National Skill Development Agency (NSDA)

The National Skill Development Agency (NSDA) was notified on 6 June 2013 and has been functional ever since. The NSDA is an autonomous body, with functions which inter alia include  taking all possible steps to meet skilling targets as envisaged in the 12th Five Year Plan and beyond; coordinating and harmonizing the approach to skill development in the country; anchoring and operationalizing the National Skills Qualification Framework to ensure that quality and standards meet sector specific requirements; being the nodal agency for State Skill Development Missions; evaluating existing skill development schemes with a view to assessing their efficacy and suggesting corrective action to make them more effective; creating and maintaining a national database relating to skill development including development of a dynamic labour market information system; and ensuring that the skilling needs of the disadvantaged and the marginalized groups like SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, women and differently abled persons are taken care of. NSDA is an agency that is mandated to coordinate the skilling effort of the Government of India. It is not mandated to skill a targeted number of people.  However, as per details provided by NSDA, the Ministry-wise physical achievements made during 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 are given in Annexure. C&AG of India Takes Over as Member of UN Board of Auditors  The Comptroller & Auditor General of India today assumed office as Member of the United Nations Board of Auditors for a six year term upto June 2020. Shri Shashi Kant Sharma took over the charge of this prestigious position from Mr. Liu Jiayi, the Auditor General of the People’s Republic of China at the United Nations Headquarters at New York today. Shri Sharma was elected to this position defeating Philippines by a convincing margin of 62 votes in November 2013.    United Nations Board of Auditors The United Nations General Assembly established the United Nations Board of Auditors to audit the accounts of the United Nations Organization and its funds and programmes and to report its findings and recommendations to the UN General Assembly. For this, the Assembly appoints three members, each of whom must be the Auditor-General of a Member State. Other two members of the Board are Mr. Amyas Morse, Comptroller and Auditor General, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Mr. Ludovick Utouh, Controller and Auditor-General of United Republic of Tanzania. CAG’s international audit experience The CAG of India has been the external auditor of various international organizations.    Presently, besides being a Member of the UN Board of Auditors, he is the external auditor of the World Food Programme, World Intellectual Property Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, UN World Tourism Organization and the International Organization for Migration.  In recent past, he has been the external auditor of major UN Agencies like the World Health Organization, Food and Agricultural Organization, International Maritime Organization, Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons etc. Benefits for India The UN Board of Auditors is one of the key oversight organs of the United Nations and its importance has grown in recent years, especially in view of the resource crunch being faced by all Member Nations in the wake of economic crisis.  The reports of the Board form a key input in policy-making within the UN system.  The election of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the UN Board of Auditors is a matter of prestige for the country and would greatly enhance the visibility of India within the UN system. Unlike most elections in the UN and its Agencies, this election was a rare case where an institution was involved.  With the election of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India as a member of the UN Board of Auditors, one of the most prestigious institutions of Indian democracy got its due recognition at the international stage and image of the country has enhanced in terms of its democratic traditions. CAG of India will now get access for audit of UN Organizations, the prominent one being the UN Headquarters itself. By auditing international organizations of the UN system, not only would the Comptroller and Auditor General of India add value to the operations of UN, but its own officers would also be further exposed to the best international auditing and accounting practices leading to enhancement of their professional skills.  Deploying of such professionals in India would translate into high quality of auditing and accounting and would promote accountability, transparency and good governance in India. Benefits for United Nations With their wide experience in the audit of UN and its Agencies and other International Organizations, the auditors of the CAG of India would assist the UN in bringing about greater efficiency, economy and effectiveness in its operations by focussing their audit thrust on key risk areas within the UN. Presently, the United Nations is in the process of business process transformation by way of migrating to International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) for financial reporting and introduction of a SAP based Enterprise Resource Planning solution. C&AG of India has a pool of audit professionals specialising in IPSAS, who have assisted World Health Organization (WHO), International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Organization for Migration (IOM) in their on-going migration to an IPSAS compliant financial accounting system. Similarly, C&AG of India is known for its expertise in the audit of IT systems. India’s twin strengths in IPSAS and auditing ERP systems would bring immense value to the United Nations in its ongoing migration to IPSAS and implementation of its SAP system, UMOJA. Comptroller and Auditor General’s Credentials The Institution of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has a history of over one hundred and fifty years and is regarded as one of the key pillars of India’s democratic polity.  It is one of the largest Supreme Audit Institutions in the world, with a large human resource pool which is professionally qualified in diverse fields. Highly regarded in the international community of Supreme Audit Institutions, the CAG of India chairs the Knowledge Sharing Committee - one of the four major Committees of International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) besides being a member of a number of other standards setting committees/sub-committees. He is on the Governing Board of INTOSAI.  He is member of the UN Panel of External Auditors. The CAG also chairs the Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (ASOSAI). By virtue of his active participation in these international forums, the CAG is closely associated with activities in establishing standards, best practices and guidance in different areas of audit for use by the SAI community at large.

Knowing India’s nuclear credentials

Manufactured Western outrage ignores the reality that under the landmark 2005 India-U.S. agreement, the IAEA has unprecedented access to Indian nuclear facilities

There has been a concerted attack on India from the usual suspects in recent days even as it was entering into negotiations to formally accede to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. As if on cue, Jane’s Intelligence Review carried out a “(non)-exposé” of an Indian military nuclear facility in Karnataka. As exposés go, it was lame even by Jane’s standards. The nature of the facility and location have been publicly available since 2010. Yet, this new “exposé” was carried by all mainstream print news outlets and predictably sensationalised with everyone feigning alarm and anxiety. This manufactured outrage culminated with a sanctimonious editorial in The New York Times that was remarkable for the sheer incoherence of its own arguments. As the designated chief of the non-proliferation ayatollahs (with blinkers) and representative of a motley anti-India group in the U.S. that is shrinking ever so rapidly, this too was on expected lines.

Assault on credentials

Nevertheless, it is important to dismantle the uneasy arguments of this concerted assault on India’s credentials. The first proposition that must be taken issue with is the propagation of a falsehood that Pakistan and its reckless build-up of nuclear stockpile is somehow driven by India’s posture. While Pakistan’s careless impulse may be a result of more than one central factor, it is important to understand that this may have a lot to do with its suspicion of American intentions. The oft-quoted argument is that Pakistan seeks to equalise the conventional mismatch with India through a misguided reliance on numbers of strategic and tactical warheads. The irrationality and illogic of this behaviour has been proven by the fact that a country like North Korea has deterred both the U.S. and South Korea with explosions that may not even have been nuclear. Pakistan’s vertical proliferation has no mooring to India’s strategic programme — only to its own paranoia. The question is what fuels this? There is no denying the fact that Pakistan was able to obtain “nuclear immunity” for its sub-conventional activities against India with even 10 warheads. It may well be the fear of the U.S. that motivates its build-up today.

 New Delhi is already providing support to FMCT negotiation; its signature on the CTBT is linked to similar commitments by the U.S. and China 

One motivator is the pressure the U.S. has been applying on Pakistan (without success due to the China factor) to sign onto the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), which will forever cap the Pakistani arsenal. Contrary to what the commentary would have us believe, the FMCT, instead of curbing fissile material, has demonstrably accelerated Pakistan’s programme. So much for flawed logic. The second is the fear of the American “Plan B”, which involves the seizure and confiscation of much of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The former has driven Pakistan to enrich their extant stockpile of radioactive material to weapons grade at breakneck speed. The latter has ensured that Pakistan is rapidly weaponising its fissile stock, in order to disperse and complicate any such weapons seizure plans. These facts are well understood in Washington policy circles. The exposés and op-eds of the past weeks are for most just another edition of Aesop’s fables.

The second issue has to be the demonstrated lack of understanding of the reality that shaped the landmark civil nuclear agreement between the U.S. and India. This nuclear deal was based on one clear principle — that India’s military programme would irrevocably be separated from the civilian programme. This was not an optimal solution for India or for the P5, but like all international agreements it was based on arriving at an outcome that would benefit all parties and enhance the global order. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohammed El Baradei in an op-ed in the Washington Post, specifically welcomed the deal without reservation, his rationale being “either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box solutions or the international nuclear safeguards regime will become obsolete.” This is now accepted wisdom. The IAEA has gained unprecedented access to India’s nuclear facilities. India has accepted additional protocols this June, and has strengthened its own export laws. Significantly, the same journals and reports confirm that India’s own arsenal has remained stable over the period with no increases despite the turbulence in the neighbourhood. The benefits of bringing India inside the ‘non-proliferation tent’ are therefore vast, visible and tangible.

While these editorials and reports may very well have got their facts and numbers right, the analysis is so convoluted that the facts they quote cease to be relevant. The argument goes that India needs to sign the FMCT, the CTBT, and agree to mutual weapons reduction with China and Pakistan, since it is the nuclear deal with the U.S. that has set the cat amongst the pigeons. Here then is some measure of reality. India is already providing active support to the FMCT negotiations — it is a work in progress, not yet a concrete treaty. It has been Pakistan that has been blocking the work at the conference on disarmaments negotiations.

Additionally, India’s signature on the CTBT is explicitly linked to a similar U.S. and Chinese commitment. As long as they do not ratify these two treaties, India has a voluntary unilateral moratorium on testing. What is holding up Indian accession is U.S. and Chinese accession.

Experts in Beijing claim that China’s expansion and modernisation of its nuclear forces is being driven by the ill-advised and deeply destabilising withdrawal of the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. This has nothing whatsoever to do with India.

India, therefore, is first being made the whipping boy for the failure of the American non-proliferation lobby in their own country and then it has to accept blame for the complex relations the U.S. shares with Pakistan and China that is driving these Asian allies to increase their arsenals. Can we get real, please?

Squaring the poverty circle

The method proposed by the Rangarajan expert group to set poverty lines is both theoretically and empirically implausible. A simple and transparent benchmark, amenable to democratic debate, would be more useful

The Rangarajan expert group on poverty measurement has done a great deal of hard and useful work. In its recent report, the group probes a wide range of critical issues — how to set poverty lines, the choice of price indexes for poverty comparisons, the discrepancy between National Sample Surveys (NSS) and the National Accounts Statistics, and more. Massive amounts of data were crunched to shed light on these issues. The report also presents a very helpful summary of earlier “expert group” reports on poverty, chaired by Y.K. Alagh, D.T. Lakdawala and Suresh Tendulkar respectively. The combined brainpower of four expert groups is brought to bear on the committee’s terms of reference, including, most importantly, whether and how “a particular method can be evolved for empirical estimation of poverty in India.”

The calorie trap

So what did the expert group come up with? Simplifying a good deal, it has reverted to food intake norms, long sanctified by use if not by logic until they were discarded by the Tendulkar expert group in 2009. These norms are now extended from calories to include both protein and fat. The food component of the poverty line (for rural and urban areas separately) is the level of food expenditure at the point in the 2011-12 NSS per-capita expenditure distribution where households just make the norms. These norms, recently set by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), take into account the age and sex composition of the population as well as activity levels, and, for reasons that are unclear, they are a good deal lower than previous ICMR recommendations, even at fixed age and activity levels. On top of this, there are two different and not-obviously compatible schemes for establishing the non-food components of the poverty line: for some non-food items, the poverty-line expenditure is read off the same fractile of the NSS per-capita expenditure distribution as the food component, but for other items, it is read off the median of the expenditure distribution. All in all, an elaborate construction of wheels within wheels.

If you find it hard to see the justification for this method, don’t worry — there is none. Indeed, nowhere in the report do the authors explain clearly why this is an appropriate method for setting poverty lines in India. It is well known, and clearly recognised by the expert group, that average calorie (or protein) intakes in India do not correlate well at all with nutrition outcomes. In particular, the intake norms adopted by the expert group provide absolutely no guarantee of good nutrition. This is in part because good nutrition depends on many factors other than food intake, such as sanitation, water, health care and the disease environment. But it is also because of the long-appreciated point that different individuals — and populations — have different requirements, even beyond their variation in age, sex, and activity levels.

The expert group understands the first point very well, but presses on with intake norms, arguing that meeting these norms would still have a “favourable impact” on nutrition “taken in conjunction with public policies for full nutrition support for children in the 0-6 age group and public provisioning of a range of public goods and services … on a universal basis.” Surely the poverty line should be one that works in India, as it is, and not in some imagined Nirvana.

Implausible results

As for the second point, the expert group seems to take it as a justification for discounting calorie norms by 10 per cent — an arbitrary step in the absence of any information on the joint distribution of intakes and requirements. In short, the expert groups’ method perpetuates the illusion that the poverty line tells us something about nutrition, when in fact it does nothing of the sort.

Leaving that aside for the moment, what sort of estimates does the method produce? Interestingly, the rural poverty line proposed by the expert group is almost the same as the “Tendulkar poverty line.” It looks higher, but as the authors themselves note, that is mainly because their computations are based on the NSS’ “modified mixed reference period,” instead of the “mixed reference period” used by Tendulkar. When both methods are used with the same reference period, the Rangarajan poverty line for rural areas is only six per cent higher than the Tendulkar poverty line. The corresponding poverty rates are also very similar.

It is for urban areas that the Rangarajan method leads to a substantial upward revision of the poverty line. In the Tendulkar method, there was a single poverty line – the national urban poverty line “inherited” from earlier expert groups. State-wise urban and rural poverty lines were derived from this single national poverty line by applying suitable price indexes. But in the Rangarajan method, there are two poverty lines (rural and urban), obtained by applying the method described above to rural and urban data separately. And as it turns out, this leads to a much larger gap between rural and urban poverty lines (the latter being higher, in money terms) than in the Tendulkar method. At the raised Rangarajan urban poverty line, urban poverty is almost double the corresponding Tendulkar estimate, even though rural poverty rates are much the same using both methods. One odd consequence of this is that for half of India’s major States, urban poverty is higher than rural poverty according to the Rangarajan expert group. This is highly counter-intuitive, and the expert group does nothing to defend the reality of this pattern.

Way forward

In short, the Rangarajan expert group method is both theoretically and empirically implausible. What then is the way forward? Appointing another expert group is unlikely to serve the purpose, given the record of previous expert groups. Perhaps the time has come to abandon the elusive search for a technical method of deriving a poverty line that can be interpreted, in some normative sense, as the minimum cost of dignified living. Would it not be simpler, and more useful, to regard the poverty line as a mere statistical benchmark, and set it in a simple and transparent manner that the public can understand?

The Rangarajan expert group recommends, rightly in our view, that entitlement programmes should be delinked from the poverty line (that is, no more “BPL targeting”). This would effectively restore poverty lines to their original statistical purpose of tracking poverty and making poverty comparisons, without creating an artificial social division between the poor and non-poor. In the statistical approach, the poverty line is just a conventional benchmark — or a set of benchmarks for that matter, à la Arjun Sengupta and his colleagues (not mentioned in the Rangarajan report). These benchmarks focus on an important component of poverty — purchasing power — and avoid the unsustainable argument that somehow, other components are taken care of in the background.

Even a conventional benchmark, of course, can benefit from having some sort of rationale. But if an intuitively appealing poverty line is to be identified, that is best done by keeping things simple and submitting the line to democratic debate. Clarity and transparency are essential for this purpose. It is in that respect, more than any other, that the Rangarajan report disappoints. By clouding poverty estimation in a fog of technicalities, it hampers inclusive and informed public discussion of the entire issue. In fact, like the Tendulkar method, the Rangarajan method is so abstruse and uses so much hard-to-obtain information that it also frustrates independent verification of the results, again hampering democratic debate.

One might argue that, in India at least, the poverty line is not just a statistical benchmark — it also has a policy purpose. The Rangarajan expert group itself suggests that the line might continue to be used for the purpose of allocating Central government funds to different States (in the context of Centrally-sponsored schemes), if not for the purpose of identifying eligible households. But if the poverty line has a policy purpose, in addition to its statistical purpose, that makes it all the more important for it to lend itself to public debate. One way or another, the selection of a poverty line is a social and political question that needs to be subject to widespread democratic debate; it should not be the prerogative of experts, or groups of experts. Indeed, there is no such thing as an “expert” about who is poor and who is not.

Last but not least, it is very important to supplement expenditure-based poverty estimates with other indicators of living standards, relating for instance to nutrition, health, education and the quality of the environment. India’s social statistics are awfully out of date, with, for instance, no reliable and comprehensive data on child nutrition since 2005-6 (when the third National Family Health Survey (NFHS) was conducted). Noting this in passing, the Rangarajan expert group “recommends a regular programme of NFHS or NFHS-type surveys.” On this at least we agree wholeheartedly with the expert group.

Claiming the city,CSR

t is widely acknowledged that rapid urbanisation will be one of India’s largest transitions in the years to come, with the urban population estimated to increase from 300 million to 600 million by 2030. Policymaking in India, however, has failed to keep up with this changing reality. This is illustrated in the ministry of corporate affairs’s approach to corporate social responsibility (CSR) under the Companies Act, 2013. The clause mandating CSR has raised public debates ever since it was introduced earlier this year. The ministry took a welcome step by offering some clarity on what is considered CSR under the act, issuing a circular on June 18.

Schedule VII of the new law requires companies in a certain bracket to spend 2 per cent of net profits on CSR and outlines areas in which this money can be spent. The Centre for Ethical Life and Leadership estimates that the new mandate will inject close to Rs 12,000 crore into the domestic development landscape. The move would imply that the corporate sector will be poised to play a greater role in the nation’s socio-economic development, through a targeted infusion of funds into the development sector. As first steps go, it is in the right direction, but the legislation and its interpretation suffer from a crucial blind spot.

In its current form, the law and its interpretation through subsequent rules have an extremely parochial view on areas of development. The list of eligible CSR activities is surprisingly restrictive and shortsighted. While Schedule VII explicitly refers to “rural development projects”, India’s urban development has been overlooked.

The ministry’s latest circular reiterates that petitions regarding sustainable urban development, urban public transport systems as well as capacity building of government officials and elected representatives in public-private partnerships (PPP) and urban infrastructure have gone unheeded. While the new circular encourages that Schedule VII be “interpreted liberally” by registrars of companies, regional directors and stakeholders, it goes on to state that city-development activities don’t fall under the purview of CSR. Slum redevelopment and affordable housing are the only areas specifically related to the urban that the ministry says will be considered CSR.

While the government has many legitimately competing development priorities, cities and towns can no longer be left out. There is no denying that our cities need fixing. Many of us experience the impact of crumbling infrastructure, chaotic road networks, inconsistent garbage collection and erratic supply of urban services, whether it is electricity or water, on a daily basis.

Burden-sharing between key stakeholders in the urban space is key to tackling the need for urban transformation. The onus of urban development cannot rest on the government alone. National initiatives likethe Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission have done the “heavy-lifting” in our cities in the past, especially by meeting the infrastructural needs. But much more needs to be done. It is unwise to leave out the private sector, which would want to improve the future of our cities for its own growth and profitability.

The exclusion of urban development from Schedule VII ignores the reality of many non-governmental organisations and corporates that work towards urban reforms. The restrictive mandate will coerce the private sector to channel its funds into a tightly delineated set of interventions, leaving a large number of worthy causes and organisations excluded from the reach of corporate funding.

Voices in the new government have spoken about the cause of improving India’s cities. Prime Minister Narendra Modi demonstrated during his tenure as chief minister of Gujarat that “inclusive urban development” was at the top of his agenda. His efforts to fortify cities in Gujarat led to a massive influx of international companies. Soon after taking charge, Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu had emphasised the urgent need for urban upliftment and quality public transport. He reposed faith in PPPs to meet the agenda of housing for all by 2020.

The government’s rhetoric needs to be reflected in the policies and regulations it puts forth. The purview of CSR needs reconsideration to accommodate a broader spectrum of development work. Making Schedule VII more inclusive, especially from an urban standpoint, would be one of the first steps in building economically vibrant cities. By forcing companies to give to certain areas of philanthropy alone, we risk inhibiting numerous other interventions that are crucial to the development of a nation riddled with a multitude of problems.

Commonwealth Games 2014: Glasgow’s moment of glory arrives

There is an air of excitement in Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland, as it plays host to the 20^th Commonwealth Games. Organizers are eager to play down comparisons with London’s hosting of the Olympic Games in 2012 and put on a world-class event of their own.  This is the third time the Commonwealth Games are being held in Scotland, after 1970 and 1986 when the games were held in the capital Edinburgh.  The games has united the 2.3 million strong residents of Glasgow, under the mascot Clyde, ever since they won the bid in 2007 beating the Nigerian city of Abuja.  Glasgow gave an indication of things to come by putting out an impressive show at the closing ceremony of the 19^thCommonwealth Games, four years ago in New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium.

Opening Ceremony

The Opening Ceremony was held at Celtic Park, Glasgow. Queen Elizabeth II read out the message written on the Queen’s Baton which has travelled to 71 nations and territories of the Commonwealth in a relay for 248 days, before declaring the Games open. 

The opening ceremony featured a parade around Celtic Park by thousands of athletes taking part in the Games.  India, as the previous host, led the parade, which ended with the current host, Scotland.  The centrepiece of the opening ceremony a live show consisting of about 2,000 people. The Opening Ceremony also featured a near 100 metre wide and 11m high LED screen erected in front of the South Stand at Celtic Park to broadcast images of the night. In 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games the Aerostat was the showpiece during the opening and closing ceremonies.

India’s cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar was present but only through a video message   during the ceremony in his capacity as the Global Goodwill Ambassador of the UNICEF, which has partnered with the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in a first-of-its-kind initiative to spread awareness about problems being faced by children all over the world.

British Prime Minister David Cameron and his cabinet colleagues, Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and his colleagues in the government and other dignitaries from Commonwealth nations also attended the inaugural ceremony. 

The games

More than 6,500 athletes from 71 Commonwealth nations and independent states would contest in the 11 day sporting spectacle. There would be 261 medal events in 17 sports.  There were 21 sports events in the previous edition of the games held in 2010.

Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is the biggest name at the Glasgow games, but he will only compete in 4x100-metre relay.  British long distance runner Mo Farah, who won both the 5,000 and 10,000 metres at the London Olympics in 2012, is scheduled to run in both events.

Hosts Scotland have made pretty good preparations to put up a solid show and better their medal tally. England too is optimistic and will vie for the top spot or the second. New Zealand will concentrate on Rugby, while India, the largest country in the Commonwealth, will be expecting a lion's share of medals from shooters, boxers, wrestlers and shutters. Khumukcham Sanjita and Mirabai Saikhom, the Manipur girls gave India Gold and Silver on Day one Women’s 48kg weight lifting event.  

India in the Commonwealth Games

This time around India has a sizeable contingent of 224 athletes competing in 14 disciplines. The shooting team comprises an Olympic champion in Abhinav Bindra and two Olympic medallists in Gagan Narang and Vijay Kumar.  In badminton, with defending champion Saina Nehwal skipping the event, India will be pinning its hopes on PV Sindhu, P Kashyap and the pair of Jwala Gutta and Ashwini Ponnappa to repeat their success. 

India had a great outing in the track and field in 2010 with discus thrower Krishna Poonia winning the first gold medal in athletics for India in 52 years since Milkha Singh's triumph at the 1958 Cardiff Games. This time also the focus will be on Krishna and fellow discus thrower Vikas Gowda, who finished an impressive eighth in the London Games. 

The men's hockey team will be looking to salvage some pride after their disappointing show at the World Cup. The men's squad settled for the silver in Delhi but also had to endure the Brazil type ignominy of a 0-8 loss against Australia in the final.

The Indian contingent had finished second in the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi. The 101 medals overall in that edition was a record that the country would hope to better. But it would be hard to replicate the unprecedented success achieved at home in this edition, especially after the scrapping of archery and tennis and the reduction in the number of medal events in shooting and wrestling.  Therefore the most realistic target for India would be a third-place finish with the top spot expected to go either to Australia or England.

Whither Commonwealth Games

The Commonwealth Games have more history than most other games. Glasgow is hosting the 20^th edition, after it was first staged in 1930 in Hamilton, Canada. It was called the British Empire Games until 1950, then the British Empire and Commonwealth Games, then the British Commonwealth Games and, since 1978, simply the Commonwealth Games.

Even as the Games press on into the 21^st century, debate continues about their relevance. Whether it is worth the expense and trouble to carry on with the colonial legacy, when more geo-politically coherent forums like Asian Games, African Games have emerged.

As usual, the Commonwealth Games suffer from a lack of star power.  The three nations who won the most medals at the last Summer Olympics, in 2012 in London - the United States, China and Russia - do not participate in the Commonwealth version.

Yet, the games continue, often providing a fine spring-board to higher altitudes for young athletes.

Legislature on Eradication of Manual Scavenging

The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013” (MS Act, 2013) has been enacted by the Parliament in September, 2013. The Act has come into force with effect from 6.12.2013 in whole of the country, except Jammu & Kashmir. This Act intends to, inter alia, achieve the following objectives:- i) Eliminate the insanitary latrines. ii) Prohibit:- a) Employment as Manual Scavengers b) Hazardous manual cleaning of sewer and septic tanks. iii) Survey of Manual Scavengers and their rehabilitation Central Government has revised the Self Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers for rehabilitation of all the manual scavengers identified under the provisions of the MS Act, 2013. The main features of the Scheme include one-time cash assistance, training with stipend and concessional loans with subsidy for taking up alternative occupations to the target group. Under the Scheme a budget provision of Rs. 448 crore has been made for 2014-15. No expenditure has been incurred so far.

Power for All

The distribution of electricity to all consumers falls under the purview of the respective State Government/State Power Utility and it is the responsibility of distribution licensees to supply electricity. This was stated by Sh. Piyush Goyal, Minister of state for Power, Coal & New and Renewable Energy (Independent Charge) in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today. The Central Government would continue to supplement the efforts of the State Governments / Power Utilities in providing round the clock power for all by 2022. The Minister further stated that 18th Electric Power Survey (EPS) of India conducted by Central Electricity Authority has estimated the Transmission and Distribution losses as 18.89% at all India level by the end of 12th Five Year Plan. With the aim of reducing Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) losses, Government of India assists the State Governments through its scheme, Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Progrmme (R-APDRP) for up-gradation, augmentation and strengthening of electrical infrastructure. The Minister further stated that he World Bank has submitted a report titled “More Power to India: The Challenge of Distribution” to the Government of India, which highlights improvement required in the distribution system. During the 12th Plan, 1,07,440 ckm of transmission lines have been planned to be constructed which will also utilize the latest technology available in the field. The distribution system is under the purview of the respective States / UTs. However, Government of India supplements their efforts through Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) and R-APDRP schemes, the Minister added. Steps Taken To Increase Power Production  The Government has taken several steps for increasing the power production in the country in order to increase the consumption per person. These are as follows:- (i) Acceleration in generation capacity addition during 12th Plan with a proposed target of 88,537 MW from conventional sources and 30,000 MW from renewable energy sources. (ii) Undertaking a massive programme for strengthening of inter-state and inter-regional transmission capacity for evacuation of power. (iii) A new scheme has been announced in this year’s Budget for strengthening of sub-transmission and distribution networks and for segregation of agricultural feeders. (iv) Expeditiously resolving issues relating to environmental and forest clearances for power projects under implementation. (v) Bridging the gap of indigenous coal availability through coal imports for increased generation by thermal plants. (vi) Promoting energy conservation, energy efficiency and demand side management measures.