Clean Yamuna, a possibility soon

Interceptor sewer project to be inaugurated on Monday

A big step towards cleaning the Yamuna in the Capital is being taken this week, with the Delhi Jal Board getting ready to launch the first package of the ambitious interceptor sewer project on Monday.

Trial runs on the first package of the 59-km-long interceptor started in September. “The trials have been a success, but it is a hugely challenging project as we are laying a 59 km trunk sewer in a populated city,” said DJB CEO Vijay Kumar on Saturday.

The first package, which will be inaugurated by Union Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu, takes sewage from the Palam drain in Dwarka to the Pappankalan Sewage Treatment Plant.

“Right now, we have added about six to10 MGD to our sewage treatment by the first package. Overall, 210 MGD of sewage will be diverted for treatment when the project is complete in June next year,” said Mr. Kumar.

The six packages of the interceptor are along the city’s major drains – Najafgarh, Supplementary and Shahdara – and will collect sewage from around 180 subsidiary drains. While the project is tricky, Mr. Kumar said everything is going as per plan.

Come next summer, pollution in the Yamuna is expected to fall with the biological oxygen demand (BOD) decreasing by 60 to 70 per cent. Water quality (in BOD) in the Yamuna will fall from 41 mg/l to 12 mg/l.

Reforming the health care sector

Obamacare and other such examples make a compelling case for seeking the right combination of roles for the public and private sector in health reform in India

Nail or screw? Which is best to join pieces of wood? In carpentry, the answer is that each offers benefits depending on the application. With health care reform, the choice of public or private sector financing, delivery and regulation is subject to a more polarised discussion. Advocates proclaim that one or the other is always superior. The sharp division of views, and the political friction it causes, can paralyse needed movement toward health care reform.

As India joins many other nations, including recently the United States, in debating how best to reform the health care sector, it is critical that we are thoughtful carpenters. We do not have to choose between the public and private sectors but can use each where its application is best. The new government has initiated discussions which could shape new policies and initiatives. The official announcements are broadly of two types. One, there is articulation for increasing government-provided infrastructure at multiple levels, including primary health centres, speciality hospitals, medical colleges and more. Second, the Prime Minister announced his intention to introduce a universal health insurance, perhaps along the lines of Obamacare. During the previous government’s tenure, there were a few calls for a British or Canadian style universal health service both financed and provided by the government.

Strengths of public sector

How do we know when to reach for the hammer or screwdriver as we design health care reforms? We can start by recognising the strengths of public sector approaches. The government can tax and distribute revenues in a manner that can lessen health care access disparities that might otherwise exist. This redistributional ability of the public sector is consistent with the popular view that health care is a right, not a privilege.

 “The redistributional ability of the public sector is consistent with the view that health care is a right, not a privilege”

Thus, many countries give the public sector a dominant role in funding health care. Even in the U.S., often thought of as a bastion of private sector, nearly half of health care expenditures come from government. There is also a very strong argument for the public sector in funding and delivering health care services where their benefits are realised by those who do not incur their costs. An example is public health campaigns such as vaccination drives. We all benefit when our neighbours don’t carry communicable diseases. Public sector entities also have an important role in policing the health sector to root out fraud and certify quality. While private entities undertake self-regulation, participation is usually voluntary. In contrast, public entities can insist that, for example, doctors meet licensing standards and that pharmaceuticals are safe. At the same time, proponents of a strong public sector role in health care reform must acknowledge that the private sector has its strengths.

This is especially evident when we consider the potential benefits of competition and the profit motive. As in other areas of the economy, private sector competition can drive quality improvement and cost efficiency. When those in need of health care are treated like consumers, competitors must deliver value or risk losing them to competitors.

The private sector has a better opportunity than the public sector to match supply to demand. Whereas government delivered health care often has shortages of doctors and other providers or even denial of care, private sector health care can increase supply by quickly adjusting incentives for providers.

The private sector also has a proven record for innovation in the delivery of care and in the creation of techniques, tools, and products that improve and preserve health. The entrepreneurial spirit involves risk taking wherein capital is accumulated and risked on the development of health care improvements.

One example is the medical products sector. While the public sector has played a critical role in basic research, the record is clear that it is only private sector companies that have had the incentive to take risks to develop this knowledge into new medicines, vaccines, and medical devices.

Lessons from a mixed approach

Thus, even a cursory review of the benefits of each sector reveals that health reformers must sort their options with care for the gains that are possible by employing each. The recent experience in the U.S. with the health reform that has come to be known as Obamacare offers an example. While still highly controversial, the programme provides lessons in a mixed public-private approach. The law relies heavily on the government to provide financing to ensure that access to care is not limited to the wealthy. It also contains a large new public sector role in establishing and policing the rule of competition among health care insurance providers and private employers that provide insurance to their workers.

At the same time, Obamacare relies primarily on private sector competition in insurance provision and in health care delivery. Even ostensively public sector programmes such as Medicaid that provide health care to the poor are increasingly being delivered by competing private sector companies. The law also largely eschews government price setting in favour of allowing the competitive market to establish prices.

This experience and that of others around the world make a compelling case for seeking the right combination of roles for the public and private sector in health reform. It should help the carpenters of Indian health care reform to choose their tools wisely.

Brazil's Rousseff wins second term

Left-leaning President Dilma Rousseff was re-elected Sunday in the tightest race Brazil has seen since its return to democracy three decades ago, giving the juggernaut Workers’ Party its fourth-straight presidential victory and the chance to extend its social transformation of the globe’s fifth-largest country.

Ms. Rousseff took 51.6 percent of the votes and centre-right challenger Aecio Neves had 48.4 percent, with almost all ballots counted. The result reflected a nation deeply divided after what many called the most acrimonious campaign since the return to democracy, with charges of corruption, nepotism and ample personal barbs thrown by both sides.

The re-elected leader faces an immense challenge of reigniting a stalled economy, improving woeful public services that ignited huge anti-government protests last year, and trying to push political reforms through a highly fragmented congress where the governing coalition has less support than it did four years ago.

Speaking in front of a banner that read “New Government, New Ideas” and a giant photo of Ms. Rousseff from her days as a militant who fought against Brazil’s long military regime, she thanked her supporters, starting with her political mentor and predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who picked her to take his place in 2010.

“My dears, my friends, we have arrived at the end of a campaign that intensely mobilized all the forces of this country,” Ms. Rousseff said. “I thank every Brazilian, without exception.”

She added that she “thanks from the bottom of my heart, our No. 1 militant, President Lula,” as the former leader used a handkerchief to wipe tears from his eyes.

Ms. Rousseff sounded a conciliatory tone, saying during the live broadcast that she understood the heightened demands of Brazilians. “That’s why I want to be a much better president than I have been until now,” she said.

During the Workers’ Party time in power, the government has enacted expansive social programmes that have helped pull millions of Brazilians out of poverty and into the middle class, transforming the lives of the poor.

But the globe’s seventh-largest economy has underperformed since 2011, with some fearing it could put the social gains at risk.

“Dilma has social inclusion on her side, but the macroeconomic policies during her first four years in office have been very weak,” said Carlos Pereira, a political analyst at the Gertulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil’s leading think tank. “Inflation has returned, the country is in a technical recession and public spending is out of control. It is less likely she will be able to offer social inclusion and macroeconomic stability at the same time.”

The choice between Ms. Rousseff and Neves split Brazilians into two camps those who thought only the president would continue to protect the poor and advance social inclusion versus those who were certain that only the contender’s market-friendly economic policies could see Brazil return to solid growth.

Ms. Rousseff and Neves fought bitterly to convince voters that they can deliver on both growth and social advances. This year’s campaign is widely considered the most acrimonious since Brazil’s return to democracy in 1985, a battle between the only two parties to have held the presidency since 1995.

Neves had hammered at Ms. Rousseff over a widening kickback scandal Petrobras, with an informant telling investigators that the Workers’ Party directly benefited from the scheme.

Ms. Rousseff rejected those allegations and told Brazilians that a vote for Neves would be support for returning Brazil to times of intense economic turbulence, hyperinflation and high unemployment, which the nation encountered when the Social Democrats last held power.

“We’ve worked so hard to better the lives of the people, and we won’t let anything in this world, not even in this crisis or all the pessimism, take away what they’ve conquered,” Ms. Rousseff said before voting in southern Brazil.

In Brazil’s biggest city of Sao Paulo, thousands of Workers’ Party supporters gathered on a main avenue, waving banners as a truck with giant speakers blasted Ms. Rousseff’s campaign jingles.

“I’m very happy because I think the construction of Brazil has barely begun and now we will have continuity,” said Liliane Viana, a 56-year-old retired federal government worker. “I was afraid we were going to move backward. Now I am extremely excited.”

Neves was a two-term governor in Minas Gerais state who left office in 2010 with a 92 percent approval rating. He surged at the end of the presidential race to score a surprise second—place position and force a runoff vote against Ms. Rousseff.

Speaking from his hometown of Belo Horizonte, he thanked the “more than 50 million Brazilians” who voted for him.

“I will be eternally grateful to each and every one of you who allowed me to dream again of the construction of a new project,” he said. “I fought the good fight. I fulfilled my mission and I kept the faith.”Cara-Sania win doubles title at WTA Finals

Cara Black and Sania Mirza cruised to the doubles title at the WTA Finals with an authoritative 6-1, 6-0 win over defending champions Peng Shuai and Hsieh Su-Wei on Sunday.

For Black, it was the third time she had won the doubles crown at the WTA Finals, while for Mirza it was her first victory at the season-ending championships.

It was a surprisingly one-sided final, given Peng and Hsieh entered the match with a 12—0 record in doubles finals, including this year’s French Open and Wimbledon in 2013.

The winning pair received $500,000 in prize money.

In furtherance of good governance (ias mains+pubad)

Civil servant independence in the country is at best nominal. Nonconformity even to spurn whimsical and arbitrary directives received from above is widely recognised as a very risky proposition

The right to judicial remedies … is a constitutional right of the subjects … Employees of the State cannot become members of a different class to whom such right is not available. — Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice A.K. Sikri of the Supreme Court of India (September 22, 2014) in Vijay Shankar Pandey vs Union of India and Another.

Amid the din raised over the case involving the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader J. Jayalalithaa, an important and recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India in an entirely different domain has gone virtually unnoticed. This judgment was in the cause of good public administration, a sector vital to economic development. The message that the top court possibly wanted to send through its order was that an honest civil servant can bank on the Court if blatant injustice has been done to him or her by an unfair executive.

Black money case

The judgment possibly took cognisance of the fact that over the years, the Indian bureaucracy has become a spineless structure that cannot stand up to unethical pressures by the Executive or the moneyed in society, thereby belying the worthy dream of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, free India’s first Home Minister. It was the doughty Sardar’s vision and resoluteness that ensured that efforts in some quarters in post-Independence India to abolish the centrally recruited and overseen All India Services did not succeed. The nation has greatly benefited from the continuance of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS) in particular. Certain events since 1975, viz., the period post-Emergency, have however been the cause for dismay among those who have been looking for a professional, honest and independent civil service that would bolster an equally dedicated political class. It is against this backdrop that one should analyse the recent Supreme Court decision.

It all began in 2010 when V.S. Pandey, a senior IAS officer, Uttar Pradesh cadre, joined hands with Julio Ribeiro, the former police chief, and a few others, under the auspices of a non-governmental organisation-styled India Rejuvenation Initiative (IRI), to file a writ petition on the need to ferret out black money owned by Indians and stashed abroad. The petition culminated in the Supreme Court decision (2011) known as Ram Jethmalani and Others vs the Union of India. Reacting to this, Pandey was served a charge sheet by the U.P. government on five counts for alleged violation of four clauses of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

Charges, exoneration

The gravamen of the charge against Pandey was that, in being a co-signatory to the said writ petition by Ribeiro and others, he had endorsed an affidavit by one Jasbeer Singh that was critical of some senior officers of the Government of India (mainly from the Enforcement Directorate). The charge sheet added that in not having obtained the government’s permission before joining the said NGO and deposing in an inquiry where the Central and State governments were likely to be criticised, he had violated the conduct rules.

An enquiry officer appointed to look into the charges against Pandey exonerated him of all the charges on August 30, 2012. Strangely, a copy of this report of exoneration was not served on Pandey. On September 9, 2012, a selection committee that was considering cases of IAS officers in U.P. for promotion to the super timescale ignored Pandey’s case, although he had been exonerated and was eligible for promotion. The committee’s decision was in a sealed cover, a usual practice in respect of officers against whom disciplinary action was pending.

Worse was to follow. The enquiry officer’s finding was rejected by the U.P. government on September 26, 2012, on the ground that his report was cursory and that he had failed to properly investigate all relevant facts. The State government went on to invoke the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 and appoint a two-member committee to look once more into the charges against Pandey. Significantly, the State government’s action came on the same day as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing Pandey’s appeal seeking his promotion. Following this, Pandey went to the Supreme Court on a writ that was recently disposed of by a bench comprising Justices Chelameswar and Sikri in favour of Pandey. In doing so, the judges made some comments on what was palpably an act of rancour and vindictiveness by the government. What was striking about this remarkable judicial order was the thoroughness with which the bench demolished each averment against Pandey.

Upholding an individual’s right

First, the Court held that since Pandey never disputed the charges made against him, there were no facts to be investigated by the enquiry officer. Second, relying on the decision (1971) of the Supreme Court in K.R. Deb vs Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, the bench held that a second inquiry against Pandey was untenable. There could at best be a further inquiry, but not a second one on the same facts. And, in the Pandey case, the facts were such that a further inquiry was hardly warranted. As regards violation of a stipulation of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules that an officer could not depose before an individual, or committee or any other authority without the sanction of the government, the bench held that joining in averments made in a writ petition before a court was equivalent to taking part in a judicial process for which no citizen needed to get the government’s nod. An individual’s fundamental right did not get diminished just because he was a member of the civil service.

The two judges were categorical that this was a clear case of harassment of a hapless civil servant. (“The purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal administration ... The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the question of black money. A part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future to expose any mal administration.”) They did not also fail to notice that while the government chose to proceed against Pandey, it ignored the action of another official, Jasbeer Singh, who had filed an additional affidavit that was critical of the government. The bench allowed Pandey’s petition and went beyond, to award him the costs involved. In doing so it said, “The requirement of (a) democratic republic is that every action of the State is to be informed with reason. State is not a hierarchy of regressively genuflecting coterie of bureaucracy.”

The need for support

This landmark judicial order comes at a time when, in my view, an intimidated civil service needs support. In many States, public servant morale is at its nadir and it requires the oxygen of an unequivocal imprimatur from the highest court of the land that would help to halt the hands of a meddling political class. Nothing else would bring about at least a marginal improvement to what is an undeniably appalling situation. Wide publicity to its salient features would go a long way in reinstilling courage into large sections of the bureaucracy which is baulking in fear of reprisal for its legitimate actions and has been coerced into condemnable passivity.

Civil servant independence in the country is at best nominal. Nonconformity even to spurn whimsical and arbitrary directives received from above is widely recognised as a very risky proposition. Signs of defiance are fraught with such serious consequences that even the most courageous civil servant thinks many times over before turning down even a palpably unethical and illegal direction. The few mavericks who display a semblance of remonstrance are heavily penalised so as to deter potential dissenters. It is this sordid state of affairs that convinces me that Justices Chelameshwar and Sikri will have to be hailed for coming squarely to the rescue of a hapless senior official of the U.P. government for his alleged intransigence.

I view the judgment as bold and imaginative. It sends out a strong signal that the honest and upright civil servant can depend on the higher judiciary for unequivocal support. Wide publicity to the facts of the case and details of the judgment is a must.

I am not pleading here for a total licence to honest civil servants to do whatever they want or indulge in intemperate criticism of a constitutionally installed government. What is required is a freedom to speak their minds in furtherance of good governance. I am happy that Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his first meeting with the Secretaries to the Union Government exhorted exactly this and made himself available to hear them, especially when they were at loggerheads with their Ministers. There cannot be a better way to get the best out of each government official whatever be his status in the hierarchy. The Prime Minister’s Office has again to be complimented for issuing a directive to the bureaucracy that it should not act on oral instructions. I am confident that this stand would greatly promote transparency and honesty in governance.

India’s highest altitude zoo in Darjeeling has variety flora on show

The Darjeeling Zoo, the highest altitude zoological garden in India, housing rare Himalayan animals such as red panda and snow leopard, has over 200 species of trees, shrubs, climbers, medicinal herbs, fungi and micro flora, says a study.

“The study was aimed to identify and highlight the vegetation in the zoo which is overlooked by visitors,” said A.K. Jha, Director of the Padmaja Naidu Himalayan Zoological Park (PNHZP), popularly known as the Darjeeling Zoo.

Explaining the reasons for such a high concentration of flora at the 67-acre zoo located at the height of 7153 ft (2,150 m) inside Darjeeling town, Mr. Jha said the park was one of very few stretches of natural forest that had remained largely untouched.

According to experts, when the British came to Darjeeling in the late 19th Century, there was large-scale deforestation for setting up tea gardens in the hills and for building the town.

The study says the zoo has 93 species of trees belonging to 31 families, 34 species of shrubs belonging to 26 families, 9 species of climbers belonging to 8 families and 48 species of herbs from 26 families. Among the non-flowering plants, 31 species of fungi are also present.

The trees include slow-growing Oak, some of which are more than 100 years old, Alder, Birch and other trees belonging to genus Quercus and Castanopsis. The garden has 60 species of orchids.

Among the medicinal herbs present at the zoo are Artemisia vulgaris used to treat high blood pressure and Eupatorium adenophorum used for treating cuts and wounds. A study of micro flora is being conducted.

Govt. schemes to give priority to women

Households with women to get toilets on priority

Precedence will be given to women under the ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’ and the ‘Housing for All by 2022’ schemes.

While households with women will get toilets on a priority basis under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pet project, the Swachh Bharat Mission, single women and women-headed households will be considered first for allotment of houses under the slum redevelopment and rental housing components of the ‘Housing for All by 2022’ programme.

The Union Urban Development Ministry, which will provide assistance towards construction of 104.1 lakh toilets in households, has decided to accord priority to those households which have pensioners, girl children and pregnant and lactating mothers.

A senior official in the government said the decision to fast track construction of toilets for women in households, in public places as well as for girls in schools has been taken following the Prime Minister’s instructions in his maiden Independence Day speech in August.

In his speech Mr. Modi had focused attention on the increasing incidents of crimes against women, building separate toilets for girls in schools and putting an end to female foeticide among other issues.

Elimination of open defecation, conversion of insanitary toilets into flush toilets, eradication of manual scavenging and ensuring cleanliness and hygiene in public places are the components of the Swachh Bharat Mission.

As part of the Mission, the Ministry will aid the construction of 104.1 lakh household toilets, 2.52 lakh community toilets and 2.56 lakh public toilets and help 30.6 crore people with solid waste management.

“The Ministry is working out the modalities to implement the PM’s directions. Households with women that have no toilets will soon be identified and the resources will be raised for construction purposes,” an official said.

The Ministry has also taken a decision to register houses constructed under the ‘Housing for All’ scheme in the name of the woman head of the household or in the joint name of the male head of the household and his wife, if applicable.

“A vulnerability analysis will also be carried out as part of the slum-free city plan of action which will be drafted by cities as action plan for Housing for All by 2022 to consider women headed households as vulnerable. States will give priority to single women and women headed households at the time of allotting rental accommodation and also reduce the rent for such households by at least 10 per cent,” an official said.

GSAT-16 in French Guiana ahead of launch

The satellite will be launched by Arianespace

GSAT-16, the next national communications satellite, reached French Guiana this week and is on its way to the space port near Kourou ahead of an early December flight, European launch service company Arianespace has said.

The 3,150-kg satellite is scheduled to be flown on an Ariane-5 launcher numbered Flight VA221. Built at the ISRO Satellite Centre in Bangalore, GSAT-16 was sent on a chartered cargo plane to the French Guiana capital of Cayenne.

Over the coming weeks, a team of ISRO engineers will routinely check, test and fully ready it for launch.

The satellite carries C-band and Ku-band transponders which will support VSAT (very small aperture terminal) services, television services and emergency communications across the country.

ISRO advanced the launch date of GSAT-16 by about six months to meet increasing demand for INSAT/GSAT transponder capacity from various industry and government users, ISRO Chairman K. Radhakrishnan recently told The Hindu. It will replace INSAT-3E, which expired a little prematurely in April, at the same 55 degrees east orbital slot over India.

The assembly of the satellite, its foreign launch and insurance cost Rs.860 crore, more than half of it going towards the launch cost. ISROcontracted Arianespace to launch both GSAT-16 and later the GSAT-15 communication satellite. The national space agency is still perfecting its two-tonne-class launcher, the GSLV, and cannot launch these three-tonne-class spacecraft.

It is also working on the GSLV Mark-III that can lift four-tonne payloads. The first experimental flight of MkIII is slated for November or December.

The GSAT-16 will be put in orbit along with DIRECTV-14, a satellite that will provide direct-to-home television broadcasts across the U.S.