One person dies on Indian roads every three minutes

One person dies on Indian roads every three minutes
Senior cabinet minister Gopinath Munde's death in a car crash in the capital Tuesday brought into sharp focus once again the alarming number of fatalities on Indian roads with little thought on safety.

To put this disquieting data in perspective, almost half the equivalent population of some countries like Iceland or the Maldives is wiped out on Indian roads every year.

As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, as many as many as 461 people died and 1,301 more were injured "every day" from traffic accidents in the country during 2012. (See Separate Box on Key Data)

This makes it 19 deaths every hour or more than one death every three minutes.

Kamajit Soi, an international expert on road safety and vice chair of Punjab Road Safety Council, has incidentally written a letter to union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari, seeking immediate steps to end what he terms as "massacre" on Indian roads.

"Over 1.2 million innocent people died on the roads in the last 10 years of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. The last government did nothing to save lives," Soi, an advisor on road safety to the Asian Development Bank, told IANS.

"We have been banging our head against the wall. No one is bothered. Hundreds of lives are lost every day. It is like jumbo jet crashing every day. I hope the Narendra Modi government takes steps to ensure Indian roads become safer. I've written to him too."

Munde is among the several known people, including political leaders, who have died on Indian roads.

The list includes former president Zail Singh, former central minister Rajesh Pilot, former Punjab finance minister Kanwaljit Singh, former Delhi chief minister Sahib Singh Verma and Telugu Desam Party leader Yerran Naidu.

Little wonder the World Health Organization (WHO) says India accounts for the highest number of deaths in road accidents. China with 97,551, the US with 41,292 and and Russia with 37,349 have much lower deaths on their roads but with much more cars.

"Worldwide, over 1.4 million lives are lost annually; India is contributing 11 percent (to it)," Soi said.
"The incidence of accidental deaths has shown an increasing trend during the period 2003-2012 with an increase of 51.8 percent in the year 2012 as compared to 2002," the bureau said in its report "Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India - 2012".

"The population growth during the period 2003 to 2012 was 13.6 percent whereas the increase in the rate of accidental deaths during the same period was 34.2 percent," the report added.

At the same time, the report said, road accidents in the country may have come down marginally by 0.02 percent during 2012 compared to 2011, but the casualties have increased by 1.6 percent.

Among the causes of accidental deaths in 2012, road accidents topped the list with 35.2 percent, while rail-road accounted for 7.4 percent of the deaths.

"A total of 473,416 traffic accidents cases were reported during 2012, comprising 440,042 road accident cases, 1,762 rail-road accidents cases and 31,612 other railway accidents cases," said the report.

In sheer numbers, as many as 168,301 people died in the country in 2012 from traffic accidents with road accidents accounting for 139,091 -- this is almost half the population of countries like Iceland and the Maldives.

"It's not the killer roads alone where road safety is compromised. Even auto-makers continue to sell vehicles that are hardly safe. India's most successful car Maruti-800 alone has accounted for over 700,000 deaths since it was launched in 1985," said Soi.

"Such cars have been nothing but moving coffins."

no to tobacco

That over 27 per cent of tobacco consumers in India fall in the 15-24 year age bracket amply demonstrates how successful the tobacco companies have been in continually enticing the vulnerable sections of the population into the suicidal practice. The addition of new customers every year even as thousands of patrons die annually ensures that the tobacco companies’ customer base remains wide and tall. If the global tobacco-related mortality is about 5.5 million people annually, India’s burden alone is nearly one million. With nearly 35 per cent of the adult population in the country addicted to the dangerous substance rolled in paper or leaf or packed in plastic sachets, India is the second largest consumer of tobacco products in the world. Besides the high levels of mortality and morbidity, there is a huge economic cost involved in treating people with diseases caused directly or indirectly by tobacco use. As a result, the out-of-pocket expenditure on medical treatment results in “higher poverty rates.” A recently released Health Ministry report estimates that 9.3 lakh people in India are affected by the health costs of tobacco. According to the report, the total health expenditure burden of tobacco in the year 2011 was a little over Rs.100,000 crore. To put it in perspective, the amount was “12 per cent more than the combined State and central government expenditure on health in 2011-12.” The revenue earned through excise duty in the same year was a paltry 17 per cent of the health burden of tobacco. The “benefit” argument of revenue generation through sales therefore stands completely negated.

It is for these reasons that the Central government, which considers health to be one of the priority areas, should simultaneously implement multiple strategies to prevent people, particularly children as young as 15 years, from getting addicted to nicotine and help the existing users to quit smoking and/or chewing tobacco. If the government is indeed serious about reducing the prevalence by 15 per cent by 2020 and 30 per cent by 2025, the most effective way of achieving it is by raising taxes. It is indeed heartening that the new Union Health Minister “supports” higher taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products; raising tax on tobacco is the WHO’s theme this year. But for any tax increase to become effective, the price difference between various brands and different tobacco products must be minimal. But India follows a bizarre, producer-friendly excise duty structure for cigarettes, beedis and chewing tobacco that makes a mockery of taxation. Hence, a complete overhaul of the taxation system is warranted to achieve the desired benefits. It is time the tobacco issue was addressed with greater seriousness.

Indo-French air exercise begins

The fifth Indo-French bilateral air exercise — Garuda-V — began at the Jodhpur Air Base on Monday. It is aimed at enhancing operational cooperation and validating capabilities. The exercise will involve the assets of IAF’s main operational formations, including the Gandhinagar-based South Western Air Command and the Allahabad-based Central Air Command.

Frontline fighter aircraft of the IAF, including the SU 30, Mig-27 (UPG), MIG- 21 Bison, and force multipliers such as the AWACS and Flight Refueller Aircraft IL 78 are participating while the French have fielded their frontline Rafale Fighter aircraft along with the KC 135 Refueller.

A Defence spokesperson said during the war games both the Air Forces will practice aerial warfare, including manoeuvres to carry out surgical strikes,. In this fortnight-long exercise the Air Forces would also engage in operations based on their ‘operational philosophy’ and methodology of operations practising various challenging air situation scenarios. The exercise would help both in appreciating the intricacies of planning and conduicting combat missions in an operational environment.

The exercise, whose previous edition was held at Istres, France, in 2010 will end on June 13.

Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India

must read for ias mains
Environment Protection under Constitutional Framework of India


            The constitution of India is not an inert but a living document which evolves and grows with time. The specific provisions on environment protection in the constitution are also result of this evolving nature and growth potential of the fundamental law of the land. The preamble to our constitution ensures socialist pattern of the society and dignity of the individual. Decent standard of living and pollution free environment is inherent in this. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 defines environment as “environment includes water, air and land and the interrelationship which exists among and between air, water and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property”.

            The chapter on fundamental duties of the Indian Constitution clearly imposes duty on every citizen to protect environment. Article 51-A (g), says that “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.”

            The Directive principles under the Indian constitution directed towards ideals of building welfare state. Healthy environment is also one of the elements of welfare state.  Article 47 provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. The improvement of public health also includes the protection and improvement of environment without which public health cannot be assured. Article 48 deals with organization of agriculture and animal husbandry. It directs the State to take steps to organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. In particular, it should take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. Article 48 -A of the constitution says that “the state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”.

            The Constitution of India under part III guarantees fundamental rights which are essential for the development of every individual and to which a person is inherently entitled by virtue of being human alone. Right to environment is also a right without which development of individual and realisation of his or her full potential shall not be possible. Articles 21, 14 and 19 of this part have been used for environmental protection.

            According to Article 21 of the constitution, “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 has received liberal interpretation from time to time after the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (AIR 1978 SC 597). Article 21 guarantees fundamental right to life. Right to environment, free of danger of disease and infection is inherent in it. Right to healthy environment is important attribute of right to live with human dignity. The right to live in a healthy environment as part of Article 21 of the Constitution was first recognized in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State, AIR 1988 SC 2187 (Popularly known as Dehradun Quarrying Case). It is the first case of this kind in India, involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance in which Supreme Court directed to stop the excavation (illegal mining) under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 the Supreme Court treated the right to live in pollution free environment as a part of fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

           Excessive noise creates pollution in the society. The constitution of India under Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 21 of the constitution guarantees right to decent environment and right to live peacefully. In PA Jacob vs. The Superintendent of Police Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1, the Kerala High Court held that freedom of speech under article 19 (1)(a)  does not include freedom to use loud speakers or sound amplifiers.  Thus, noise pollution caused by the loud speakers can be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution.

          Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian constitution confers fundamental right on every citizen to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.  This is subject to reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot carry on business activity, if it is health hazards to the society or general public. Thus safeguards for environment protection are inherent in this.  The Supreme Court, while deciding the matter relating to carrying on trade of liquor in Cooverjee B. Bharucha  Vs Excise commissioner, Ajmer (1954, SC 220) observed that, if there is clash between  environmental protection and right to freedom of trade and occupation, the courts have to balance environmental interests with the fundamental rights to carry on any occupations.

            Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India resulted in a wave of environmental litigation. The leading environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court includes case of closure of limestone quarries in the Dehradun region (Dehradun Quarrying case, AIR 1985 SC 652), the installation of safeguard at a chlorine plant in Delhi (M.C. Mehta V. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1037) etc.  In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, the Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle” and “the Polluter Pays Principle” are essential features of “Sustainable Development.”

            At local and village level also, Panchayats have been empowered under the constitution to take measures such as soil conservation, water management, forestry and protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspect.

            Environment protection is part of our cultural values and traditions. In Atharvaveda, it has been said that “Man’s paradise is on earth; this living world is the beloved place of all; It has the blessings of nature’s bounties; live in a lovely spirit”. Earth is our paradise and it is our duty to protect our paradise. The constitution of India embodies the framework of protection and preservation of nature without which life cannot be enjoyed. The knowledge of constitutional provisions regarding environment protection is need of the day to bring greater public participation, environmental awareness, environmental education and sensitize the people to preserve ecology and environment.

DO HARD WORK TO CRACK IAS-14

The competition is getting tough. To be ahead you must prepare carefully and consistently. Carefully because the market is flooded with irrelevant books and coaching materials. Add to this wrong guidance.

Consistency is very important if you want to clear this exam. Without it, you will be wasting a lot of time now and then. When you waste lots of time now, this mistake takes a toll on your preparation when exam is very near. The pressure builds and performance suffers.

Preliminary exam paper-I is crucial in two aspects: first, if you prepare thoroughly the syllabus given for this paper, it build a strong foundation to all the Four General Studies papers of Mains exam. Secondly, it is important to get at least 50-60 questions correct in it as you never know what UPSC has in store for you in future: it might make Paper-2 just qualifying in nature; or it might make it tough by including more aptitude questions; or it can even make paper-1 very tough and fix minimum cut-off.

Raj Dharma and Buddhi dharma

There seems to be some anxiety among the intellectual class about doing their duty and being critical of the lapses of the ruling dispensation

When a government with the kind of formidable majority that Narendra Modi commands takes office, and when such a government signals that it intends not just regime change but also system reform, we know that we have entered a zone of moral and political uncertainty. In such a historical conjuncture when the Nehruvian paradigm of statecraft is seen as constituting the problem and not the solution, i.e., when it is not the historical good fortune that we had been brought up to believe it was, and when many respected public intellectuals are now speaking out against Nehru’s legacy, the time has come for us to bring key concepts into the public discourse. These concepts must be drawn from our own civilisational resources and must satisfy the condition of being both native and modern, if what was said during the campaign is to be seen as not just rhetoric but an honest realism.

Universal and specific

Of the concepts available for consideration, none has a greater relevance than the concept of dharma. It has both universal reach and context specificity. Innumerable books have been written on it and the best we can do here is to merely offer the starting point for an ensuing debate. Dharma is both religion and a code of righteous conduct. V. Kutumba Sastry, relying on P.V. Kane’s monumental History of the√ Dharmas´a¯stra, in a paper titled “Semantics of Dharma” presented at a seminar at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, on Dharma: The Categorical Imperative, offered a list of meanings that invite our analytical attention. Dharma refers to the “upholder or supporter or sustainer” (Rgveda, I. 187.1 and X. 92.2); as “religious ordinances and rites” (Rgveda, I. 22.18, V. 26.6, VIII. 43.24 and IX); as “fixed principles or rules of conduct,” (Rgveda, IV, 53.3, V.63.7, VI. 70.1 and VIII. 89.5); as “merit acquired by the performance of religious rites,” (Atharva Vv√eda, XI. 9.17) and as “the whole body of religious (and moral?) duties” (Aitareya Bra¯hmana, VII. 17).

These keywords — upholder, supporter and sustainer, fixed principles, rules of conduct, merit acquired — are capacious words that need to be probed in today’s setting. What does being an “upholder and sustainer” imply? Seen from one perspective it can be read as inclusive, accommodating, ethically firm and committed to educating the other within a dialogic mode. This is because that which needs to be upheld is complex and diverse, and anything other than being accommodative would propel us into a spiralling conflict. Is accommodation of diversity then the only way of being an “upholder and sustainer”? Seen from another perspective, a narrower one, upholder is the inquisitor whose mission it is to see that there is behavioural conformity with a set of codes. Here, the upholder is the khap panchayat which believes that its diktat be strictly implemented since it is the basis of community sustainability. Similar questions can be asked of the other keywords so that the public implications of the concept of dharma can be examined for our own times. Is “fixed principles” suggestive of moral firmness, in the face of situational fluidity, a virtue to be applauded, such as Gandhi’s calling off the civil disobedience movement after policemen were killed, or does it refer to moral obstinacy such as the moral policing by the Taliban and the Shiv Sena?

Duties and ‘merit acquired’

In the list of meanings offered by Kane a new dimension is brought in by the idea that Dharma refers to “the merit acquired” by the performance of duties. This goes beyond the behavioural injunction of the other meanings and its linked consequences, to the reward that follows. What does such merit consist in? Who recognises and awards it — self or society? Is it the satisfaction that comes from promoting a public good or is it the gratification that follows the defence of a just cause? Is it the public acclaim that one receives from working for a good society or is it the social power that accrues to one who is regarded by the public as being of saintly disposition? Dharma’s time, it seems, has come for political theory in India today.

Two areas where we can begin our explorations immediately are Raj dharma and Buddhi dharma. The first entered our public discourse when Atal Bihari Vajpayee used it in 2002 although at that time its features were not extensively discussed. We thought we knew what was being referred to. In today’s world when system reform is being attempted let me dilate on three conditions of Raj dharma that the government must satisfy. The first is appointment to the council of ministers. If dharma is “merit acquired” then those who shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the months preceding the election had not acquired such “merit” and hence were not eligible to be rewarded with office. This is particularly so in the case of the central civil service officers (CCS), i.e., the IAS and IPS officers who took premature retirement to contest the election. While it is right that they be given tickets and be permitted to contest as citizens, rewarding them with office would be highly disruptive of Raj dharmaregarded as the “rules of conduct.”

Civil service rules provide for a “cooling off period” for every officer. No one is exempted. This is to ensure that she acts impartially in office and does not use office for personal and partisan ends. No CCS officer can stay in a central posting indefinitely and none has the power to abrogate the rule. They must return to their less glamorous postings after the power posting term is over. There is even a maximum period for such foreign service. This is Raj dharma seen as “fixed principles or rules of conduct.” When senior CCS officers resigned prematurely and stood for election, hoping for reward after the results, since they were privy to the intelligence reports of the outcome, they threatened the entire system of impartiality. In future, such a calculus of self-promotion would become the new norm. By not rewarding them the government passed the first test of Raj dharma. It passed this test also by not rewarding technocrats and those who did not stand for election. Rajya Sabha members if they have earned merit, are eligible for office. The case of the retired Chief of the Army Staff is, however, in a grey zone since rewarding him may politicise the Army with grave implications.

Upholding impartiality

The second test of Raj dharma is the impartial pursuit of all offenders. By constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to recover the black money allegedly held by the corrupt, some in Swiss banks, it has sent out a good signal. If the creation and hoarding of black money is what has held us back as a nation, then the SIT will render a great service by identifying the offenders and prosecuting them. Will the government allow the SIT to work impartially even if its key supporters in the business community come under the SIT’s scrutiny? The government has passed the first part of the second test by constituting the SIT, Raj dharma as “upholder and sustainer and supporter.” Will it pass the second part of the second test of moral duties?

Scientific temper

The third test of Raj dharma is to respect Buddhi dharma. On this test it is early days yet. There seems to be some anxiety among the intellectual class about doing their duty and being critical of the lapses (if any) of the ruling dispensation. The sooner we all realise that Raj dharma and Buddhi dharma are consanguineous, since for a sturdy culture of Raj dharma we need a strong presence of Buddhidharma, the better it will be for India. The government must send out a strong signal that it respects the performance of Buddhi dharma. For example, the Prime Minister could make a statement that U.R. Ananthamurthy is a national institution and even when he is critical he is to be treasured. Nehru would have done this. In the absence of such a sign from Mr. Modi the pursuit of Buddhi dharma will be tentative. Public intellectuals appear today to be very cautious. Some have publicly re-examined their decades old epistemological moorings turning their back on scientific temper and secularism. This is worrisome, for either they were superficial scholars earlier or they are anxious scholars today.

The hard question that scholars must ask is: how does one respond to what one regards as superstition? Must it be challenged using all the tools available to one, from anthropology to psychology, or must one show it respect as belonging to a different meaning system from one’s own? Some scholars are now suddenly showing respect to superstition in the name of cultural relativism. Is the work of great rationalists such as Dr. Abraham Kovoor and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar all in vain? Does one remain quiet when the Taliban opposes the pulse polio campaign in the name of religion and does one remain indifferent to the many godmen (some of whom are in jail) who, claiming to offer cures, sexually exploit women by using religion? When the monsoons are poor this year, as predicted, will we recommend havans or cloud seeding? These are questions of a Nehruvian paradigm of scientific temper.

Hard questions must also be asked of those who mock what they call pseudo secularism. Are they advocating that the secular idea be abandoned, endorsing a state that is not equidistant between all religions? Do they support the idea of the state adopting the cultural practices of the majority religion because doing anything else would be appeasement of the minorities? Will Baba Ramdev’s views on homosexuality be officially adopted? Let us ask these hard questions in the true spirit of Buddhidharma. And if dharma is at the core of our Indic civilisation then we must be true to both Raj and Buddhi dharma. Is relentless questioning the dharmic way? Or is it not?