Speaker 1: In this episode, we talk about NASA's invitation to Israel
Speaker 1: to join its Moon based program and the implications this
Speaker 1: partnership could have for India's space ambitions.
Speaker 2: We also talk.
Speaker 1: About Sharkan Chief Minister Heymans Rain announcing the decision to
Speaker 1: cancel the jsc CJL examination and all exams conducted by
Speaker 1: Testing Agency TSR Data Processing Private Limited. But we begin
Speaker 1: today by discussing the government's move to send the Foreign
Speaker 1: Contribution Regulation Amendment or FCR Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Hi,
Speaker 1: i am Aherri Kananda, and you are listening to three
Speaker 1: things in an Express News show. Over the past few weeks,
Speaker 1: the FCR bill has drawn strong objections from the opposition
Speaker 1: and from church groups, especially over provisions linked to foreign
Speaker 1: funded assets.
Speaker 3: So, you know, there.
Speaker 4: Are so many NGOs which we come across in our life.
Speaker 4: Every citizen knows about some of the other angeo. Many
Speaker 4: of these angos get foreign funds.
Speaker 1: That's the Indian expresses Deep Timari, who has been reporting
Speaker 1: on this for the paper.
Speaker 4: Now, to regulate these foreign funds because you don't want
Speaker 4: some ill gotten money, you know, coming into NGOs. You
Speaker 4: don't want some foreign power trying to influence outcomes of
Speaker 4: democratic process in India.
Speaker 3: So to regulate these kinds of things.
Speaker 4: There is an act called Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, and
Speaker 4: this Act has been amended various times in the past
Speaker 4: to suit situations or to meet.
Speaker 3: New challenges of regulation.
Speaker 4: Similarly, in March this year, the government brought this amendment
Speaker 4: bill called Foreign Contribution Regulation Amendment built twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3: Now around this bill.
Speaker 4: There has been a lot of controversy since then and
Speaker 4: basically what the government has been saying that this way
Speaker 4: has been brought keeping in mind national security and financial transparency,
Speaker 4: basically saying that foreign money can potentially be used to
Speaker 4: influence activities in India. The government wants tighter security or
Speaker 4: foreign contributions. It argues that organizations receive foreign funds, receiving
Speaker 4: foreign funds must be accountable for how those funds are.
Speaker 1: Used and so now instead of pushing it through the
Speaker 1: looks ABA immediately, the government has referred it to a JPC,
Speaker 1: essentially a committee made up of members from both the
Speaker 1: houses of the Parliament. Now, the question that arises is
Speaker 1: what such committees can actually do and whether their recommendations
Speaker 1: are binding and so to understand what exactly a Joint
Speaker 1: Parliamentary Committee is and why the FCRA bill's referral to
Speaker 1: a JPC is politically significant. Michaeleeague Chashama talks to Deepiman
Speaker 1: in this segment.
Speaker 2: Ditiman, could you help us understand why the bill is
Speaker 2: facing such strong opposition, like what makes it so contentious?
Speaker 3: This is not just another regulatory bill.
Speaker 4: Actually, this will directly affects the ability of civil society
Speaker 4: organizations to receive foreign funding. That is why you know
Speaker 4: there is this political and constitutional question around it, because
Speaker 4: you know, there are certain provisions in this bill which
Speaker 4: have come for criticism from both NGOs and religious organizations,
Speaker 4: especially the minority religious organizations.
Speaker 3: So basically what this bill largely.
Speaker 4: Intends to do is, I mean, there is a proposed
Speaker 4: power being given to the government through a designated authority
Speaker 4: in the bill to deal with the assets of organizations
Speaker 4: whose FCRA registration is either canceled or not renewed, or
Speaker 4: you know, they just choose not to renew their FCRA,
Speaker 4: And then what happens is that those assets actually get
Speaker 4: vested with the designated authority, which is created by the government,
Speaker 4: and then the designated authority decides what to do with
Speaker 4: those assets. In fact, if the NGO does not renew
Speaker 4: its FCRA, or if despite its attempts to renew its FCIRA,
Speaker 4: it is not renewed by the government, then the government
Speaker 4: can effectively take control of all its assets.
Speaker 3: And this is not just true.
Speaker 4: Of Jews who have created there as it's say in
Speaker 4: terms of buildings or bank accounts or whatever, merely or
Speaker 4: completely through FCIRA. You know, the contentious provisions in the
Speaker 4: bill which everybody is talking about, is that even if
Speaker 4: say a church is built, you know, so ten percent
Speaker 4: of the funds that the church has used are you know,
Speaker 4: foreign contributions. But church has raised substantial amount of money
Speaker 4: domestically and ninety percent of the church is built with
Speaker 4: domestic funds. Still, if the FCR registration of the organization
Speaker 4: which is running the church gets canceled for whatever reason,
Speaker 4: then the designated authority can take over the whole church
Speaker 4: because ten percent of the church is built with foreign funds.
Speaker 2: And so, given the controversial nature of the bill, how
Speaker 2: do we read the government's decision to send it to
Speaker 2: a joint parliamentary committee instead of simply pushing it to
Speaker 2: the luks.
Speaker 4: Abah Okay, So there has been considerable opposition to the
Speaker 4: bill since it was introduced in Luksaba in March and
Speaker 4: since then opposition parties as well as Christian organizations have
Speaker 4: protested against it.
Speaker 3: They have expressed their fears.
Speaker 4: You know, Chief ministers from northeastern states have come and
Speaker 4: met Union Home Minister am DMK MPP Wilson who also
Speaker 4: heads a minority association.
Speaker 3: He has come along with.
Speaker 4: A delegation of church leaders and met Union Home Minister
Speaker 4: and said that, you know, this bill should either be
Speaker 4: withdrawn or sent to a joint parliamentary committee. So there
Speaker 4: has been a sort of all encompassing demand from minority
Speaker 4: organizations as well as opposition parties that this bill should
Speaker 4: either be withdrawn or sent to a joint parliamentary committee.
Speaker 4: And that is why, you know, the government has relented
Speaker 4: and sent it. Although the simple question is as to
Speaker 4: why would a government which has the numbers and only
Speaker 4: needs simple majority to pass a bill, you know, relent
Speaker 4: to opposition demands. It hasn't done so on many other
Speaker 4: bills on which the oppositions demanded withdrawal or minority organizations
Speaker 4: have you know, expressed fears. For example, on what will
Speaker 4: minority organizations expressed.
Speaker 3: Considerable anxiety and did not want it passed at all.
Speaker 4: But that work also went to a JPC, but it
Speaker 4: largely came out as the government's built. So in this
Speaker 4: case the key is basically politics and there are two
Speaker 4: strands of this. One is the BJP is trying very
Speaker 4: hard to make in roads into Kerala. It is very
Speaker 4: desirous of having electoral success in Kerala and in Kerala
Speaker 4: its plans will not be successful if it cannot be
Speaker 4: will if it cannot win the confidence of the Christian community. Secondly,
Speaker 4: in Tamil Nadu. Again there is significant Christian population in Tamilado.
Speaker 4: Also BGP is trying to make in roads, but more
Speaker 4: importantly in Tamiladu, BJP is trying to win over the
Speaker 4: DMK because it wants to pass the Delimitation Bill, which
Speaker 4: will not pass the Master of Flow Sabha until the
Speaker 4: DMK supports it because it is a constitutional amendment bill
Speaker 4: and will require two third majority.
Speaker 2: Right, And for our listeners hearing the term JPC for
Speaker 2: the first time, could you help us understand how is
Speaker 2: a JPC different from say a select committee or a
Speaker 2: standing committee, Like what pass does it have?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 4: So the Parliament has several committees which have a specific purpose.
Speaker 4: As you mentioned, standing committees are sort of permanent committees
Speaker 4: which are basically department related. So there is a Home
Speaker 4: Ministry Standing Committee, there, External Affairs Standing Committee is there,
Speaker 4: so you know there are different departments of the government,
Speaker 4: and corresponding to that, there are you know, committees which
Speaker 4: look into their work. Sys there were see assess action
Speaker 4: taken by the government, you know, express concerns over certain things,
Speaker 4: so they do a regular assessment of the work of
Speaker 4: that ministry. Then there are ad hoc committees. Ad hoc
Speaker 4: committees are essentially committees which are constituted for a specific
Speaker 4: purpose and then cease to exist after that. So these
Speaker 4: are essentially select committees in joint parliamentary committees. The difference
Speaker 4: between select committee and joint parliamentary committee is that select
Speaker 4: committee is of one house, either of Luksaba or the
Speaker 4: Raja Shaba. A joint parliamentary committee comprises of members from
Speaker 4: both the houses Louksawa as well as Rajasaba, so it
Speaker 4: is more representative, it is more comprehensive and so generally
Speaker 4: politically contentious bills are generally sent to joint parliamentary committee,
Speaker 4: so that everybody from Opposition as well as Treasury and
Speaker 4: the views of both the houses can be taken on
Speaker 4: board and it can be deliberated and discussed and debated,
Speaker 4: and then a final conclusion and final set of recommendations
Speaker 4: can come about.
Speaker 2: And the obvious question here is if the government already
Speaker 2: has a majority in Parliament and so will likely have
Speaker 2: a majority inside the GPC two, so how independent can
Speaker 2: the committee really be?
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, that's the principal limitation of any parliamentary committee,
Speaker 4: because a parliamentary committee is essentially a representation of the parliament.
Speaker 4: So a party which has a majority in Parliament will
Speaker 4: also have a majority in the committee. And as it happens, generally,
Speaker 4: joint parliamentary committees eventually tend to have their chairperson also
Speaker 4: from the ruling party. So that is a limitation which
Speaker 4: is there, but that does not essentially make a joint
Speaker 4: parliamentary committee useless. There are very few occasions when a
Speaker 4: joint parliamentary committee has been able to alter a bay
Speaker 4: in a very significant way that it completely changes the
Speaker 4: legal framework imagined by the government. So generally it so
Speaker 4: happens that when bills go there, they come out more
Speaker 4: or less as the government has wanted it to be,
Speaker 4: with certain suggestions, with certain changes included. There have been
Speaker 4: some rare occasions in the past when bills or regulations
Speaker 4: have seen substantial changes, but those have largely been matters
Speaker 4: which have not been politically contentious or have not been
Speaker 4: any ideological project of a government.
Speaker 3: For example, if we look at the Works Bill.
Speaker 4: You know, when Works Bill went it was a very
Speaker 4: acrimonious proceeding in the GPC, and there were even incidents
Speaker 4: where a bottle was broken on the table by an
Speaker 4: opposition member. There were daily arguments, there were daily you know,
Speaker 4: bites by your position members that this GPC has become
Speaker 4: a joke or whatever. So those kinds of things were happening,
Speaker 4: and eventually when the bill came out it was more
Speaker 4: or less what the government had sent in. Because the
Speaker 4: government had majority, it prevailed over, you know, pushing through
Speaker 4: the provisions that it wanted to.
Speaker 2: So then how do we see the committee's role in
Speaker 2: providing recommendations for the substance of the bills.
Speaker 4: It's not entirely a useless exercise because the GPC has
Speaker 4: the powers to call witnesses to deliberate on a.
Speaker 3: Bill clause by clause everything. You know.
Speaker 4: One thing I must mention here that the whole idea
Speaker 4: of creating parliamentary committees, the intent was that Parliament and
Speaker 4: the floor of the House is too busy, it has
Speaker 4: too many things to do. Probably when a bill comes
Speaker 4: to the House, it wit grant two days three days
Speaker 4: to debate it. That's not good enough when you know,
Speaker 4: a bill which has far reaching consequences is brought to
Speaker 4: the Parliament. So a parliamentary committee can take three months
Speaker 4: six months to deliberate on a bill. That is considerable time.
Speaker 4: It can call witnesses, it can call experts, it can
Speaker 4: go through documents, it can call you know, government representatives
Speaker 4: and take their deposition and then arrive at a conclusion
Speaker 4: or a set of recommendations. So that makes the exercise
Speaker 4: very comprehensive. Also different views. You know, even if the
Speaker 4: JPC does not change the law, or if the bill
Speaker 4: finally comes in the form that the Government had sent
Speaker 4: it to the JPC, still you know, all the deliberations,
Speaker 4: all the discussions and all the views of the opposition,
Speaker 4: all of that will.
Speaker 3: Go on record.
Speaker 4: And this is a debate which cannot be squarely ignored
Speaker 4: by the government, okay, because they ultimately reach public discourse,
Speaker 4: so the government is bound to answer them. The government
Speaker 4: is bound to clarify on your doubts and suspicions that
Speaker 4: people have about provisions of a bill, right and deepayment.
Speaker 2: Earlier, you spoke of how GPCs are now used mainly
Speaker 2: for contentious bills, and we're also witnessing fewer and fewer
Speaker 2: bills being sent to parliamentary committees at all. So how
Speaker 2: do we understand this broader trend?
Speaker 4: Okay, if we look at the two upa eras you know,
Speaker 4: around sixty to seventy percent bills went to committees. But
Speaker 4: when the more the government came its first term saw
Speaker 4: only twenty five percent bills going to committees, and then
Speaker 4: the second term so only sixteen percent going two committees.
Speaker 4: So that shows the government's declining trust on parliamentary committees.
Speaker 4: Or it feels that the parliamentary committees at the end
Speaker 4: of the day delay its legislative agenda, because if a
Speaker 4: bill goes to the parliamentary committee, you know, it will
Speaker 4: take three months six months to come out with recommendations.
Speaker 3: So somewhere one.
Speaker 4: Could argue that this democratic process of you know, greater deliberations,
Speaker 4: evidence seeking, questioning provisions brought in by the government and
Speaker 4: forcing the government to clarify its stand is sort of declining,
Speaker 4: which is not a very good sign for a parliamentary democracy,
Speaker 4: because parliamentary democracy is about debate and discussion and.
Speaker 2: Circling back to this bill specifically, what parts of the
Speaker 2: FCRA could the JPC realistically change?
Speaker 3: It is difficult to say.
Speaker 4: Is the government, as I told you, the government has majority,
Speaker 4: The government will have majority in the GPC as well.
Speaker 3: The opposition can put for its views.
Speaker 4: If the government does not want to incorporate its suggestions
Speaker 4: or its recommendations, the opposition will have no choice but
Speaker 4: to record.
Speaker 3: Its dissent in a discent note, which is allowed in
Speaker 3: a joint Parliamentary Committee. But beyond that, they can.
Speaker 4: Substantially alter a bill if the government does not want
Speaker 4: the bill altered.
Speaker 3: Is not possible.
Speaker 4: However, what it will do is it will force the
Speaker 4: government to answer all the contentious questions because it can call,
Speaker 4: you know, secretaries, it can call government officials, It can
Speaker 4: seek clarifications from the government. It can call witnesses, it
Speaker 4: can call experts who can come and depose even opposition
Speaker 4: can call experts who can come and depose and say
Speaker 4: what is the problem with the bill, and then the
Speaker 4: government will have to answer, and all those things will
Speaker 4: be recorded, will go into the JPC records.
Speaker 3: What it does is it brings the whole.
Speaker 4: Debate into public discourse because these matters will in some
Speaker 4: or the other way sort of be reported, come out
Speaker 4: in the newspapers, be discussed on television, and then you
Speaker 4: know the government will have to answer them and you know,
Speaker 4: inform the public as to why the bill that it
Speaker 4: is bringing is in their interest or is in the
Speaker 4: national interest, and why nobody needs to fear it. And
Speaker 4: if it is not able to answer, probably it will
Speaker 4: have to bring in or accommodate certain changes. So that
Speaker 4: is the kind of impact that you know a GPC
Speaker 4: can have.
Speaker 1: And next we turn to an invitation from the US
Speaker 1: that could have major implications for India's space program. You see,
Speaker 1: NASA is currently working on its Moon based program, an
Speaker 1: ambitious effort to establish a permanent research station on the
Speaker 1: Moon where astronauts could live and conduct research for extended periods.
Speaker 1: And now the US Space Agency has invited ISRU to
Speaker 1: be a part of this program. The invitation comes at
Speaker 1: a time when the India US relationship is facing a
Speaker 1: number of complicated challenges, making the move particularly significant forst Row.
Speaker 1: Being part of such a program could have important implications,
Speaker 1: especially as India works towards projects such as the Baret
Speaker 1: Antharich Station, its planted space station. But the question is
Speaker 1: why does NASA need international partners for this project and
Speaker 1: what would India gain from being a part of it.
Speaker 1: To answer these questions, we speak to the Indian expresses
Speaker 1: Amit Absina, who writes on signs for the paper. Amitab
Speaker 1: firstly tell us about the Moon based project. What does
Speaker 1: it involve and what are its objectives?
Speaker 5: So basically around twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, the US said, no,
Speaker 5: we are going to go back to the Moon. After
Speaker 5: all these fifty years, so the Apollo program had finished
Speaker 5: in nineteen seventy two and no human being has ever
Speaker 5: landed on the Moon after that. And now that we
Speaker 5: are going back to the Moon, this is qualitatively very different.
Speaker 5: We are going there not just to make a point,
Speaker 5: but to make it a productive voyage in the sense
Speaker 5: that now we want to sort of set up a
Speaker 5: base on the Moon. Now, of course that is not
Speaker 5: going to happen immediately, but the idea is that once
Speaker 5: we go back to the Moon. Now we are already
Speaker 5: thinking in terms of setting up a permanent research station
Speaker 5: wherein you know, people astronauts and also rowboats, would you know,
Speaker 5: inhabit the lunar surface for prolonged periods of time, for
Speaker 5: a few months or a few weeks, No, it depends
Speaker 5: on how it comes up at a later point of
Speaker 5: time and then carry out research activities, possibly also indulge
Speaker 5: in some sort of resource extraction from the lunar surface.
Speaker 5: So now it's going to be a much more meaningful exercise,
Speaker 5: and at some point in the future the idea is
Speaker 5: also to use the mode as the launching pad for
Speaker 5: deep space missions.
Speaker 1: But Amada, why does NASA want other countries to be
Speaker 1: a part of the project.
Speaker 5: So, mainly because massive amount of equipment, building materials, all
Speaker 5: sorts of things would have to be carried from Earth,
Speaker 5: that multiple trips would have to be made to the
Speaker 5: Moon and then things need to be constructed there. This
Speaker 5: infrastructure needs to be set up, so it's a very
Speaker 5: very challenging, time consuming exercise. Now that is the reason
Speaker 5: why the United States probably would be looking at partners
Speaker 5: And what is also relevant in this context is the
Speaker 5: fact that while NASA has unveieled a very ambitious lunar program,
Speaker 5: it has also seen under the current Donald Trump administration
Speaker 5: as significant reduction in its funds. I think for the
Speaker 5: last year NASA saw its budget being cut by almost
Speaker 5: twenty five percent if I remember the figure correct, but
Speaker 5: somewhere very significant reduction in their funds. Also, to a
Speaker 5: very large part, NASA is not building most of the
Speaker 5: rocket spacecraft these days. A lot of it is now outsourced,
Speaker 5: at least the hardware part is outsourced to private commercial companies.
Speaker 5: So NASA is seeking partnership both from the private sector
Speaker 5: as well as from other countries to make this Moon
Speaker 5: based program work. It realizes it's not in a position
Speaker 5: to do it alone.
Speaker 1: Right and when it comes to the Moon based project,
Speaker 1: what significance does this invitation hold for ISROE and India's
Speaker 1: ambitions in the sector.
Speaker 5: So one of the things, of course is India gets
Speaker 5: first hand experience and exposure to these complex projects. Right now,
Speaker 5: India is doing it all on its own. Its human
Speaker 5: spaceflight program, Gaganayan is in almost entirely indigenous. The Barat Antharik.
Speaker 5: The station is supposed to be an entirely indigenous program,
Speaker 5: and so is the Man to the Moon project that
Speaker 5: is supposed to happen in twenty forty. So all these
Speaker 5: are being developed indigenously. Of course, you know, some sort
Speaker 5: of cooperation and help all those things keep happening, because
Speaker 5: space agencies do work together, they do collaborate with each other.
Speaker 5: But these are supposed to be indigenous programs. Now, if
Speaker 5: India joins the Moon based program, then you know there
Speaker 5: is every chance because NASA has already executed these complex
Speaker 5: missions in the past. It has a running human spaceflight program.
Speaker 5: It routinely sends astronauts into space to the International Space Station.
Speaker 5: At least it is the only country to have landed
Speaker 5: humans on the Moon. So NASA's technology and their space
Speaker 5: program is fairly well developed, probably the best in the world,
Speaker 5: the most advanced in the world. So India can benefit
Speaker 5: from working together and that experience can actually help India
Speaker 5: fast track its own indigenous program. The other thing, of course,
Speaker 5: is while no it is good to have these indigenous programs,
Speaker 5: and it is extremely important to have these capabilities, it
Speaker 5: would also be increasingly difficult for India to operate all
Speaker 5: these programs entirely on its own.
Speaker 1: Right, And in that regard, how will this contribute to
Speaker 1: India's plans of creating an Indian space station, that is
Speaker 1: the part X station.
Speaker 5: Right, So there is no way that by twenty thirty
Speaker 5: five the Indian space research ecosystem would be so mature
Speaker 5: as to be meeting the entire space station all for
Speaker 5: itself for the entire year. Even the International Space Station
Speaker 5: that is running, and the previous space stations, they have
Speaker 5: usually been shared by a lot of them have been
Speaker 5: some of them were like used only by Russia, some
Speaker 5: of the Russian stations, but this particular one International Space
Speaker 5: Station has been constantly shared by the United States and Russia.
Speaker 5: So if India sets up this space station, it's very
Speaker 5: unlikely that it will be able to use the entire
Speaker 5: capacity on its own. Similarly, once it has demonstrated that
Speaker 5: it has capabilities to launch humans into space and take
Speaker 5: humans to Moon again, it would be extremely difficult to
Speaker 5: sustain these programs single handed league for a prolonged period
Speaker 5: of time, because you know, it's not just about cost,
Speaker 5: but also whether you are getting you have the requirement
Speaker 5: for sending such missions. Later on, once having demonstrated your capability.
Speaker 5: So those are the other reasons why it makes a
Speaker 5: lot of sense for India to actually collect and increasingly
Speaker 5: it's just like the United States is seeking partners right now,
Speaker 5: it makes a lot of sense for India also to
Speaker 5: partner with other countries while you know, developing its indigenous
Speaker 5: program and while acquiring the capabilities.
Speaker 1: And finally we turn our attention to Jharkhund where Earlier
Speaker 1: this week, Chief Minister him And Surain announced that the
Speaker 1: State Cabinet has decided to cancel the JSSC CGL examination
Speaker 1: and all examinations conducted by the testing Agency TSR Data
Speaker 1: Processing Private Limited, adding that approbe had also been ordered
Speaker 1: into examinations conducted by the state government since twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: Our Cabinet sc ur Tura Chada Josh.
Speaker 1: For those who may not know that JSCCGL is a
Speaker 1: recruitment examination conducted by the jark And Staff Selection Commission
Speaker 1: for various Group B and Group C government posts. The examination,
Speaker 1: originally scheduled for January twenty twenty four, was canceled following
Speaker 1: allegations of a paper leak, and was eventually held in
Speaker 1: September twenty twenty four. So Rain said the ongoing investigations
Speaker 1: had uncovered shocking findings and pointed to the possibility of
Speaker 1: a larger network involving companies associated with the examination process.
Speaker 1: The decision comes after weeks of protests by students who
Speaker 1: have been demanding a CBI probe into the alleged irregularities
Speaker 1: in state recruitment examinations. The government's decision, however, has not
Speaker 1: satisfied all those affected. The Internet expresses Shubhamtika Rights that
Speaker 1: students who qualified for the now canceled JSCCGL examination protested
Speaker 1: outside Project Bubwan, arguing that they should not lose their
Speaker 1: jobs because of irregularities for which they were not responsible.
Speaker 1: It is important to note that over nineteen hundred candidates
Speaker 1: had already been appointed through the recruitment process, with employees
Speaker 1: having worked for nearly nine months now. Surain's announcement marks
Speaker 1: a reversal of the government's earlier position. Earlier this month,
Speaker 1: it had said that the results could not be canceled
Speaker 1: because the examination process was being conducted under the monitoring
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court and.
Speaker 3: The High Court.
Speaker 1: Tiga writes that the protests had also drawn intervention from
Speaker 1: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who urged Surain to meet the
Speaker 1: protesting students and address their grievances. The congress and ally
Speaker 1: of Suraine's Sharkan, Muktimocha, said it did not want students
Speaker 1: to feel that the party was not supporting them. Also,
Speaker 1: on Monday night, following Sourin's announcement, student leader Dewayn dr
Speaker 1: Nat Mahto ended his sixteen day hunger strike. Mahtou described
Speaker 1: the decision as a major victory for the student movement,
Speaker 1: but said the agitation had also highlighted deeper problems in
Speaker 1: Sharkan's recruitment system. However, protesters si they would continue their
Speaker 1: agitation until their demand for a CBI probe into all
Speaker 1: examinations in question was met. The state government also announced
Speaker 1: measures aimed at reforming the recruitment process. It will constitute
Speaker 1: a committee headed by ISS Officer Amitab Koschel to work
Speaker 1: on education reforms, while a portal has been opened for students,
Speaker 1: teachers and parents to submit suggestions on examination reforms. You
Speaker 1: were listening to Three Things by The Indian Express. Today's
Speaker 1: episode was edited and mixed by Surish Brawar and produced
Speaker 1: by Ichasharma and me Niharikhananda. If you like the show,
Speaker 1: then do subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: You can also recommend the show to someone you think
Speaker 1: we'll like it, share it with a friend or someone
Speaker 1: in your family. It's the best way for people to
Speaker 1: get to know about us. You can also tweet us
Speaker 1: at Express podcast and write to us at podcasts at
Speaker 1: Indianexpress dot com.