India wins 64 medals in the just concluded CWG 2014

On 10th  and 11th day of Commonwealth Games, India won 13 medals (2 Gold, 7 Silver and 4 Bronze). The names of the medal winners are as follows:- Sl. No. Name of Athlete Event Medal 1. Joshana Chinappa / Dipika Pallikal Squash (Women’s Doubles) Gold 2. Devendro Laishram Boxing Light Weight (49 Kgs) Silver 3. Laishram Devi Boxing Light Weight (57-60 Kgs) Silver 4. Mandeep Jangra Boxing Welter -Weight – (69 kgs) Silver 5. Vijender Singh Boxing  Middle Weight (75 Kgs) Silver 6. Rajinder Rahelu Powerlifting (Heavyweight) Silver 7. P V Sindhu Badminton (Women Singles) Bronze 8. R V Gurusaidutt Badminton (Men Singles) Bronze 9. Sakina Khatun Powerlifting (Light Weight) Bronze 10. Arpinder Singh Athletics (Triple Jump) Bronze 11. Kashyap Parupalli Badminton (Men Singles) Gold 12. Ashwini Ponnappa / Jwala Gutta Badminton (Women Doubles) Silver 13. Sadar Singh / Akashdeep Singh / Birendra Lakar / Chinglensana Kangujam / Chandana Nikkin Thimmaiah / Danish Mujtaba / Dharamvir Singh / Gurwinder Chandi / Gurbaj Singh / Kothajit Khadangbam / Manpreet Singh / Sreejesh Parattu Raveendran / Rupinder Singh / Ramandeep Singh / Sunil Sowmarpet Vitalacharya / Raghunath Vokkaliga Ramachandra Hockey Men’s Silver Minister for Skill Development, Entrepreneurship, Youth Affairs and Sports Shri Sarbananda Sonowal    has congratulated all the medal winners.  P Country 1  ENG 58 59 57 2  AUS 49 42 46 3  CAN 32 16 34 4  SCO 19 15 19 5  IND 15 30 19  Parupalli Kashyap broke a 32-year jinx to claim the men’s singles badminton gold, while the women’s doubles pair of Jwala Gutta and Ashwini Ponnappa as also the men’s hockey team clinched silvers to cap an creditable Indian showing at the 20th Commonwealth Games which closed om Sunday. However, off the pitch, the arrest of two senior sports officials on separate charges of drunken driving and sexual assault came as a major embarrassment for the nation, which was earlier in the competition left red faced when a para powerlifter had to be pulled out of the Games and sent back home for failing an out—of—competition drug test conducted in June. The incidents took some of the sheen off the impressive 64 medal haul — 15 gold, 30 silver and 19 bronze — that ensured a fifth place finish in the leaderboard for India after England, Australia, Canada and hosts Scotland. It was India’s third best showing in the Commonwealth Games after the 100 plus bounty at home in Delhi four years back and the 69 medals they picked up at Manchester in 2002.

Protecting the constituency of nature

A smaller National Board for Wildlife, synergised with the government’s declared goals of speedy processing of environmental clearances, will deal an irreversible blow to our wildlife

With a new government that promises speedy decision-making — including time-bound environmental clearances — we also have a new form of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL). Shorn of the mandated numbers of expert members, this board appears to be committed to a leaner and meaner decision-taking body.

Many see this as an assault on the future of India’s varied and amazing wildlife. The Lion-tailed macaque from the moist forests of the Western Ghats, the secretive Great Indian bustard from the arid scrub of the Thar, and the tiger loping along the Central Indian forests are not just animals but forms of regional identity, whose breeding populations are mainly confined to our protected national parks and sanctuaries.

The NBWL considers proposals that affect these protected areas and their respective eco-sensitive zones. Mining, road development, land diversion, laying pipelines and other similar projects are considered by the board, which has governmental representation from tourism, defence or other ministries, as in current proposals.

Best interest standard

Shearing the NBWL of expert members — only three non-official members have been instituted, as against five non-governmental organisations and 10 expert members mandated by the Wildlife Protection Act — has been seen as an assault on the last “homes” of our charismatic and endangered species. An apex decision-making body that does not have the requisite number of different subject matter experts casts aspersions on our national goals of sustainable development and balanced growth.

Last year, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment (Centre for Environmental Law WWF-1 v. Union of India and Others), called for the establishment of “species best interest standard” for endangered species’ conservation. Stating that the protection of species should be free from profit, the judgment called for a fearless application of conservation plans with what it termed an “eco-centric approach” which would emphasise the species’ survival needs.

India has a variety of protected areas: some magnificent tiger reserves span different States; smaller State-level sanctuaries provide small but critical refuge to endemic and endangered species, and some protected reserves transform themselves with the seasonal migration of birds and turtles; from Kanha’s sal forests and Assam’s Kaziranga, to high-altitude wetlands in Tsomoriri, there are stunning catchments of water and soil and active carbon sinks.

An eco-centric approach emphasises that these ecosystems, and their wildlife, have an inherent right to exist at levels of ontology and altruism, untarred by how humans wish to exploit, manage or harness the natural goods from them. Indeed, our existing laws — the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 — call for an identification of inviolate reserves and critical wildlife habitats. Primary forests, once cut down, cannot be replenished completely for at least another 50 years; rivers, once polluted or diverted, cannot be replaced in a mechanical manner.

Only 5.2 per cent of India’s terrestrial area is protected for wildlife and nature. Conservationists have always held that if over 90 per cent of India’s land mass cannot provide for our needs, it is unlikely that the last five per cent — meant to be shielded from extractive processes — will. Thus, fears that a smaller NBWL, synergised with the government’s declared goal of speedy processing of environmental clearances, will deal an irreversible blow to our wildlife, are not unfounded. However, there is even more to be considered.

Models of growth 

For decades, the conservation of species was seen to be dealing exclusively with the tiger, lion, turtle and other species. Over a period of time, these conservation norms have evolved. The world has also seen the formulation of the concept of sustainable development, which proposes models of growth that consider leaving a cleaner environment for future generations. Currently, a working group under the United Nations framework is creating Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). These 17 working goals, following 2012’s ‘Rio+ 20’ summit, recognise the need for biodiversity and environment protection, arguing that safe, sustainable and healthy environments (or as an extension, states and countries) require strong biodiversity and nature conservation.

Even before these ideas came to light, India had its own National Biodiversity Targets which emphasise that environmental conservation is to be mainstreamed into our planning processes and development goals. While some may view this as idealistic, increasing evidence also shows that this is practical.

At a cost

Environmental degradation comes at a cost to the economy. If big projects march on without risk and sustainability assessments, they will come at a cost which we will start to pay sooner than anticipated.

Rules mandating inviolate areas can be considered charismatic and burdensome in equal measure. But they also protect catchments of our reserves which we will need for the future of our development. Can growth, at any cost, actually pay the costs of environmental risk, resource scarcity and calamity? Most of our rivers originate from, or flow through, our 45 tiger reserves. Forests, protected in large measure by the umbrella of sanctuaries monitored by the NBWL, are agents that stabilise microclimate, bringing rain and flood control. As events preceding last year’s Uttarakhand flash floods showed us, construction on the flood plains of Himalayan rivers — technically deemed ‘eco-sensitive zones’ —is entirely possible. It may not however, be wise.

Development is not just about human creation, but about the development of social and health indices of which a clean environment is an integral part. The question of a smaller NBWL, sans subject experts thus, is one that is related to our fundamental right to life and a clean environment.

The NBWL should be reconstituted in consonance with the Wildlife Protection Act, not just for the sake our animals, but also for our own identification as a proud nation with a proud natural heritage. The constituency of nature exceeds the constituency of people and animals, and protecting it, with the help of technocratic expertise and without haste, suits both democratic processes and our own development as Indian citizens.

Making judiciary more transparent

A judiciary which considers the rule of law a part of its basic structure must abandon the culture of secrecy that envelops the present appointment process

The question of judicial appointments has reached centre stage. The new government has started a process of consultation in relation to two Bills — the Constitution Amendment Bill and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill. The bills were an attempt by the previous government to take over judicial appointments. First, the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) can be modified by Parliament by ordinary law. Second, the independence and impartiality of the proposed JAC will be undermined by the JAC Secretariat being made a department of government. Third, the expenses and salaries, etc of the JAC would not be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India and will be dependent on budgetary control by the Executive.

The Supreme Court and the High courts have their independent registries, where appointments are made by or at the direction of Chief Justices (Article 146 and Article 229 respectively), ensuring total freedom from political interference and political domination.

Collegium system

The Constitution Amendment Bill was in the public domain only for a few days, notwithstanding demands by stakeholders for an early disclosure. After a very brief debate on September 5, 2013, the Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill (later corrected as 99th Amendment Bill) was passed by the Rajya Sabha after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) walked out. The BJP’s demand was that the Parliamentary Standing Committee should examine both the Bills together. Then BJP MP (and now the Union Minister for Law and Justice), Ravi Shankar Prasad is reported to have said in the Rajya Sabha: “Home work was not done. We were misled into passing it … The Minister [Kapil Sibal] has committed a mistake, he should feel sorry for his act. Law minister should apologise to the House. He must apologise, anguish would not do.”

There is a broad perception among most stakeholders that the present collegium system has not performed well and needs radical change. The worrying concerns relate to: appointment of unsuitable candidates and selection based on favouritism and nepotism, influential connections and personal likes and dislikes. There appears to be a consensus that the composition of the proposed JAC should be entrenched in the Constitution and cast in stone and that the pre-1993 position and the primacy of the Executive should not be restored — a view shared by two Ministers involved in the recent consultation process.

The debate raises many important questions — whether the JAC should be a permanent body with permanent members and a fixed tenure, rather than one with ex officio holders of judicial office who are all birds of passage with a limited tenure; whether the convention that the senior-most Supreme Court Judge be appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) should be disregarded; whether the judiciary should have a dominant voice, and whether there should be a veto for dissenting members against the judicial members.

The two Bills being debated do not address the issue of a lack of transparency in the appointment procedure and of non-disclosure of reasons for selection.

Need for openness

The focus of this article is only on openness and transparency in the appointment procedure and on the necessity of providing relevant principles and guidelines in the Constitutional Amendment Bill.

All democracies are swiftly moving toward an open government and a citizen’s right to know — an international trend increasingly being supported by judicial decisions.

Further, the right to know is part of the freedom of speech and expression and the present secretive system, as implemented by the collegium, violates this fundamental right.

Publicity, the soul of justice

The principle of open justice and public trial is essential for the fair administration of justice. In the celebrated case of Scott v. Scott, observations by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham were quoted: “In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.” and “The security of securities is publicity.”

Our Supreme Court cited, with approval, this passage in the Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar case and added that “… a trial held, subject to the public scrutiny and gaze, naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries …”

The distinguished former president of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, in his book, The Judge in a Democracy, observed: “… But we are judges. We demand that others act according to the law. This is also the demand that we make of ourselves ....”

“I view my office as a mission. Judging is not a job. It is a way of life. Whenever I enter the courtroom, I do so with the deep sense that, as I sit at trial, I stand on trial.”

Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, during the controversy regarding the impeachment of Justice V. Ramaswami, stated: “… The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law. It is, therefore, necessary that those who uphold the rule of law must live by law and Judges must, therefore, be obliged to live according to law ….”

Why should this salutary principle not apply to the process of judicial appointments? “In camera” trials are ordered where the parties and witnesses require protection or a fair trial is prejudiced. In the functioning of the JAC or any other machinery for judicial appointments, no litigating parties are involved and the potential candidates who voluntarily participate must agree to an open and transparent process.

The present secretive process followed by the collegium excludes public scrutiny, violates the citizen’s right to know and leads to diminishing respect for the judiciary.

The observations in the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta vs. Union Of India), which have not been overruled at this point, support the concept of openness. Bhagwati J. — with whom five judges agreed — while overruling the claim of privilege for non-disclosure of communications relating to appointments and transfers of judges, observed: “The citizens’ right to know the facts, the true facts, about the administration of the country is thus one of the pillars of a democratic State. And that is why the demand for openness in the government is increasingly growing in different parts of the world.”

He further observed: “Now, if the secrecy were to be observed in the functioning of government and the processes of government were to be kept hidden from public scrutiny, it would tend to promote and encourage oppression, corruption and misuse or abuse of authority, for it would all be shrouded in the veil of secrecy without any public accountability.”

“We believe in an open government and openness in government does not mean openness merely in the functioning of the executive arms of the state. The same openness must characterise the functioning of the judicial apparatus including judicial appointments and transfers.”

To ensure openness and transparency, the proposed constitutional amendment must embody some key principles and core concepts for guidance and implementation by the JAC. These would include: transparent criteria for eligibility as well as for shortlisting and selection (like age, standing, income, etc); a complete and periodically updated database of potential candidates that includes their qualification, performance, general reputation, etc and which is accessible to the public; applications to be invited by nomination/advertisement; consultation with members of the Bar and Bar organisations; inputs sought from the public with regard to shortlisted candidates; absolute immunity to citizens, while giving their inputs in a confidential manner, from laws of contempt and defamation; reasons for selection to be recorded and disclosed when required, and, most importantly, a complete record of video/audio of JAC deliberations.

Informed debate

In sum, one does not want a differently constituted appointing authority operating in secrecy.

Lord Steyn in the House of Lords observed: “The principle of open justice puts, as has often been said, the judge and all who participate in the trial under intense scrutiny … Informed public debate is necessary about all such matters … It promotes the value of the rule of law.”

Surely, a judiciary which considers the rule of law a part of its basic structure must abandon the culture of secrecy that envelops the present appointment process.

Testing untaught competencies,CSAT ROW

By not providing a level playing field to candidates from rural areas and those who have studied in a regional language, CSAT eliminates 70 per cent of them at the entry level itself

The storm in the country over the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) screening test known as CSAT (Civil Services Aptitude Test) seems to have attracted attention, not as much of the academics as of the common man. Civil services recruitment tests are increasingly being considered by many as public examinations that reflect little on the academic components of a discipline but rely on rote memory. That is why it is being said that an engineer who graduates from an IIT becomes an IAS officer with history or anthropology as his subject. These tests are not directed to examine the achievement (learning measure) of a candidate, but evaluate scholastic capability of the incumbent.

Civil services captured the imagination of the common Indian when the D.S. Kothari Committee recommended subtle changes to the method of examination — aimed at accommodating all sections of aspirants — from 1978. This was also a period that saw results of democratisation of education in the post-independence period as marginalised social groups entered mainstream public service.

Bureaucrats as facilitators

Economic reforms in 1991 created many opportunities, while shattering existing structures and values. This also impacted the way civil services functioned. Bureaucrats became facilitators to ease conditions for entry into once-restricted sectors. A new philosophy of New Public Management (NPM) was introduced in our system of governance even as it was discarded elsewhere.

Yet, some elite sections, which had no experience either of life in a rural area or the kind of deprivation suffered by people there, considered it a boon and an opportunity for the development of an emerging nation. They did not realise that governance is different from management and that it requires empathy and moral integrity.

Even as the debate over the relevance of the existing system of governance was on, the government appointed the Y.K. Alagh Committee in 2001 to review the existing pattern of the exams. The committee felt that a majority of candidates were opting for subjects based on “scorability” rather than specialisation. It recommended replacing optional subjects with three sets of compulsory papers.

It was the Alagh Committee which, for the first time, mooted the idea of a CSAT. However, the government did not accept its recommendations; in the meantime, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended that “the Preliminary Examination consist of an objective type test having one or two papers on general studies including the Constitution of India, the Indian Legal system, Indian economy, Polity, history and culture. There should be no optional subjects.”

Confused with too many committees and different recommendations, the UPSC constituted another committee with S.K. Khanna, ex-chairman, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), as its chairman, and with engineering and management professors and bureaucrats as its members. The committee recommended a CSAT format, which was discussed within the UPSC and a draft sent to the government for approval. It is well known that there was no unanimity in the committee. The present CSAT was notified. Having been part of the exams for three years now, it is due for review.

It is unfair to blame the UPSC singularly for the current state of affairs. Though it is an autonomous constitutional body, it is always the government which has the final say on issues of policy. It seems the government is looking into the matter and some reasonable order is expected soon. Candidates who have chosen regional languages allege that their prospects to become civil servants are weakened. Data from annual reports of UPSC show that there is some merit in their grievances as the number of candidates taking a regional language as an optional subject has come down; meanwhile, the number of successful engineering graduates has increased in the three-year (2010-13) period.

Elitist

There are experts who argue that it is not possible to test non-cognitive competencies and therefore testing based on analytical and problem solving skills needs to be retained. However, test scores are always considered as subjective judgments, more so in a pluralistic society like India, where the civil service is the dream career of many educated youngsters belonging to different socio-economic and educational backgrounds. Even SAT — conducted in the United States for college admissions — is considered biased in favour of whites.

CSAT and the Common Admission Test (CAT) belong to the same category. Aspirants seem to think of them being elitist and not enabling a level playing field to the majority (around 70 per cent) of them who come from rural backgrounds, with regional language as a medium and from the deprived sections. Thus, it can be argued that 70 per cent of the aspirants are eliminated at the entry level itself.

Further, our education system today is totally polarised. Students who come from the urban middle class are sent to elite schools where they are taught the prerequisites of reasoning, analytical skills, interpersonal skills, mental ability and all that is required for management and engineering education. The schools in rural areas and those which impart instruction in regional languages do not have the academic and financial resources to prepare students for tests like CSAT. Is it moral and honest to test students in subjects that were not taught when we need to qualify candidates not for a degree but for lifelong service?

Facilitation and food,WTO

India is receiving a lot of flak for its stance at the just-concluded meeting of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Council in Geneva with epithets such as “deal-breaker” being hurled at it. The country is being accused of sabotaging the first real agreement forged by the trade body in 19 years on trade facilitation with its rigid stance on the issue of food subsidy. An agreement on trade facilitation (TFA), which is aimed at easing customs rules and simplifying procedures, was reached at the 9th Ministerial Round in Bali in December last year after the developed world agreed to find a permanent solution to the contentious issue of stockpiling of food grains by the developing countries by 2017. The Bali Declaration also provided for a “peace clause” whereby countries such as India could continue with their food subsidy programmes until then. India, which supports the TFA, has questioned the current limit of “trade distorting” subsidy which is 10 per cent of the value of food grains output in a year with the base year for prices set at 1986-88. Its position is that the limit does not account for inflation and currency depreciation and the base year needs to be reset to a later period. This is a fair argument as it concerns the critical issue of food security for a country that is home to a quarter of the world’s hungry.

The passage of the Food Security Act means that the subsidy bill will bloat in the coming years and the country cannot afford to be constricted by limits that are based on flawed calculations. Politically speaking, no government can afford to be seen as compromising either the interests of the 270 million people who live below the poverty line or its farmers, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also obviously conscious that he will be facing elections in two crucial States in the next few months. The main grouse India has is that there has been little forward movement on discussing the issue since the Bali meeting even as much vigour has been exhibited in finalising the TFA. India’s statement at Genevaclearly highlights that despite repeated requests, discussions on public stockholding of food grains never started. The strategy to use the TFA as a lever to get an agreement on the food subsidy issue was probably born out of the assessment that it would be difficult to get the developed world back to the negotiating table once the TFA was signed. Clearly, both sides are guilty of brinkmanship. Yet, all is not lost. India has signalled that it is willing to return to the table and has suggested a permanent “peace clause” until a final understanding on subsidy is reached. Extending the TFA deadline by another six months will not cause harm, especially if it leads to a final agreement on all issues.

China quake: Toll rises to 381

The toll from the 6.5-magnitude devastating earthquake that jolted southwest China’s Yunnan province has now risen to over 380. The quake hit at 4:30 pm local time (1400 IST) on Sunday, at a depth of 12 kms with the epicenter in Longtoushan township, 23 kms southwest of the county seat of Ludian, Zhaotong City.

At least 381 people have been killed as of Monday morning, state-run Xinhua news agency reported. The massive quake left a trail of destruction with more than 12,000 houses toppled and 30,000 damaged, it said. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is en route to the quake region to supervise disaster relief work, the news agency said.

Over 1,591 were injured in Ludian County and the quake has also left 60 dead and 193 injured in Qiaojia County. This is the second quake in about two years. In September 2012, a 5.7-magnitude quake caused more than 80 deaths and injured over 800 people.

In 1974, a 7.1-magnitude quake in the same place killed more than 1,400 people. Jiang Haikun, a research fellow with the CENC, said that aftershocks measuring 5 to 6 on the Richter scale are possible in the area, but he ruled out the possibility of stronger quakes in the epicentre.

“Yunnan is prone to moderate and strong quakes, and such quakes usually occur on similar scales. We will keep a close eye over the aftershocks,” Jiang said.

President Xi Jinping has ordered that authorities concerned give top priority to saving people’s lives, minimise casualties and guarantee a proper settlement for quake victims. He called for putting an all-out effort in relief operation and strengthening aftershock monitoring to prevent secondary disasters.

Premier Li also made instructions for disaster relief, urging local authorities to try every possible means to save the injured people and those buried in rubble. He asked local authorities to provide residents in quake zone with adequate food, clothes, clean drinking water, temporary shelters and timely medical treatment.

Local authorities have dispatched more than 7,000 rescuers to the quake zone, including troops, police officers, fire-fighters and government officials. They were joined by more than 2,500 troops sent by the Chengdu Military Area Command of the People’s Liberation Army, and 60 medical workers and 90 rescuers sent by authorities in the neighboring Sichuan Province.

In addition, the Yunnan Branch of China Eastern Airlines has brought relief work teams to Zhaotong. The civil affairs authorities said that 20,050 tents, 15,000 folding beds, 29,500 quilts and 25,000 coats have been sent to the area.

However, unfavorable weather conditions may hamper rescue and relief work, as it is raining hard in the quake zone. More rains are forecast in the coming week, according to the China Meteorological Administration

Narendra Modi Modi offers Nepal $1-billion loan in diplomacy push

Assuring Nepal that India does not want to interfere in its internal affairs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, first Indian Premier to visit Nepal in 17 years, said on Sunday their border should be a “bridge” and not a barrier even as he announced a $1-billion line of credit to this country.

As India makes efforts to deepen its diplomatic and economic engagement with the neighbours, Modi said he wanted to see Nepal become a developed nation and was ready to work with that country in all its efforts and offered a “HIT” mantra — highways, I-ways and transways — for its development.

Allaying fears of Indian interference in Nepal's affairs, Modi said, “Nepal is a sovereign nation. We have always believed it is not our job to interfere in what you do, but to support you in the path you decide to take.”

Modi, who arrived Kathmandu on a two-day visit, was addressing the Nepalese Constituent Assembly. It is only the second time that a foreign leader was addressing Parliament. Former German chancellor Helmut Kohl was the first to deliver a keynote speech in 1990.

Modi was given a thunderous applause as he began his 45-minute speech telecast live nationally with few sentences in Nepali language just hours after his talks with his Nepalese counterpart Sushil Koirala during which the two sides signed three agreements.

“I have come here with the goodwill and love from one and a quarter billion people of India,” Modi said in Nepali, which prompted members to thump their desks.

Stating that India's relations with Nepal is as old as the Himalayas and the Ganga, Modi said, “Border should be a bridge not a barrier between the two neighbours.”

“India has decided to provide Nepal with NRs 10,000 crore ($1 billion) as concessional Line Of Credit for various development purposes.”

“This amount is separate from the previous assistance that India has provided to Nepal,” Modi said.

Earlier, India had provided $250 million line of credit to Nepal through the Exim Bank of India.

The new grant will be utilised for infrastructure development and energy projects as per Nepal's priority, according to the Nepalese foreign ministry. Proposing a model development formula for Nepal, Modi said, "I want to HIT Nepal,” drawing wide applause from the lawmakers.

Elaborating his strategy, Modi said HIT in his lexicon implies — H for Highways, I for I-ways and T for transways. He said these three combined would pave the way for rapiddevelopment of the country and India wants to "give this gift at the earliest". Modi was earlier given a rousing welcome with his counterpart receiving him at the Tribhuvan International Airport, deviating from protocol for the purpose.

After their talks at Singha Durbar Secretariat, Modi and Koirala witnessed the signing of three agreements, including one regarding the amendment of terms of reference (TOR) for the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project on the Mahakali river.