top of page

It is important to stay updated with current affairs and international relations. This article.....

It is important to stay updated with current affairs and international relations. This article discusses India's decision to abstain from voting for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict at the UN General Assembly.

  • India abstained from voting at the UN General Assembly for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict.


India abstained to protest the omission of any "explicit condemnation" of the October 7 terror attack by Hamas militants on Israel.

  • India's principled stand on terrorism is unquestionable.

  • India had other options, such as playing a prominent diplomatic role in proposing an amendment to ensure clearer mention of the October 7 attacks.

  • Alternatively, India could have voted for the motion while expressing regret for the omissions in its Explanation of Vote (EoV), similar to what France did.

  • India did not name Hamas for the terror attacks in its EoV and has not designated Hamas as a terrorist organization so far.

  • India did not explicitly name Hamas for the terror attacks in a recent resolution.

  • India has not designated Hamas as a terror group.

  • India could have voted against the resolution to convey a strong line on fighting terrorism.

  • India's abstention in the recent UN General Assembly vote on the Israel-Palestine conflict indicates a shift in the Modi government's stance.

  • This is different from India's 2018 vote that called for Israel to stop using excessive force in retaliatory strikes on Gaza.

  • The abstention is also in line with India's decision to abstain on votes critical of Russia's war in Ukraine in 2021.

  • The government missed an opportunity to make India's voice heard in the growing geopolitical conflict.

  • Abstaining without trying to build a consensus goes against India's desire to be the voice of the Global South and have a seat at the global high table.

It is important to understand the relationship between working hours, productivity, and economic development. This article discusses the views of N.R. Narayana Murthy on the need for Indians to work longer hours and the impact on productivity. It also compares the working hours and productivity of India, Germany, and Japan.

  • Infosys founder N.R. Narayana Murthy suggests that young Indians should work for 70 hours a week.

  • This comment has received both support and criticism.

  • Currently, young Indians work an average of 7.2 to 8.5 hours a day, according to the Time Use Survey conducted in 2019.

  • Urban Uttarakhand ranks first in terms of hours worked, with young people working an average of 9.6 hours a day.

  • Murthy questions whether working more hours leads to better productivity.

  • He cites Germany and Japan as examples of countries that improved productivity by having their citizens work extra hours after World War II.

  • The average annual working hours of Germans and the Japanese peaked after the war at about 2,200 hours to 2,400 hours a year.

  • Labour productivity increased in Germany and Japan, leading to a reduction in average working hours to about 1,400-1,600 hours a year by 2020.

  • India's average annual working hours stayed above 2,000 from 1970 to 2020, while labour productivity increased marginally.

  • Longer work hours in India result in less time for sports and leisure compared to Germany and Japan.

  • India has a higher percentage of informal employment compared to Germany and Japan, making it difficult to accurately measure labour productivity.

  • The nature of the labour force in India, Germany, and Japan differs significantly, raising questions about the viability of a comparison.

8 views0 comments

Comments


Post: Blog2 Post
bottom of page