PM’s Message to the Nation on Good Governance

·    सुशासन - Good Governance is the key to a nation’s progress. Our government is committed to providing a transparent and accountable administration which works for the betterment and welfare of the common citizen. ·    “Citizen-First” is our mantra, our motto and our guiding principle. It has been my dream to bring government closer to our citizens, so that they become active participants in the governance process. During the last seven months, our government has been consistently working towards this goal. mygov.in and interact with PM  seek to  make this engagement meaningful. The unprecedented response which these initiatives have evoked, places a large responsibility upon us, and I assure you, my countrymen that we will not let you down. ·    An important step for Good Governance is simplification of procedures and processes in the Government so as to make the entire system transparent and faster.  The push towards self-certification in place of affidavits and attestations is another indicator of the relationship of trust between the citizens and the Government. Doing away with cumbersome and out-dated legislations which no longer have relevance is another focus area.  Already Appropriation Acts have been identified for repeal and more Acts are being reviewed.  ·    Our government considers redress of public grievances as a very important component of a responsive administration. I have instructed all the Ministries to ensure that redress of public grievances receives the highest priority. ·    Government process re-engineering is yet another measure that we are pushing for. Ministries and Departments of the Government of India have been instructed to look into their work spheres, their internal processes and work on what and how to simplify and rationalise them. We are also working on a simpler internal work process manual, which would be delivered through an e-learning module. ·    I strongly believe that technology can and must bridge the divide between the government and the citizens. Technology is an empowering tool for the citizen and an accountability medium for the government. My government fully recognises the huge potential of this tool –Digital India aims to transform the country into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy.  Proposed to be implemented in phases, Digital India is transformational in nature and would ensure that Government services are available to citizens electronically.  It would also bring in greater accountability through mandated delivery of government’s services electronically.  ·    The effort to usher in an era of सुशासन has just begun, and begun on a very promising note. An open and accountable administration is what we had promised to deliver and we will do so. ·    Today is the birthday of our beloved leader, our former PM Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. On this occasion, we reiterate our commitment towards providing transparent, effective and accountable governance to the people of this country. Let us embark on this mission for good governance together.

Flaws in policy Farmers still struggling for access to govt schemes

The 70th report on the "Situation of Agricultural Households in India", released by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) on Saturday, reveals that much is wrong with Indian farmers' economic status, despite several programmes being run by the government to raise their incomes. Over half of all farm households are heavily indebted; 26 per cent of them owe money to moneylenders who could be charging interest rates over 20 per cent. In fact wage employment, and not farming, is the principal source of income for 56 per cent of land-owning families, while it is livestock for about 23 per cent of them. The average monthly income of an Indian farm household has been assessed at merely Rs 6,500 - bearing out the observation made in the mid-2000s by the National Commission on Farmers that an average farmer earns less than a peon in a government office.

Indeed, the survey results do not hold too many surprises given that some of the trends captured by it conform to the already prevailing notions about the poor economic health of farmers. However, these numbers do suggest flaws in the implementation of the government's agricultural development and social welfare programmes. High prices of agricultural commodities kept food inflation at double digits in the past few years, but farmers may not have benefited sufficiently. This is perhaps because the government's minimum support prices (MSP) and procurement operations have problems; the survey reveals that not only is awareness about the MSP and procurement surprisingly low, but most of those who are aware of these fail to even sell their produce to government agencies. The problems with crop insurance, which could let farmers hedge their production and income risks, are similar. Over 95 per cent of paddy and wheat farmers and nearly 99 per cent of sugarcane growers do not insure their crops. Moreover, regardless of a manifold increase in the flow of institutional credit to agriculture in the past decade, the informal sector still remains relevant for meeting the funding needs of small and marginal farmers. It seems that a sizeable part of the additional bank credit may be going to the same set of farmers who have a better repayment record. More farmers should be linked to formal finance.

The survey also indicates that the rural employment guarantee scheme (MNREGA) is an important source of employment and income generation.

But not enough people are gaining access to it. About 44 per cent of all farm families have MNREGAjob cards, but the proportion of card holders among those who own less than 0.01 hectare - those that need the programme the most - is just 38 per cent. Worse still, nearly 13 per cent of these marginal land-holding households do not even have ration cards to access subsidised food. Clearly, much more care has to be taken to expand the net of agricultural welfare policies if they are to be effective.

It is important to take note of the survey's finding that several small agriculturists have quit farming. The total number of farmers in India has dropped to 95.8 million in the 2011 Census, from 103 million in 2001 and 110 million in 1991. Some of this may be because of the availability of other sources of income as the economy grows. That should be welcomed. But it is important nevertheless to ensure that those who choose to stay back in farming have access to well-designed schemes that can alleviate sudden economic distress.

atalji ki kavita

जो जितना ऊँचा, 

उतना एकाकी होता है, 

हर भार को स्वयं ढोता है, 

चेहरे पर मुस्कानें चिपका, 

मन ही मन रोता है। 

किन्तु इतने ऊँचे भी नहीं, 

कि पाँव तले दूब ही न जमे, 

कोई काँटा न चुभे, 

कोई कली न खिले। 

न वसंत हो, न पतझड़,
हो सिर्फ ऊँचाई का अंधड़,
मात्र अकेलेपन का सन्नाटा।

मेरे प्रभु! 

मुझे इतनी ऊँचाई कभी मत देना, 

ग़ैरों को गले न लगा सकूँ,
इतनी रुखाई कभी मत देना।

आओ फिर से दिया जलाएँ
भरी दुपहरी में अंधियारा
सूरज परछाई से हारा
अंतरतम का नेह निचोड़ें-
बुझी हुई बाती सुलगाएँ।
आओ फिर से दिया जलाएँ

हम पड़ाव को समझे मंज़िल
लक्ष्य हुआ आंखों से ओझल
वतर्मान के मोहजाल में-
आने वाला कल न भुलाएँ।
आओ फिर से दिया जलाएँ।

आहुति बाकी यज्ञ अधूरा
अपनों के विघ्नों ने घेरा
अंतिम जय का वज़्र बनाने-
नव दधीचि हड्डियां गलाएँ।
आओ फिर से दिया जलाएँ

क़दम मिला कर चलना होग

बाधाएँ आती हैं आएँ
घिरें प्रलय की घोर घटाएँ,
पावों के नीचे अंगारे,
सिर पर बरसें यदि ज्वालाएँ,
निज हाथों में हँसते-हँसते,
आग लगाकर जलना होगा।
क़दम मिलाकर चलना होगा।

हास्य-रूदन में, तूफ़ानों में,
अगर असंख्यक बलिदानों में,
उद्यानों में, वीरानों में,
अपमानों में, सम्मानों में,
उन्नत मस्तक, उभरा सीना,
पीड़ाओं में पलना होगा।
क़दम मिलाकर चलना होगा।

उजियारे में, अंधकार में,
कल कहार में, बीच धार में,
घोर घृणा में, पूत प्यार में,
क्षणिक जीत में, दीर्घ हार में,
जीवन के शत-शत आकर्षक,
अरमानों को ढलना होगा।
क़दम मिलाकर चलना होगा।

सम्मुख फैला अगर ध्येय पथ,
प्रगति चिरंतन कैसा इति अब,
सुस्मित हर्षित कैसा श्रम श्लथ,
असफल, सफल समान मनोरथ,
सब कुछ देकर कुछ न मांगते,
पावस बनकर ढ़लना होगा।
क़दम मिलाकर चलना होगा।

कुछ काँटों से सज्जित जीवन,
प्रखर प्यार से वंचित यौवन,
नीरवता से मुखरित मधुबन,
परहित अर्पित अपना तन-मन,
जीवन को शत-शत आहुति में,
जलना होगा, गलना होगा।
क़दम मिलाकर चलना होगा।




टूट सकते हैं मगर हम झुक नहीं सकते

सत्य का संघर्ष सत्ता से
न्याय लड़ता निरंकुशता से
अंधेरे ने दी चुनौती है
किरण अंतिम अस्त होती है

दीप निष्ठा का लिये निष्कंप
वज्र टूटे या उठे भूकंप
यह बराबर का नहीं है युद्ध
हम निहत्थे, शत्रु है सन्नद्ध
हर तरह के शस्त्र से है सज्ज
और पशुबल हो उठा निर्लज्ज

किन्तु फिर भी जूझने का प्रण
अंगद ने बढ़ाया चरण
प्राण-पण से करेंगे प्रतिकार
समर्पण की माँग अस्वीकार

दाँव पर सब कुछ लगा है, रुक नहीं सकते
टूट सकते हैं मगर हम झुक नहीं सकते

All you need to know about the Bharat Ratna

The highest civilian award is given in recognition of exceptional service, performance of the highest order in any field of human endeavour.

Bharat Ratna, the country’s highest civilian award instituted in 1954, is given in recognition of exceptional service, performance of the highest order in any field of human endeavour. Any person without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex is eligible for this award.

The recommendations for Bharat Ratna are made by the Prime Minister to the President. The number of annual awards is restricted to a maximum of three in a particular year.

On conferment of the award, the recipient receives a Sanad (certificate) signed by the President and a medallion.

The award does not carry any monetary grant. The award cannot be used as a prefix or suffix to the recipient’s name.

However, should an award winner consider it necessary, he or she may use the following expression in their biodata or letterhead or visiting card etc. to indicate that he or she is a recipient of the award: ‘Awarded Bharat Ratna by the President’ or ‘Recipient of Bharat Ratna Award’.

Educationist Madan Mohan Malviya and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee are the 44th and 45th distinguished personalities who have been conferred with country’s highest civilian award.

Early this year, Sachin Tendulkar and C.N.R. Rao were given Bharat Ratna.

A list of Bharat Ratna recipients:

1) C. Rajagopalachari (1954)

2) Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1954)

3) C.V. Raman (1954)

4) Bhagwan Das (1955)

5) Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya (1955)

6) Jawaharlal Nehru (1955)

7) Govind Ballabh Pant (1957)

8) Dhondo Keshav Karve (1958)

9) Bidhan Chandra Roy (1961)

10) Purushottam Das Tandon (1961)

11) Rajendra Prasad (1962)

12) Zakir Hussain (1963)

13) Pandurang Vaman Kane (1963)

14) Lal Bahadur Shastri (1966)

15) Indira Gandhi (1971)

16) V.V. Giri (1975)

17) K Kamaraj (1976)

18) Mother Teresa (1980)

19) Acharya Vinoba Bhave (1983)

20) Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1987)

21) M.G. Ramachandran (1988)

22) B.R. Ambedkar (1990)

23) Nelson Mandela (1990)

24) Rajiv Gandhi (1991)

25) Vallabhbhai Patel (1991)

26) Morarji Desai (1991)

27) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1992)

28) JRD Tata (1992)

29) Satyajit Ray (1992)

30) Gulzarilal Nanda (1997)

31) Aruna Asaf Ali (1997)

32) APJ Abdul Kalam (1997)

33) M.S. Subbulakshmi (1998)

34) Chidambaram Subramaniam (1998)

35) Jayaprakash Narayan (1999)

36) Amartya Sen (1999)

37) Gopinath Bordoloi (1999)

38) Pandit Ravi Shankar (1999)

39) Lata Mangeshkar 2001)

40) Ustad Bismillah Khan (2001)

41) Bhimsen Joshi (2009)

42) C.N.R Rao (2014)

43) Sachin Tendulkar (2014)

Bharat Ratna for Vajpayee, Madan Mohan Malaviya

The President's Office on Wednesday announced the Bharat Ratna award to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya (posthumously) and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

The announcement was made on the eve of Mr. Vajpayee's 90th birthday and the 153rd birth anniversary of Pandit Malviya.

The BJP has been demanding Bharat Ratna for Mr. Vajpayee for a long time; and BJP patriarch L.K. Advani has been at the forefront of seeking the highest civilian honour for the former Prime Minister.

Earlier, Mr. Advani had written a letter to the UPA Government to award the Bharat Ratna to the former Prime Minister. The request was however, overlooked by the UPA government, said sources. In 2013, the award was conferred to cricketer Sachin Tendulkar and scientist C.N.R Rao.


A Bharat Ratna for Pandit Malviya, a freedom fighter and the founder of the Benaras Hindu University was proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his election campaign. Justice Giridhar Malviya, the grandson of Pandit Malaviya was one of those who proposed the nomination of Mr. Modi from Varanasi parliamentary constituency. Mr. Vajpayee will be the seventh Prime Minister to receive the award, while Pandit Malviya will be the 12th person to be honoured posthumously.

Earlier recipients of the award include former Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Lal Bahadur Shastri, along with first Governor General of free India C. Rajagopalachari, and former Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed delight at the announcement. "Bharat Ratna being conferred on Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya and Atal Bihari Vajpayee is a matter of great delight. Country's highest honour to these illustrious stalwarts is a fitting recognition of their service to the Nation. Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya is remembered as a phenomenal scholar and freedom fighter who lit the spark of national consciousness among people. Atal ji means so much to everyone. A guide, inspiration and giant among giants. His contribution to India is invaluable," the Prime Minister said.

Give and trade

A few months ago at the WTO, India, along with a couple of other countries, had blocked the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) because of its concern over the possibility of being challenged at the WTO over its minimum support prices, which the government equated with food security. Subsequent negotiations with the US have resulted in a formal WTO agreement allowing public stockpiling of foodgrains through MSPs without challenge from trading partners. This is a temporary fix that will remain in place until member countries are able to work out a permanent solution. At the general council of the WTO in November, representatives of member countries unanimously approved the public stockpiling agreement and the TFA. The next step for the implementation of these agreements is

ratification by each member country’s government.

The TFA aims to remove red tape in customs procedures in all 160 WTO member countries. Under this agreement, member countries will make an effort to reduce customs-related paperwork, provide more transparency in procedures, reduce clearance delays at ports, provide clearer and timely information about rules, tariffs and procedures through printed publications and the internet, institute a system of appealing customs decisions, and provide information to involved parties in case their goods are being detained at ports etc. For the implementation of these provisions in poorer countries, financial assistance will be provided, both through the WTO and the World Bank.

In today’s world, the production process of a good or service is highly fragmented, in that different tasks are performed in different locations across the world. Each task is located where it is cheapest to perform. This kind of a global production chain or network minimises the cost of production. However, it requires timely delivery of intermediate inputs from one part of the world to another. For example, radiators manufactured in Chennai have to reach Detroit on time to be attached to automobiles being assembled there. This fragmented nature of modern production makes the TFA even more important and valuable.

The TFA is also important since it is the first successful step in the WTO’s Doha Round of trade negotiations, started more than a decade ago. While the WTO has been active in dispute resolution, rule-making and bringing about optional agreements such as the one related to information technology products, the TFA is the first truly multilateral agreement after the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was transformed into the WTO under the Uruguay Round. As a result of the TFA, to quote WTO director general Roberto Azevedo, the WTO’s negotiating work is “back on track”. In other words, WTO member countries can build on this success and start negotiating on agricultural protection andsubsidies as well as non-agricultural market access and other developing country issues. 

These issues arise mainly from their dissatisfaction with limited market access in agriculture, textiles and apparel in developed countries in return for their efforts in the area of intellectual property rights protection and large tariff reductions on manufacturing imports. While there are concerns that agricultural support remains quite high in developed countries, some commentators point out that this support has actually gone down substantially in recent years. This has been an important issue in WTO negotiations between developed and developing countries. In the pre-WTO era of the GATT, developing countries were granted tariff concessions without the need to reciprocate. These countries need to realise that they are now in a world where further negotiations will require an exchange of concessions or reciprocity. 

At the same time, developed countries also need to be aware that large developing countries such as Brazil, China and India can no longer be ignored or pushed around. Only if countries keep these new realities in mind can further progress be made in negotiations on issues initiated by the Doha Round. What are the next steps for India? It is easy to be tempted, because of the slow progress of WTO trade negotiations, to change course and ink preferential trade arrangements (PTAs) or regional trade agreements. 

However, it is important to remember that though many of these PTAs take the form of free trade agreements (FTAs), FTAs are not exactly free trade. An FTA among a subset of WTO countries is discriminatory and protectionist with respect to countries that are outside that agreement and also diverts imports of certain products away from such non-member countries, even when they might be the most efficient producers. Also, if India were to sign an FTA with a major developed country such as the US or a group of developed countries such as the EU, it would have limited power in such negotiations. This is in sharp contrast to negotiations at the WTO, where India has greater bargaining power due to opportunities to form coalitions with countries that have common interests. Moreover, as seen in the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, signing an FTA with developed countries comes with accepting very stringent intellectual property rights protections as well as labour and environmental standards, which a developing country cannot really afford - 

Choice to the farmer

The Indian fertiliser industry is in trouble because of the non-release of subsidy by the government, even as farmers are forced to buy both diammonium phosphate (DAP) and urea at a premium of 33 per cent in black markets across India. If the industry is in trouble, then farmers are the endangered species. Farmers’ fertiliser cooperatives like IFFCO are the only saving grace in this unholy mess. Expectedly, the industry is vehemently advocating the transfer of subsidy collection from the government to the farmers. We fundamentally agree with the industry and economists on the broader idea of targeted delivery of fertiliser subsidy directly to farmers in cash, but not for the reasons peddled. Nor would it be acceptable to farmers without a legal framework to first secure their rights.

One reason touted for the need of cash transfers for the fertiliser subsidy is so that the supposedly imbalanced use of fertilisers due to the overuse of urea (nitrogen) can be controlled. The idea of the NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) use ratio of 4:2:1 for the whole country was formed in the 1950s, after fertiliser trials in seven states. Large variations in soil type and fertility across regions, districts and states make an optimum ratio for India irrelevant to any particular state. Ramesh Chand of the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP) has conclusively established that only six states (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Jharkhand and Punjab) use excess nitrogen, while phosphorus is used in excess in five states (Andhra, Gujarat, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka), even when we accept the normative ratio. Despite shortcomings, policy decisions and discussions continue to be based on the flawed NPK ratio. In fact, the deficiency of nitrogen is a more serious problem than the excess use of nitrogen and, as policy, we should encourage the use of phosphorus and potassium rather than curtail the use of nitrogen.

Second, many economists have claimed that India would save money by shifting to cash transfers. I do not think so. In any case, the fertiliser policy should not be about saving money but about increasing prosperity and productivity. Over all, per hectare (ha) fertiliser use in India is much lower than in the rest of the world. For example, the consumption of nutrients in China in 2011 was reported to be 399.8 kg per ha of arable land, while in India it is 164.8 kg per ha. Similarly, yields vary. Presuming the second green revolution is successful, as farming gets more intensified, fertiliser consumption will increase. Once all farmers are registered for cash transfers, the quantum of subsidy outgo will also increase. Additionally, it is argued — unacceptably, in my opinion — that thousands of truckloads of fertilisers are smuggled out of the country annually in these times of increased vigil on the borders. As far as the diversion of fertilisers to other uses is concerned, it cannot happen without the active participation of the industry or their distributors. Can this be a reason for moving to cash transfers? Certainly not. It is for the vigilance authority to check who is involved in such diversion. Should India decide to shift to cash transfers of the fertiliser subsidy, retail prices of fertilisers will invariably be deregulated. Farmers are scared that in such a scenario, even as fertiliser prices continue to rise, the amount of cash transfer per farmer per hectare will not keep pace with the increasing cost of fertilisers, like the crop MSP that fails to fully factor in the cost of cultivation. In the absence of timely payment of the subsidy due to problems like inadequate budgetary provisions, resource-poor farmers will face cash-flow problems. The cost of fertiliser is approximately one-third the cost of production for major irrigated crops, and farmers will be forced to take expensive credit to purchase fertilisers. An administered formula will have to bear careful scrutiny before approval. Policy must be designed to include those at the bottom of the pyramid. At present, when tenants (estimated informal tenants are 20 per cent of the total number of farmers) purchase fertilisers, they benefit from the fertiliser subsidy. But should the government decide to transfer subsidy in the form of cash, millions of tenants will be denied their portion of fertiliser subsidy because their names are not registered in land records, or because they do not have bank accounts. The land records must first be ratified. Transferring funds to over 100 million identified farmers who are yet to be documented, and millions without bank accounts, will be a daunting task. Subsidy as a percentage of the GDP has been decreasing over many years in India. The fertiliser subsidy helps farmers grow crops at a lower cost, enabling consumers to pay a lower price for food. Although there are substantive reasons to shift to cash transfers, when farmers want to produce and use their own farmyard manure as fertiliser, they do not get incentives and are not reimbursed for the costs. Farmers are forced onto a path of over-dependence on chemical farming because only industrial fertilisers are subsidised. This is counterproductive, since ecological and economic sustainability is threatened. Farmers must have a choice. Additionally, cash transfers can allow for variable distribution of resources to achieve equitable growth, and could also be WTO compatible. Many preposterously claim that farmers will - be unable to decide well for themselves and will waste the cash received on liquor. Only with the farmer’s participation can a repeat of farm policy mistakes be avoided