# Medical rights plea for queer partners, weapons in space, and UPI charges

An episode of [3 Things](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1406730235), 17 Sep 2026, 31 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/75175421/3_things_2026_september_17_v1.mp3

First, we speak with The Indian Express' Sohini Ghosh about a case involving a same-sex couple that has raised an important question about who gets to make medical decisions for a partner. She talks about what the Health Ministry has told the High Court in this regard and the rights of queer couples in India. Next, we speak with The Indian Express' Amitabh Sinha about the United States admitting that it has deployed active weapons in space. He talks about the rules and regulations in place regarding the weaponization of space, the debate around it and what it means for other countries. (15:20) Lastly, we discuss the government’s decision not to roll back the proposed MDR on UPI transactions above Rs 2,000. (27:43) Hosted by Niharika Nanda Produced by Shashank Bhargava, Ichha Sharma, and Niharika Nanda Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Technology has the ability to transform the way children learn
[0:04] Speaker 1: by making education more interactive, accessible and engaging. As part
[0:08] Speaker 1: of our ongoing collaboration with Central Square Foundation, we bring
[0:12] Speaker 1: to you our second episode where we will explore how
[0:15] Speaker 1: technology can help make learning more personalized for children at
[0:19] Speaker 1: various levels of learning and why this matters particularly in
[0:23] Speaker 1: government school classrooms. The episode will air on Friday 18th
[0:27] Speaker 1: of September at 10 a.m. Do not forget to tune in.
[0:31] Speaker 1: It will be available on our website indianexpress.com and everywhere
[0:35] Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Now on with the show. Hi,
[0:42] Speaker 1: I am Niharika Nanda and you are listening to 3 Things,
[0:45] Speaker 1: the Indian Express News Show. In this episode, we discuss
[0:52] Speaker 1: the United States' acknowledgement of the fact that it has
[0:55] Speaker 1: deployed active weapons in space, reigniting the debate over the
[0:59] Speaker 1: weaponization of outer space. We also talk about the government's
[1:03] Speaker 1: decision to not roll back the proposed MDR on UPI
[1:06] Speaker 1: transactions above Rs 2,000. But we begin today by looking
[1:11] Speaker 1: at a case involving a same-sex couple that has raised
[1:14] Speaker 1: an important question about who gets to make medical decisions
[1:18] Speaker 1: for a partner. Most of us naturally avoid thinking about
[1:22] Speaker 1: what might happen to us or our families in a
[1:25] Speaker 1: medical emergency.
[1:27] Speaker 2: Where will you be taken?
[1:28] Speaker 1: Will your insurance cover your treatment? And who will make
[1:31] Speaker 1: decisions for you when you can't speak for yourself? Now
[1:34] Speaker 1: for many people, the answer to the last question is
[1:37] Speaker 1: usually assumed to be a spouse or a close family member.
[1:41] Speaker 1: But for queer and same-sex partners in India, The question
[1:44] Speaker 1: has remained legally uncertain, especially because Indian law does not
[1:48] Speaker 1: recognize same-sex marriage. Recently, the Union Health Ministry has told
[1:53] Speaker 1: the Delhi High Court that people in non-heterosexual or queer
[1:56] Speaker 1: relationships should not be excluded from nominating their partners to
[2:00] Speaker 1: take medical decisions on their behalf merely because of sex,
[2:04] Speaker 1: gender or sexual orientation. Now the case came before the
[2:08] Speaker 1: court through a petition filed by a same-sex couple who
[2:11] Speaker 1: got married in New Zealand in 2023. Their concern was
[2:15] Speaker 1: that in India, there is no clear framework recognising the
[2:18] Speaker 1: right of non-heterosexual partners to act as medical representatives for
[2:23] Speaker 1: each other during treatment or emergencies. So to understand what
[2:27] Speaker 1: exactly has the health ministry told the Delhi High Court
[2:30] Speaker 1: and how does it fit into India's larger legal position
[2:33] Speaker 1: after the same-sex marriage verdict, My colleague Chasharma is joined
[2:37] Speaker 1: by the Indian Express's Sohini Ghosh.
[2:41] Speaker 2: Sohini, say if.
[2:42] Speaker 3: I arrive unconscious at a hospital today and cannot consent
[2:47] Speaker 3: to treatment, who does Indian law ordinarily allow to make
[2:52] Speaker 3: medical decisions on my behalf?
[2:55] Speaker 2: So it will.
[2:56] Speaker 4: Have to be someone who is a close relative, a
[3:01] Speaker 4: guardian or your spouse or parents.
[3:06] Speaker 3: Right, and we understand that this is exactly the question
[3:09] Speaker 3: at the centre of the piece you wrote. So, talk
[3:12] Speaker 3: about what prompted this couple to approach the Delhi High Court.
[3:16] Speaker 4: So, the petition has been moved by a family business
[3:21] Speaker 4: consultant professional, Arshia Thakkar. And she has been married to
[3:28] Speaker 4: her partner.
[3:29] Speaker 2: They are in a queer marriage. Two couples. a practicing advocate,
[3:35] Speaker 2: Chand Chopra.
[3:37] Speaker 4: And although they got their marriage registered in New Zealand,
[3:42] Speaker 4: they live together and they are openly queer. So sometime
[3:48] Speaker 4: Chand fell ill. She contracted dengue and she was hospitalized.
[3:55] Speaker 2: And at some point she needed treatment. a platelet transfusion.
[4:00] Speaker 4: And her partner, Arshia, could not sign off on that consent.
[4:06] Speaker 4: And eventually, Chand had her brother sign off on it.
[4:11] Speaker 2: And the medical procedure proceeded.
[4:14] Speaker 4: So basically, Arshia has moved the petition. She moved it
[4:18] Speaker 4: last year, sometime in July. And what she's seeking in
[4:23] Speaker 4: her petition is that there has to be a framework
[4:27] Speaker 4: of recognizing queer couples and they're basically the authority to
[4:34] Speaker 4: have their partner as the person designated to make medical
[4:39] Speaker 4: decisions on their behalf when they are not in a
[4:41] Speaker 4: position to do so.
[4:43] Speaker 2: And they have.
[4:44] Speaker 4: Also highlighted that currently what the framework supports, it just
[4:49] Speaker 4: recognizes the rights of heterosexual couples and not non-heterosexual couples
[4:56] Speaker 4: to act as a medical representative. And yeah, that is
[5:00] Speaker 4: broadly their petition.
[5:02] Speaker 3: And Zohini, what does being someone's nominated medical representative actually
[5:07] Speaker 3: allow you to do? Like, what kinds of decisions could
[5:11] Speaker 3: a same-sex partner potentially make?
[5:14] Speaker 2: So, what the law says is, as long as you
[5:18] Speaker 2: are able and.
[5:20] Speaker 4: In full consciousness capable of consenting or not incapacitated in
[5:26] Speaker 4: any form you yourself would be consenting to whatever procedure
[5:32] Speaker 4: you have to undergo now when you yourself are not
[5:36] Speaker 4: in a capable position say you are unconscious after a
[5:42] Speaker 4: road accident for example.
[5:44] Speaker 2: It is your close.
[5:46] Speaker 4: Relative or a blood relative, or your spouse, or your parents.
[5:52] Speaker 4: It is they who are capable of consenting that yes,
[5:56] Speaker 4: if the person needs to be intubated, needs to be
[6:00] Speaker 4: operated on, we are consenting to it. A third scenario
[6:04] Speaker 4: is say you are completely incapacitated, or you are suffering
[6:09] Speaker 4: from a terminal illness, or an illness like say, something
[6:14] Speaker 4: that doesn't have your full faculties working. In that case,
[6:20] Speaker 4: the law recognizes that any person that you may have
[6:25] Speaker 4: authorized in advance. So, for example, I have been diagnosed
[6:31] Speaker 4: with Alzheimer's and right now I'm a consenting, fully capable individual.
[6:37] Speaker 4: I'm in the early stages. If I decide today to
[6:41] Speaker 4: say to make a living will of sorts that going forward,
[6:46] Speaker 4: XYZ person is the person who will be making all decisions,
[6:52] Speaker 4: medical decisions related to me.
[6:54] Speaker 2: It is that person who will be considered. And that
[6:58] Speaker 2: is one narrow window where, say.
[7:01] Speaker 4: Queer couples probably won't face a hurdle because over there,
[7:07] Speaker 4: it's quite clearly written that any person that you want
[7:10] Speaker 4: to give this directive in advance, you can. But that is, again,
[7:15] Speaker 4: a very specific scenario where it is, again, something like
[7:21] Speaker 4: a terminal illness.
[7:23] Speaker 3: And what about mental health related diseases? Like, what does
[7:26] Speaker 3: the Mental Health Care Act of 2017 say about this?
[7:28] Speaker 4: So, Mental Health Care Act that covers also this idea
[7:35] Speaker 4: of advanced directive or any other person who you can
[7:40] Speaker 4: authorize to make medical decisions on your behalf. But again,
[7:44] Speaker 4: that applies for specific mental health diseases. It won't say cover.
[7:51] Speaker 4: For example, if I have been hospitalized with dengue, it
[7:55] Speaker 4: won't cover that probably. So this is the broad ambit
[8:00] Speaker 4: under which the law operates now and how it authorizes
[8:04] Speaker 4: another person to make medical decisions on their behalf.
[8:09] Speaker 5: Right.
[8:09] Speaker 3: And we understand that the Union Health Ministry has actually
[8:13] Speaker 3: backed the plea before the Delhi High Court.
[8:15] Speaker 2: So what exactly has the centre agreed to?
[8:18] Speaker 4: So, yeah, currently what the center is saying is that
[8:22] Speaker 4: the existing provisions that are there under various laws, as
[8:27] Speaker 4: well as court judgments that have laid down the jurisprudence
[8:32] Speaker 4: on what rights queer couples have and they don't it
[8:37] Speaker 4: already covers this aspect what they're saying is that this
[8:42] Speaker 4: need not necessarily need a separate framework it is already
[8:48] Speaker 4: covered under the existing laws so Effectively, the centre here
[8:53] Speaker 4: is backing their right to be nominated. But again, if
[8:58] Speaker 4: we see the specific caveats under which they operate, then
[9:02] Speaker 4: there is also a lot of space which remains in
[9:06] Speaker 4: the grey area.
[9:07] Speaker 2: So that is something.
[9:10] Speaker 4: That needs to be clarified or cleared eventually down the line.
[9:15] Speaker 2: But Yes, this is their position broadly.
[9:18] Speaker 4: But also what the centre has also reiterated is this
[9:25] Speaker 4: right would not stem from any sort of recognition of
[9:30] Speaker 4: a spouse. So even if you're married in New Zealand,
[9:34] Speaker 4: this marriage is not recognized in India. And you can't
[9:38] Speaker 4: be authorized as a substitute or under the definition of
[9:44] Speaker 4: a spouse. You will always remain under the definition of
[9:48] Speaker 4: any other person. So this is how the center is
[9:52] Speaker 4: basically putting forth its stance.
[9:56] Speaker 2: And Sohini, does the patient's choice override the family?
[10:00] Speaker 4: It will override if the patient is giving an advanced directive,
[10:08] Speaker 4: which is again a very limited scope, which could be
[10:12] Speaker 4: like a living will or under the Mental Health Care Act.
[10:16] Speaker 2: It wouldn't again cover a lot of things.
[10:19] Speaker 4: Those are very specifically, narrowly restricted to guardian or blood
[10:24] Speaker 4: relatives or spouse.
[10:27] Speaker 5: Right.
[10:27] Speaker 3: And we know that the centre relies on the Supreme
[10:30] Speaker 3: Court's 2023 same-sex marriage judgment.
[10:33] Speaker 2: Could you remind us.
[10:34] Speaker 3: What that judgment actually decided and importantly, what it left open?
[10:39] Speaker 2: Correct.
[10:40] Speaker 4: So the centre has basically said clarified itself rather, that
[10:46] Speaker 4: the right is not stemming from any sort of recognition
[10:51] Speaker 4: of a queer couple as spouses. And the 2023 Suprior Judgment,
[10:57] Speaker 4: what it was basically, it was a five-judge bench of
[11:03] Speaker 4: the Supreme Court, which was testing whether queer couples have a.
[11:09] Speaker 2: Fundamental right to marry.
[11:11] Speaker 4: All five judges unanimously said that no, they don't have
[11:16] Speaker 4: a fundamental right to marry. But what it also did
[11:20] Speaker 4: was create these pockets of certain rights which they can exercise.
[11:24] Speaker 4: And the court's reasoning was basically that right to marry
[11:30] Speaker 4: is directly linked to your marriage laws and marriage laws
[11:35] Speaker 4: come under the jurisdiction of the parliament.
[11:38] Speaker 2: It's a legislation.
[11:39] Speaker 4: The government has to get a legislation if it wants
[11:43] Speaker 4: to and enact it.
[11:44] Speaker 2: The court does not get to decide.
[11:46] Speaker 4: Now, the individual pockets of these rights which the court
[11:51] Speaker 4: has however recognized back then was that they have a
[11:55] Speaker 4: right to cohabit and those rights which follow from the
[12:00] Speaker 4: right to cohabitation that too will flow and that includes
[12:05] Speaker 4: the right to life having your choice of partner etc
[12:10] Speaker 4: and back then the majority judgment they had also basically
[12:17] Speaker 4: recommended directed rather the government to form a committee to
[12:22] Speaker 4: see what kind of benefits can be extended.
[12:24] Speaker 2: For queer couples.
[12:26] Speaker 4: So yeah, this was broadly the 2023 judgment.
[12:30] Speaker 3: And Sohini, where does not being legally recognized as a
[12:34] Speaker 3: spouse still create major disadvantages?
[12:39] Speaker 4: So a major disadvantage is your financial rights, your inheritance rights. So,
[12:49] Speaker 4: for example, Centre has taken a very strong stance and
[12:55] Speaker 4: opposed tax benefits that spouses get otherwise in a heterosexual
[13:01] Speaker 4: marriage that can't extend to those in any sort of
[13:04] Speaker 4: civil union living together if they are queer, etc. For example,
[13:10] Speaker 4: when you do your tax filing, if there is, say,
[13:14] Speaker 4: some sort of loan or although you can have a
[13:16] Speaker 4: joint bank account as a queer couple now, but for
[13:21] Speaker 4: accessing certain loans, you can't apply unless you are a couple.
[13:27] Speaker 4: And simultaneously, there are certain tax benefits which flow from
[13:31] Speaker 4: taking a loan. You are also made bereft of accessing
[13:37] Speaker 4: those benefits. Similarly, in inheritance, unless there is a will,
[13:45] Speaker 4: how do you establish your relationship as or the right
[13:49] Speaker 4: to that inheritance? I think even with the employment as well,
[13:55] Speaker 4: the spousal benefits don't flow. So again, over there, the
[13:59] Speaker 4: term spouse comes in and that only recognizes heterosexual couples
[14:05] Speaker 4: and not those and queer relationships.
[14:09] Speaker 5: Right.
[14:09] Speaker 3: And so given that the health ministry largely agrees with
[14:12] Speaker 3: the petitioners on medical nomination, What exactly is the Delhi
[14:17] Speaker 3: High Court being asked to decide now? Like, what legal
[14:20] Speaker 3: issue remains unresolved?
[14:23] Speaker 4: So, Delhi High Court will hear the matter on Thursday.
[14:28] Speaker 4: And what it affects, I mean, the hearing will probably
[14:33] Speaker 4: also have Arshia's lawyer's to represent their side as to
[14:39] Speaker 4: the grey areas that might be there or some fine-tuning
[14:43] Speaker 4: that might be required apart from the government's own stance.
[14:47] Speaker 4: So that needs to be seen what happens in the hearing. Ultimately,
[14:50] Speaker 4: the High Court has to examine what the Centre is
[14:56] Speaker 4: saying here, whether those legislations, those judicial pronouncements actually cover
[15:02] Speaker 4: the entire ambit of.
[15:04] Speaker 2: Say, medical... decision.
[15:06] Speaker 4: Making for queer couples or it does not and if
[15:11] Speaker 4: it does not then the court also has powers to
[15:14] Speaker 4: frame or recommend guidelines that the government can then move
[15:19] Speaker 4: ahead with.
[15:24] Speaker 1: And next we turn our attention to the space sector
[15:27] Speaker 1: and the united states admitting that it has deployed active
[15:30] Speaker 1: weapons in space Earlier this week, it was US Air
[15:33] Speaker 1: Force Secretary Troy Mink who said at a press conference
[15:37] Speaker 1: that the US has on orbit space-controlled weapons capable of
[15:41] Speaker 1: defending against an attack by an adversary. The revolution has
[15:44] Speaker 1: sparked a debate over the weaponization of space and whether
[15:48] Speaker 1: other countries should be developing similar capabilities. Interestingly, the US
[15:52] Speaker 1: has in the past accused China and Russia of expanding
[15:56] Speaker 1: their space capabilities with the objective of tracking and targeting
[15:59] Speaker 1: US forces. So what are the rules and regulations governing
[16:03] Speaker 1: weapons in space? And what could this latest US claim
[16:07] Speaker 1: mean for other countries? To understand this, we speak to
[16:10] Speaker 1: the Indian Express's Amitabh Sinha. Amitabh, can you tell us,
[16:13] Speaker 1: are there any rules or regulations in place right now
[16:17] Speaker 1: against weaponization of space?
[16:20] Speaker 5: Well, there is an international law about which governs the
[16:25] Speaker 5: kinds of activities that are permissible in space as well
[16:31] Speaker 5: as on moon and other celestial bodies once we reach there.
[16:36] Speaker 5: But there are international laws that govern these activities, what
[16:41] Speaker 5: can or cannot be done. These are all old laws
[16:46] Speaker 5: that were framed immediately after the beginning of the space age.
[16:51] Speaker 5: So we have this, the Outer Space Treaty. It has
[16:55] Speaker 5: a very longish name, actually, but it's commonly known as
[16:58] Speaker 5: the Outer Space Treaty that was done in 1967. And
[17:02] Speaker 5: there have been at least four or five other sister
[17:07] Speaker 5: agreements that are actually a fallout of this Outer Space Agreement.
[17:12] Speaker 5: The Outer Space Treaty does not just talk about weapons,
[17:18] Speaker 5: but is a general sort of framework on the regulation
[17:23] Speaker 5: of activities in space. What can countries do, cannot do?
[17:28] Speaker 5: It says space has to be utilized for peaceful purposes only.
[17:34] Speaker 5: Then the fact that nobody owns space, that it has
[17:39] Speaker 5: to be accessible to everyone. Also, once you land on moon,
[17:45] Speaker 5: then moon is a common property. You cannot claim a
[17:50] Speaker 5: portion of the moon. You cannot claim any particular region.
[17:54] Speaker 5: You cannot say this orbit around the earth is mine
[17:58] Speaker 5: and I would not allow anyone else to send a
[18:00] Speaker 5: satellite in this orbit. So those kind of things are prohibited.
[18:05] Speaker 5: Specifically to our or to the issue at hand, the
[18:10] Speaker 5: Outer Space Treaty specifically says that You know, space is
[18:16] Speaker 5: not to be used for nuclear weapons or deployment of
[18:21] Speaker 5: any other weapons of mass destruction.
[18:24] Speaker 1: But does that also cover conventional weapons or just weapons
[18:28] Speaker 1: of mass destruction?
[18:29] Speaker 5: So we have to look at the Outer Space Treaty
[18:32] Speaker 5: in the context of the period in which it was framed.
[18:36] Speaker 5: You know, during those times, you know, Cold War was
[18:40] Speaker 5: at its peak, you know, weapons of mass destruction were
[18:44] Speaker 5: a major concern, but it is silent on conventional weapons.
[18:49] Speaker 5: And that is mainly because at that point of time, probably,
[18:53] Speaker 5: you know, conventional weapons being used used from space or
[18:59] Speaker 5: conventional weapons being sent from ground to target space assets.
[19:04] Speaker 5: Those were the kind of possibilities that were not immediately
[19:09] Speaker 5: on the horizon. Maybe that was the reason why the
[19:13] Speaker 5: Outer Space Treaty does not mention that. But, you know,
[19:18] Speaker 5: over the years, these have become very possible. And in fact,
[19:22] Speaker 5: it has been demonstrated as well. So, We have not
[19:25] Speaker 5: updated these agreements. We have not had a fresh discussion
[19:30] Speaker 5: on coming up with new regulations or new international law
[19:33] Speaker 5: on what can be allowed as a legitimate activity in space.
[19:38] Speaker 1: And Amitabh, when it comes to placing and using weapons
[19:42] Speaker 1: in space, what all can be done to that effect?
[19:45] Speaker 1: Like what does it mean exactly to be using weapons
[19:49] Speaker 1: in space?
[19:50] Speaker 5: So when we talk about weaponization of space, we are
[19:55] Speaker 5: usually referring to any one of the following. a ground-to-space targeting,
[20:01] Speaker 5: space-to-space targeting, and space-to-ground targeting. So ground-to-space targeting would mean
[20:10] Speaker 5: something like launching a missile from the earth to destroy
[20:15] Speaker 5: enemy's space assets, typically some critical satellite, some navigation satellite,
[20:21] Speaker 5: or some surveillance satellite, even broadcasting satellite, whatever is critical
[20:26] Speaker 5: infrastructure for the enemy. that can be destroyed from the ground.
[20:31] Speaker 5: So this is what is called the anti-satellite attack. Then
[20:36] Speaker 5: there is this possibility of space to space attacks, which
[20:40] Speaker 5: means you allow one of your own satellites in space
[20:45] Speaker 5: to change its trajectory and go and sort of crash
[20:50] Speaker 5: into an enemy satellite. So you destroy an enemy satellite,
[20:53] Speaker 5: a critical infrastructure from the space itself. So this is
[20:57] Speaker 5: something which is called co-orbital satellite attack. The third type
[21:02] Speaker 5: is space to ground, right? So there is this possibility
[21:06] Speaker 5: of placing weapons in space, essentially on a satellite, and
[21:12] Speaker 5: this satellite can actually de-orbit, re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, and
[21:17] Speaker 5: then target enemy structure on the ground, like, say, a
[21:21] Speaker 5: radar station or any other infrastructure. Or even something that
[21:26] Speaker 5: is flying, say a fighter aircraft or some other aircraft
[21:30] Speaker 5: which is in air, it can be targeted. So this
[21:33] Speaker 5: would mean a weapon that is placed in space, but
[21:38] Speaker 5: is being used to target installations or infrastructure on the
[21:43] Speaker 5: ground or in air. But a lot of times you
[21:46] Speaker 5: don't even need to destroy the infrastructure. Just rendering it
[21:51] Speaker 5: useless is also possible. as effective. So either, again, either
[21:57] Speaker 5: the space assets, which means the satellites that can be
[22:00] Speaker 5: jammed or the ground stations can be jammed. So on
[22:04] Speaker 5: either end, either in space or on ground, you cut
[22:08] Speaker 5: off that communication link and there are ways of doing that.
[22:12] Speaker 5: So if that is achieved, again, you have achieved your objective.
[22:16] Speaker 5: So this, again, this also is part of space warfare.
[22:22] Speaker 1: So now the US has admitted to having space weapons.
[22:26] Speaker 1: What all do we know about this and are there
[22:28] Speaker 1: any other countries which have placed weapons in space?
[22:32] Speaker 5: So this is the first time that a country has
[22:36] Speaker 5: publicly acknowledged to having deployed weapons in space. Now, we
[22:40] Speaker 5: do not know the nature of this deployment. We really
[22:45] Speaker 5: do not know what kind of weapon has been put
[22:48] Speaker 5: in space. So the American official, an Air Force official
[22:53] Speaker 5: said is that U.S. has an on-orbit weapon. Space control
[22:58] Speaker 5: weapon that has been deployed. Now, this can mean anything.
[23:02] Speaker 5: It's a control system that has been deployed. It can
[23:05] Speaker 5: be a weapon or it can be a control system.
[23:08] Speaker 5: We really do not know. We don't know whether he's
[23:10] Speaker 5: talking about ground to space or space to ground or
[23:14] Speaker 5: space to space sort of weapon. We have no idea
[23:19] Speaker 5: as of now. The first kind of weapons that we
[23:22] Speaker 5: talked about, ground to space, that have been demonstrated by
[23:28] Speaker 5: four countries and that's out in the open. So these
[23:32] Speaker 5: kind of attacks, these are called anti-satellite tests and you
[23:37] Speaker 5: can't hide them. These countries have actually gone and targeted
[23:42] Speaker 5: one of their own satellites, sort of a satellite which
[23:46] Speaker 5: was useless. They have sent missiles from the ground and
[23:50] Speaker 5: destroyed one of their own satellites in a demonstration of
[23:54] Speaker 5: this kind of capability. So there are four countries which
[23:57] Speaker 5: have done that. The United States, Russia, China and India.
[24:01] Speaker 5: India carried it out in 2019, wherein we fired a
[24:05] Speaker 5: missile from the ground and we were and destroyed a
[24:09] Speaker 5: moving satellite, a satellite that was orbiting the Earth. And
[24:13] Speaker 5: we demonstrated that we too have this capability of, you know,
[24:17] Speaker 5: destroying a space-based asset of any enemy. Now, so as
[24:22] Speaker 5: far as weaponization of space is concerned, these anti-satellite tests
[24:29] Speaker 5: are a very clear evidence that, you know, weapons have
[24:32] Speaker 5: indeed been used in space. Right.
[24:36] Speaker 1: And we understand that Russia also used one of these
[24:39] Speaker 1: methods before its war with Ukraine, right?
[24:43] Speaker 5: So the kind of, you know, we discussed those non-kinetic
[24:47] Speaker 5: methods wherein you can sort of interfere or jam the
[24:50] Speaker 5: signals or hack the signals. Those kind of things have
[24:54] Speaker 5: happened even just before the Russia-Ukraine war began. You know,
[25:00] Speaker 5: there were reports that Russia had rendered one of the
[25:04] Speaker 5: satellites that was being used to provide internet services in
[25:08] Speaker 5: Ukraine that was jammed by Russia, which actually disrupted internet
[25:14] Speaker 5: in Ukraine, including the internet services of some of the
[25:18] Speaker 5: military agencies. So these kinds of things have happened. It's
[25:22] Speaker 5: not the first time that we are putting weapons in space.
[25:26] Speaker 1: And can you talk about how China and Russia responded
[25:30] Speaker 1: to this statement by the United States?
[25:33] Speaker 5: So once the US acknowledged there was expected reaction from China,
[25:40] Speaker 5: which said, you know, we urge the United States to
[25:43] Speaker 5: sort of stop expanding its military capabilities in space and
[25:48] Speaker 5: not to begin preparation for war in outer space. Similarly,
[25:52] Speaker 5: Russia said that you know, we must keep space free
[25:56] Speaker 5: from any weapons. And we want the abroad international consolidation
[26:01] Speaker 5: to continue working towards sort of demilitarization of space. So
[26:05] Speaker 5: these were expected reactions. But it's very well known that
[26:10] Speaker 5: China and Russia also have these kind of capabilities. And
[26:13] Speaker 5: they have been developing these capabilities through the years.
[26:17] Speaker 1: And Amitabh, is there any evidence that the US actually
[26:21] Speaker 1: has these weapons in space? And Can the international community
[26:25] Speaker 1: do something about it?
[26:26] Speaker 5: See, all these countries, these space-faring countries, they keep on
[26:30] Speaker 5: sending these satellites in space. We also launch so many
[26:34] Speaker 5: satellites in space. Now, almost everything that we send in space,
[26:38] Speaker 5: almost every satellite is a dual-use satellite. It can do
[26:43] Speaker 5: multiple things. The main objective is space. something else. The
[26:48] Speaker 5: stated objective might be, you know, earth observation or climate
[26:52] Speaker 5: monitoring or broadcasting or navigation or communication satellite. So the
[26:58] Speaker 5: stated objective might be something and I mean, the satellite
[27:03] Speaker 5: might be used for those stated objectives, but they can
[27:07] Speaker 5: simultaneously be used for other applications as well, including the
[27:12] Speaker 5: fact that they can be used for as weapons. Now,
[27:16] Speaker 5: every satellite cannot be used as a weapon. But the
[27:19] Speaker 5: thing is, when you are putting all these things in space,
[27:23] Speaker 5: you never know which one of them has the ability
[27:27] Speaker 5: to be used as a weapon as well. So there
[27:30] Speaker 5: is no way for a third country to actually find
[27:34] Speaker 5: out whether this particular satellite has that capability or not.
[27:38] Speaker 5: But now, since the United States has acknowledged it, I mean,
[27:42] Speaker 5: you have to go by their claim that You know,
[27:44] Speaker 5: they have put something in space.
[27:50] Speaker 1: And in the end, we talk about the new Merchant
[27:53] Speaker 1: Discount Rate or MDR on UPI. Government sources told the
[27:57] Speaker 1: PTI that the government is not considering any rollback on
[28:01] Speaker 1: the proposed 0.4% MDR on UPI transactions above Rs 2,000.
[28:05] Speaker 1: The Indian Express's Syed Ilham Jafri writes that that the
[28:09] Speaker 1: new framework announced on Tuesday ends nearly six years of
[28:13] Speaker 1: completely free UPI payments. Person-to-person transfers and small payments will
[28:18] Speaker 1: still remain outside the charge. According to the government sources,
[28:22] Speaker 1: the move has been introduced in the broader interest of
[28:24] Speaker 1: the UPI ecosystem. particularly to strengthen its safety and security.
[28:28] Speaker 1: They said that the decision to levy MDR, a practice
[28:31] Speaker 1: followed in several other countries, was taken when the UPI
[28:35] Speaker 1: system was introduced back in 2020.
[28:37] Speaker 2: The new framework, they.
[28:38] Speaker 1: Added, is aimed at making UPI financially self-sustainable, according to
[28:43] Speaker 1: the report. The government has also rubbished the claims of
[28:46] Speaker 1: foreign influence in its decision to impose the fee. The
[28:49] Speaker 1: statement came as the move faced opposition from traders, shopkeepers
[28:53] Speaker 1: and political parties, with critics referring to it as Modi tax.
[28:57] Speaker 1: Some opposition parties, including the Congress, have also alleged that
[29:00] Speaker 1: Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave in to pressure.
[29:03] Speaker 5: From the US.
[29:04] Speaker 1: The Finance Ministry said that UPI continues to be free
[29:07] Speaker 1: for customers. Sending money to friends, paying at shops or
[29:11] Speaker 1: scanning a QR code all remain without charges. It also
[29:15] Speaker 1: issued a detailed note on the new charges, including assuring
[29:19] Speaker 1: lakhs of UPI users across the country that everyday payments
[29:22] Speaker 1: are safe, pointing out that over 95% of the merchant
[29:26] Speaker 1: transactions are below the Rs 2,000 threshold that will invite
[29:31] Speaker 1: the 0.4% fee. The government underlined that only larger merchant
[29:35] Speaker 1: transactions i.e. those over Rs 2,000 would be subjected to
[29:39] Speaker 1: the tax and which will be covered by the merchants.
[29:42] Speaker 1: In yet another crucial clarification, the government stated that payments
[29:46] Speaker 1: for necessities like fuel, telecom and train tickets will be
[29:50] Speaker 1: subjected to a fixed cost of Rs 5 for each
[29:53] Speaker 1: transaction exceeding Rs 2,000. Syed reported that the government on
[29:57] Speaker 1: Tuesday had defended the decision, saying that incentives would be
[30:01] Speaker 1: provided to encourage further expansion of UPI in rural and
[30:04] Speaker 1: semi-urban regions while preserving its competitiveness. It also maintained that
[30:09] Speaker 1: the vast majority of payments would continue to remain free.
[30:13] Speaker 1: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance had earlier raised concerns
[30:17] Speaker 1: about sustainability of the zero-MDR model. In its 32nd report,
[30:21] Speaker 1: the panel said the regime puts pressure on government financiers
[30:25] Speaker 1: and warned that establishing a viable revenue mechanism is critical
[30:29] Speaker 1: to ensuring that the UPI ecosystem achieves financial sustainability without
[30:34] Speaker 1: perpetually straining the government exchequer. You were listening to Three
[30:40] Speaker 1: Things by the Indian Express. Today's episode was edited and
[30:44] Speaker 1: mixed by Suresh Pawar and produced by Ichha Sharma and me,
[30:48] Speaker 1: Niharika Nanda. If you like the show, then do subscribe
[30:52] Speaker 1: to us wherever you get your podcasts. You can also
[30:54] Speaker 1: recommend the show to someone you think will like it.
[30:57] Speaker 1: Share it with a friend or someone in your family.
[30:59] Speaker 1: It's the best way for people to get to know
[31:01] Speaker 1: about us. You can also tweet us at Express Podcast
[31:05] Speaker 1: and write to us at podcasts at indianexpress.com.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.