THE CONTEXT: New Zealand introduced on July 30 a legislation that proposes up to five years in prison for practices intended to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, known as LGBT conversion therapy.

Analysis:

• The proposed measures were aimed at ending such practices, which do not work, are widely discredited, and cause harm.
• “Conversion practices have no place in modern New Zealand. They are based on the false belief that any person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is broken and in need of fixing”, the government said.
• Under the newly proposed Bill, anyone performing conversion practices on person younger than 18, or on someone with impaired decision-making capacity, would be subject to up to three years imprisonment.
• Conversion practices that cause serious harm would carry a sentence of up to five years imprisonment.
• The government said that the Bill does not address general expression of religious beliefs or principles about sexuality and gender.
• Laws against conversion therapy have been gaining momentum around the world, including in countries such as Canada, Britain and Australia.
• The United States does not have a federal ban on conversion therapy, but several US states, including California, Colorado, New York, Washington and Utah, prohibit the practice to some degree.
• The American Medical Association has condemned the practice as “harmful and ineffective”.
• Aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, conversion therapy can include talk therapy, hypnosis, electric shocks and fasting. In extreme cases, exorcism and “corrective rape” for lesbians, have been documented.
• Ending conversion therapy was one New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s campaign promises when she was elected for a second term last year.
• Health professionals, religious leaders and human rights advocates across the world have spoken out against these practices as harmful and having the potential to perpetuate prejudice, discrimination and abuse towards members of rainbow communities.

THE CONTEXT: Intel has collaborated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to launch the ‘AI For All’ initiative, aimed at creating a basic understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) for people in India.

Analysis:

• Based on Intel’s ‘AI For Citizens’ programme, ‘AI For All’ is a 4-hour, self-paced learning programme that demystifies AI in an inclusive manner.
• The programme aims to introduce AI to one million citizens in its first year.
• The AI For All initiative based on Intel’s AI For Citizens program aims to make India AI-ready by building awareness and appreciation of AI among everyone.

ABOUT AI FOR ALL

• The four-hour open content resource, which is available in 11 vernacular languages, is divided into two sections – AI Awareness (1.5 hours) and AI Appreciation (2.5 hours).
• The segment on AI Awareness provides an elementary understanding of AI, misconceptions around AI, and its application potential.
• The AI Appreciation segment helps learners understand the key domains of AI, its impact across industries, and gets them started on building personal learning plans.
• At the end of each stage, participants will be given personalised digital badges that can be shared on social media.
• Intel is collaborating with governments and communities globally to build a digital-first mindset and expand access to the AI skills needed for current and future jobs.
• In India, the AI For All initiative is part of Intel’s corporate social responsibility efforts towards democratising AI for all,
• National Education Policy 2020 acknowledges the importance of AI and emphasises on preparing everyone for an AI-driven economy.

THE CONTEXT: Over 250 kilograms of Raja Mircha, which is also known as Naga King Chilli, was exported to London from Nagaland on July 28.

Analysis:

• It is the first such export from Nagaland and comes amid the Covid-19 pandemic and a drought-like situation in the state.
• Raja Mircha got Geographical Indication certification in 2008.
• It constantly figures in the top five on the list of the world’s hottest chilies based on Scoville Heat Units and is known for its distinct aroma and flavour.
• The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority and Nagaland State Agricultural Marketing Board coordinated the export sourced from Peren district.
• The Scoville scale is a measurement of the heat of chili peppers and other spicy foods.
• The concentration of capsaicin, the chemical responsible for adding spicy heat to foods, is measured and recorded in Scoville Heat Units (SHU).
• The Scoville heat scale was created by Wilbur Scoville, an American pharmacist

ABOUT GI INDICATOR

• It is an insignia on products having a unique geographical origin and evolution over centuries with regard to its special quality or reputed attributes.
• It is a mark of authenticity and ensures that registered authorized users or at least those residing inside the geographic territory are allowed to use the popular product names.
• GI tag in India is governed by Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999.It is issued by the Geographical Indications Registry (Chennai).
• It provides legal protection to Indian Geographical Indications thus preventing unauthorized use of the registered GIs by others.
• It promotes economic prosperity of producers of goods produced in a geographical territory.
• The GI protection in India leads to recognition of the product in other countries thus boosting exports.

THE CONTEXT: A proposal to revise the criteria for defining the “creamy layer” among OBCs has been pending for years, and MPs have raised the issue during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament.

Analysis:

WHAT IS THE CREAMY LAYER?

• It is a concept that sets a threshold within which OBC reservation benefits are applicable.
• While there is a 27% quota for OBCs in government jobs and higher educational institutions, those falling within the “creamy layer” cannot get the benefits of this quota.
• Based on the recommendation of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission), the government on August 13, 1990 had notified 27% reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in vacancies in civil posts and services that are to be filled on direct recruitment.
• After this was challenged, the Supreme Court on November 16, 1992 (Indira Sawhney case) upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer.

HOW IS IT DETERMINED?

• Following the order in Indra Sawhney, an expert committee headed by Justice (retired) R N Prasad was constituted for fixing the criteria for determining the creamy layer.
• On September 8, 1993, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) listed out various categories of people of certain rank/status/income whose children cannot avail benefit of OBC reservation.
• For those not in government, the current threshold is an income of Rs 8 lakh per year.
• For children of government employees, the threshold is based on their parents’ rank and not income.
• For instance, an individual is considered to fall within the creamy layer if either of his or her parents is in a constitutional post; if either parent has been directly recruited in Group-A; or if both parents are in Group-B services.
• If the parents enters Group-A through promotion before the age of 40, their children will be in the creamy layer.
• Children of a Colonel or higher-ranked officer in the Army, and children of officers of similar ranks in the Navy and Air Force, too, come under the creamy layer.
• There are other criteria as well.
• Income from salaries or agriculture land is not clubbed while determining the creamy layer, according to a DoPT clarification issued on October 14, 2004.

WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW?

• During the Monsoon Session, MPs raised two questions about the pending proposal for revising the criteria.
• In response, the government said “A proposal for revision of the income criteria for determining the Creamy Layer amongst the OBCs is under consideration of the Government.”
• In Rajya Sabha, three MPs have asked whether the provision of creamy layer for government services only for OBC candidates is rational and justified.
• On July 22, Minister of State Jitendra Singh referred to the Indira Sawhney ruling.
• He said that in Civil Service batches between 2015 and 2019, 63 candidates selected for IAS were not given appointment because “they were treated as falling under creamy layer”.
• Other than the income limit, the current definition of creamy layer remains the same as the DoPT had spelt out on September 8, 1993 and clarified on October 14, 2004.
• No other orders for definition of creamy layer have been issued by the government.