Monthly Archives: August 2018

Volcano erupts near epicentre | Evacuations ordered | South America’s Chile issues highest alert

A very powerful magnitude 8.8 earthquake off Russia’s Far Eastern Kamchatka coast on Wednesday triggered tsunami warnings as far away as French Polynesia and Chile, and was followed by an eruption of the most active volcano on the peninsula.

The shallow quake damaged buildings and injured several people in the remote Russian region, while much of Japan’s eastern seaboard — devastated by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami in 2011 – was ordered to evacuate, as were parts of Hawaii.

By the evening, Japan, Hawaii and Russia had downgraded most of their tsunami warnings. But authorities in French Polynesia warned residents of several of the remote Marquesas Islands to move to higher ground and expect waves as high as 2.5 metres (8 feet).Russian scientists said the quake in Kamchatka was the most powerful to hit the region since 1952.“It felt like the walls could collapse any moment. The shaking lasted continuously for at least three minutes,” said Yaroslav, 25, in the city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

Read More

In Severo-Kurilsk in the northern Kuril Islands, south of Kamchatka, tsunami waves exceeded 3 metres, with the largest up to 5 metres, Russia’s RIA news agency reported.The Klyuchevskoy volcano on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula began erupting later, a geological monitoring service said.Hawaii recorded waves of up to 1.7 metres while in Japan the largest recorded came to 1.3 metres, officials said. Flights out of Honolulu airport resumed in the evening, the transportation department said.

Waves of nearly half a metre were observed as far away as California, with smaller ones reaching Canada’s province of British Columbia.In French Polynesia, waves started to hit some islands in the early morning hours of Wednesday. In other parts, wave heights were expected to remain below 30 cm, not requiring evacuation or sheltering. Chile upgraded its tsunami warning to the highest level early for most of its lengthy Pacific coast following a powerful earthquake.

Tsunami alarms sounded in coastal towns across Japan’s Pacific coast and evacuation orders were issued for tens of thousands of people.Workers evacuated the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, where a meltdown following the 2011 tsunami caused a radioactive disaster, operator TEPCO said.

The quake occurred on what is known as a “megathrust fault” where the denser Pacific Plate is sliding underneath the lighter North American Plate, according to scientists.The Plate has been on the move, making the Kamchatka Peninsula especially vulnerable to such tremors.

What is the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’

The Ring of Fire is a large tectonic belt that runs along the edges of the Pacific Ocean, touching coastlines in East Asia, the Americas and several Pacific islands. Stretching for around 40,000 kilometres, this zone is home to nearly 75% of the world’s active volcanoes and is the site of about 90% of global earthquakes.

Non-compliance with a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS can lead to arrest

Satya Prakash Tribune News Service

The police must serve notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) through physical means alone, and not using WhatsApp, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Dismissing an application filed by the Haryana Government seeking modification of the top court’s January 21 directions, a Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said the summons issued by the police/investigating agency to an accused for appearance as per Section 35 of the BNSS can’t be served electronically.

In its July 16 order, the Bench noted that the mode of service of notice/summons has direct implications on an individual’s liberty which can’t be compromised.

“The protection of one’s liberty is a crucial aspect of the right to life guaranteed to each and every individual, under Article 21 of the Constitution… The procedure encapsulated in Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, seeks to secure this fundamental right,” the Bench said.

Earlier, it had directed all states and union territories to issue Standing Orders to police departments mandating issuance of notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 35 of the BNSS only through the modes of service prescribed by law. The CrPC was replaced by the BNSS last year.

The Haryana Government had contended that electronic communication should be permitted for the service of such notices to prevent evasion and conserve police resources.

However, interpreting the legislative scheme of the BNSS, the top court said, “While interpreting a statute, the legislative intent is to be gathered from a plain and simple reading of the language employed in the provisions, in a purposive manner, thereby upholding the objective behind the enactment.”

It said a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, which can lead to arrest upon non-compliance, can’t be equated with a summons issued by a court.

“A summons issued by a court is a judicial act, whereas a notice issued by the Investigating Agency is an executive act. Hence, the procedure prescribed for a judicial act cannot be read into the procedure prescribed for an executive act,” the Bench noted.

It said Sections 63, 64 and 71 of the BNSS permitted service of court-issued summons through electronic means only when specific safeguards such as the image of the court’s seal were in place and that these provisions did not apply to Section 35 notices issued by the police and not by courts.

Arjun Sharma

The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has accused former constable Munir Ahmed of forging the signature of his Pakistani wife on their nikah nama and concealing critical details of his marriage, which allegedly posed a security threat. Ahmed was dismissed on May 2 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution without a formal inquiry, citing concerns over national security.

Ahmed had filed a writ petition in the J&K and Ladakh High Court on May 23 challenging his dismissal, claiming he had followed due procedure in marrying Menal Khan, a Pakistani national. In response, the CRPF submitted a counter affidavit on July 29, urging the high court to dismiss the petition on multiple grounds, including the concealment of his marriage and forgery.

According to the CRPF, Ahmed married Menal via video conferencing on May 24, 2024, but failed to inform the department immediately, as required by service rules. Instead, he disclosed the marriage nearly five months later, on October 14, 2024. “Under rules, a government servant who marries a foreign national, especially from a hostile country, is bound to inform the government forthwith. The petitioner failed to comply,” the affidavit stated.

The force further alleged that Ahmed forged Menal’s signature on the nikah nama. “The document was prepared on May 24, 2024, at 10 pm and bears Menal’s signature on the same day. However, records show Menal Khan was in Pakistan at the time, making the signature fraudulent,” the CRPF claimed.

Raising national security concerns, the CRPF noted that Pakistan is considered a hostile country. “As a CRPF jawan, the petitioner had access to sensitive information regarding deployment, arms, and personnel. His relationship with a Pakistani national presents a potential security threat, including the risk of honey-trapping,” the affidavit stat

Sooner than later, the Trump administration will face adverse consequences of its tariff actions

Subhash Chandra Garg

AFTER wasting four months negotiating a trade deal with US President Donald Trump and his team, India is back to square one — 25 per cent tariff imposed by him on July 30 against 26 per cent threatened on April 2.

n fact, it is worse than where it all started. Trump has threatened to impose penal tariffs, not specified as of now, unless India stops buying Russian oil and defence equipment. He called India’s tariffs the highest in the world and non-monetary trade measures “most strenuous and obnoxious”.

What does Trump’s shenanigans mean for India’s merchandise trade with the US? How should India take it forward from here? Call off all negotiations or surrender?

Trump’s objectives in this bilateral trade deficit elimination game started by him are crystal clear, however unpalatable these might be for the partner countries. He wants these countries with merchandise trade surplus with the US to close that gap by doing four things — (a) allow full market access for all US products at zero tariff; (b) accept tariffs of 15-25 per cent on most of their exports to the US; (c) buy additional US stuff — aircraft, energy, etc. to close the trade gap; and (d) invest in the US to manufacture goods.

The world exports to the US for two reasons: one, it is a big market (roughly 15 per cent of the total global exports), and two, the exporters do make profits.

If the imposition of commercially insane US tariffs on their exports kills US markets for the exporters or makes their profits disappear (in case they choose to or are forced to absorb the cost of additional tariffs), it makes no sense for them to continue exporting. Indian exporters do not have the kind of margins to absorb additional tariff costs. Therefore, the government cannot, and should not, accept additional 25 per cent plus penal US tariffs.

While it makes eminent sense for India to liberalise agricultural trade by permitting imports of GM edible oil (no scientific study to prove GM oil has any adverse health impact) or dairy products (days of milk mountains and European subsidies are long gone) or poultry products (American chicken legs will improve consumer welfare) and the like, India has boxed itself in a corner so badly on this front in the name of protecting its domestic constituency that it cannot and will not offer concessions to the US on farm products.

Forcing India to buy American F-35 jets or crude oil, which do not meet India’s defence needs or are otherwise costlier, is plain blackmail. Giving in to such blackmail will expose India as a weakling.

India primarily is a foreign direct investment (FDI) receiving country and not an FDI exporting one. India’s outward FDI is small. Committing even $50 billion investment in the US over 5-10 years is not a doable preposition for India.

India cannot meet any of the four Trump asks. Neither does it make commercial or political sense for India to meet any of the demands. A trade deal with Trump, therefore, is an impossibility.

President Trump is digging a grave of US consumerism and dollar exceptionalism. A few nations — Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the EU — have accepted all four of Trump’s demands for the moment. How these deals will pan out is not certain.

Will the exporters of these countries reduce prices to absorb additional US tariffs or pass it on to US consumers to bear? Or will it be a mix of the two? If these exporting countries do not absorb or succeed in leaving the bulk of additional cost to be absorbed by US consumers, it is the US and its consumers who will end up losing.

Does the US have merchandise to export at zero tariffs? Does it matter to importing partners as their import tariffs were in any case close to zero? Moreover, while the government might lose a bit of tariff revenues, their customers actually stand to gain. Their acceptance of zero tariffs, therefore, does not make much difference.

Will they really buy the promised number of planes, energy products or defence equipment? There is a long time frame to do that. Moreover, they can demand reduced prices and/or tire them out with long-drawn product specification negotiations. The concession extracted by Trump on this account might not really materialise or turn out to be a fraction of a promise.

Additional investment should be fine for Japan and others if they can produce in the US at competitive prices and quality. In any case, investment commitment takes long to materialise.

While Trump may celebrate that he has browbeaten these countries into conceding what he wanted, the actual outcomes might be vastly different from what he thinks.

There are two options before India. One, it surrenders and crafts a deal on the lines of what Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia and the EU have done and then try to protect Indian interests by employing the tactics outlined above.

Two, close all negotiations with Trump’s trade team and let him impose whatever tariff he wants to. India should insist on its exporters to offer goods at their normal prices without absorbing any part of the additional tariff. If the US importers buy, it is good enough. If not, sell their products in other countries with no such insane tariffs and in the domestic market.

The option to find a middle ground on US import tariffs by conceding selectively on other three fronts is unlikely to take India any far. Choose option two and move on.

Sooner than later (3-6 months at most), the Trump administration will be facing adverse consequences of its tariff actions. The US imports will slow down (confirmed by April-June quarter numbers). While the US might get a few hundred billion dollars in tariff revenues, most of it would be paid by US importers and consumers, heaping misery on them. A consumer revolt is not far away.

The dollar is already facing considerable headwinds (barring India). It is likely to further suffer. Contrary to what Trump wants, his misadventures will hasten world trade away from the dollar. Bond markets may also sell off.

As this scenario unfolds, Trump will either roll back most of what he has unleashed or will suffer a severe political backlash.

India should play the waiting game. It will be least costly.

Subhash Chandra Garg is former Finance Secretary.