploaded on its platform. One such category is information that is “patently false and untrue, and is written or published in any form, with the intent to mislead or harass a person, entity or agency for financial gain or to cause any injury to any person”. Therefore, in the Indian context, even if the Wikimedia Foundation does not own the information hosted on Wikipedia, once Wikimedia Foundation has “actual knowledge” of such content being hosted on its platform, it would be held responsible for the same.
•In the context of the IT Rules, 2021 “actual knowledge” occurs when an intermediary has been notified by either a court order or through an order of the appropriate agency demanding removal of the offending content. In this case while neither has happened, Wikipedia administrators and editors have removed the distortion from Arshdeep Singh’s page and granted it certain protection such that only “trusted editors” can edit the page.
