“Water Literacy Mission” for Water Conservation”

Prakash Javdekar Announces “Water Literacy Mission” for Water Conservation”

Union Minister of Environment Mr. Prakash Javdekar today announced that Government is going to launch “Water Literacy Mission” to ensure Water Conservation. Speaking on “Water Security, Climate Change and Sustainable Development” in a seminar at Vibrant Gujarat Global Investor’s Summit at Mahatma Mandir, Gandhinagar today, he said that public awareness is most needed for water conservation and for protection of natural resources. He added that no act or law could ensure this target if not taken up by people as a mass movement. He said that rejuvenation of Ganga is a step ahead towards cleanliness and added that we should emphasize on pollution free rivers in addition to expand concept of linking of rivers. He advocated linking of paralleled rivers Godavari and Krishna of South India too. Mr. Javdekar assured to take decision on schemes regarding providing water to areas in draught prone areas in which farmers are inspired for suicide. These schemes will be low-cost, eco friendly and long-termed, he added. Minister of Denmark, Mr. Morgen Jension and Minister of Gujarat Shri Vijay Rupani also spoke on the occasion. Experts like Prof. Asit Kumar Biswas and Mr. Bundi Lohani participated in the penal discussion.

Idukki in Kerala Becomes the First District of India with Complete Rural Broadband Coverage

Idukki in Kerala Becomes the First District of India with Complete Rural Broadband Coverage

Hon’ble Minister for Communications and IT Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad today commissioned the first high speed rural broadband of India at the Idukki district in Kerala. The Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala Shri Oommen Chandy, Hon’ble Minister for Industry and IT, Govt. of Kerala Shri P. K. Kunhalikutty and Secretary Telecom Shri Rakesh Garg were present on this occasion. With the commissioning of the NOFN network, Idukki district of Kerala has become the first in India to be connected with high speed rural broadband. Currently the District has a total of 8 Block Offices & 53 Gram Panchayats of which 8 Block Offices & 52 Gram Panchayats have been connected on Optical Fibre and one Gram Panchayat, namely Edamalakudy, is connected through VSAT. Edamalakudy, is a Tribal Gram Panchayat consisting of 26 Tribal villages with a population of around 2200. It is remotely located around 18 Kms from Pettimudi which is last point one can go in a vehicle. BSNL has made exceptional efforts in connecting this Gram Panchayat and now Broadband Internet as well as Mobile services are available over here. For the first time the villages under this Panchayat would be connected through Mobile phones and internet.

Right to e-vote for NRI

The Supreme Court directed the government to ensure that a system is put in place to allow NRIs to e-vote within 8 weeks.

The move came after the government made it clear to the apex court that it was willing to accept the recommendations put forth by the Election Commission in this regard.

The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the EC’s recommendation to extend voting rights to NRIs through postal ballots have been accepted in letter and spirit.

Taking note of the submissions, a bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and A.K. Sikri asked the Centre to inform it about “further steps taken to implement the suggestions.”

The bench posted the matter after eight weeks, asking the Centre to do the needful at the earliest.

“Since the views and recommendation have been accepted let them go ahead with the follow-up. They will have to carry out the follow—up process at the earliest,” the bench said.

The Centre’s stand was clarified by Additional Solicitor General P.L. Narasimha, who said certain amendments are required to be carried out and the ministry of law is working on them, taking into consideration the EC recommendations.

On November 14 last year, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre to make its stand clear on the EC’s proposal for allowing NRIs to cast their votes through proxy voting and e-ballots in polls in India.

The apex court had then granted four weeks time to the government to respond to the proposal prepared by a 12-member committee led by Vinod Zutshi, Deputy Election Commissioner, for ‘Exploring Feasibility of Alternative Options for Voting by Overseas Electors’

In the report, the committee has said it is of the view that e-postal ballot, where blank postal ballot is transferred electronically to NRIs and returned by post, can be employed after validation of the process and pilot implementation in one or two constituencies.

The report further said the process can be scaled up for Parliamentary elections, if found feasible, practicable and meeting the objectives of free and fair polls.

The committee comprising officials from the EC, Law Ministry and MEA had gathered opinion from all sections before submitting a report to the apex court.

The poll panel had contended that the move to allow NRIs to use proxy voting on the lines of defence personnel and e-ballot facility will require changes in the law and a legislative framework.

According to the provisions of the Representation of People Act, a person who is a citizen of India and who has not acquired the citizenship of any other country and is otherwise eligible to be registered as a voter and who is absent from his place of ordinary residence in India owing to employment, education or otherwise, is eligible to be registered as a voter in the constituency in which his place of residence in India, as mentioned in his passport, is located.

The court had earlier asked the EC to place before it the report of the committee set up by it to “study various available options for the purpose of NRI voting“.

The apex court was hearing a batch of PILs in which it has been contended that the existing provision which mandates NRI voter to be physically present in the constituency to exercise his vote was discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights.

The petitioners, including NRI Shamsheer VP, have submitted that over one crore people will be entitled to cast their vote if NRIs are allowed to vote from overseas.

The PILs said 114 countries have adopted external voting and among them are 20 Asian countries. It said the external voting could be held by setting up polling booths at the diplomatic mission, or by postal, proxy or electronic voting

National youth day

स्वामी विवेकानंद : संम्भव की सीमा जानने का केवल एक ही तरीका है, असंम्भव से भी आगे निकल जाना।

स्वामी विवेकानंद जी को उनकी जयन्ती पर शत् शत् नमन।
आज राष्ट्रीय युवा दिवस भी मनाया जाता है।

America in a tangle over aid to Pakistan

Several ambiguities exist in the discourse on how much — or how little — money has flowed from Washington to Islamabad and under what conditions

The U.S.’ complex relationship with Pakistan was back in the spotlight last week when it became evident to beltway policy-wallahs that a private diplomatic conversation between the American Ambassador in Islamabad and the Pakistani Finance Minister had been twisted into a formal press release hinting at the promise of $532 million in aid under a now-expired Act.

In two successive daily press briefings the State Department was quick to stoutly deny that the U.S. Congress had been notified about any such funds for Islamabad, and to spell out the minutiae of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act (KLB), also known as the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, under which the U.S. is authorised to finance its South Asian friend to the tune of $7.5 billion between 2010 and 2014.

Ambiguities

Yet, apart from the apparent misreading of Ambassador Richard Olson’s comments, which some in U.S. officialdom generously characterised as a “publication mistake,” the episode has revealed several ambiguities in the broader discourse, in terms of how much — or how little — money has flowed from Washington to Islamabad under the rubric of the KLB, and under what conditions.

On the question of aid conditionality, officials in the U.S. went to great lengths to emphasise last week that not once since Hillary Clinton’s assurances in March 2011 had the State Department provided “certification” that the government of Pakistan was “continuing to cooperate with U.S. efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons-related material supplier networks and make significant efforts to combat terrorist groups.”

Certification of this sort, which Section 203 of the KLB calls for annually, is a prerequisite for security assistance and arms transfers.

The reason why it is closely watched by New Delhi and Indian media is that it implies that Islamabad is also “preventing al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighbouring countries…”

According to one expert on Pakistan-U.S. politics, Professor Christine Fair of Georgetown University, Secretary Clinton “perjured herself” three years ago when she certified that Islamabad was complying with this counterterrorism norm, a suggestion that is consistent with the Obama White House insisting on a “waiver” after Pakistan’s knowledge of Osama bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad was questioned.

A waiver of certain conditionality requirements in U.S. “national security interests” is a facet not only of KLB — others include the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programmes, Division I, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012; and the National Defense Authorisation Act for FY2010 — a point of confusion in last week’s debates on which funds were, promised, notified or disbursed.

However certification is quintessentially the opposite of the waiver. KLB certification suggests that Pakistan was in compliance with counter-terrorism requirements.

The application of the waiver, which has happened numerous times for KLB and appropriations funding, implies that Washington deemed it necessary from a “national security interests” standpoint to transfer the aid despite Pakistan’s failure to fully comply with the requirements.

Under the rubric of these parameters how much money did Pakistan actually receive?

Amount received

Reporting by Congressional Research Services, a non-partisan think-tank in Washington, suggests that total security related U.S. aid appropriations for and military reimbursements to Pakistan rose from $989m in FY2009 to $1.27bn in FY2011 and then dropped off to an estimated $353m by 2014.

In this context it should be noted that there are multiple components to this layered process: reviews, certifications, waivers, notifications and, finally, disbursement of funds.

From government data on KLB funding it is clear that the amounts disbursed for each year from 2010-2013 inclusive were, in order, $1.515bn, $1.086bn, $1bn, $1.071bn.

For the final tranche of KLB funding, for FY2014, the review and waiver were provided in July 2014 but notification has not been provided, and is likely to happen in 2015. The amount mentioned by Ambassador, $532m, is “unlikely to be the final number.”

The deeper question that these transactions provoke however is, what is the quality of the bilateral relationship here, especially given that U.S. lawmakers have routinely attempted to ramp up aid conditionality or suspend aid entirely, for example after Pakistan’s action against Dr. Shakil Afridi for allegedly aiding the U.S. effort to assassinate bin Laden?

On the other hand the Indian government probably harbours justified concerns about aid fungibility, the possibility that Pakistan may be diverting resources towards combat operations on its eastern border given that the cascade of incoming greenbacks makes their deployment elsewhere in the country redundant.

Golden Rule to Solve Conflict Situations

Golden Rule to Solve Conflict Situations

Golden Rule 1: Choose the lesser evil

Of two necessary evils, choose the leaser one. That seems obvious enough except for the fact that it is not always easy to decide which of the two or more evils concerned is the “lesser” one. Sometimes it is fairly easy to make you choice.

 For instance you are a pilot and, for some reason or the other plane is going to crash very soon. You have just two choices to crash the plane into either a maternity hospital or an old age home. For most of us, it would be clear enough: crash into the old age home.

In the maternity hospital, however, there would be scores of babies who deserve to be given a chance to live and know the world: or again, if my brakes don’t work and may car is hurtling down a narrow on my right (no other choice!), obviously I should turn left because, that way, I’d kill one less person. However, let us not forget than in such moments of confusion and split-second decisions making one can hardly be expected to function reasonably and weigh up all the consequences. One could hardly hold it against the poor pilot (or driver) if, in his confusion he turned the wrong way!

Golden Rule 2: Choose the Greater Good

This is the obvious principles to invoke when choosing between two goods. Most of the time, however, it is not clear what is the greater good. In that case, one could employ St Augustine’s practical dictum to this regard, ama et fac quod vis: love and do what you like or, to put it more clearly, choose either, but do it from a perspective of love.

In his Existentialism and Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre gives us an interesting case, where a young lad, early in World War II, when France was about to fall to the advancing Nazi hordes, had to make a difficult decision: should he signs up to fight off the invaders or stay at home to take care of his invalid mother? Applying the principle given above, the choice is the boy’s. No ne can tell him objectively what the greater good is. Let he decide for himself.

Golden Rule 3: The Double Effect

This concerns the controversial – and conflict – situation where one and the same act produces two effects, one good and the other evil. Under what conditions it would be morally justified to allow such an act?

Authors generally list four such conditions. They are as follows, accord to the scholastic Celestine Bittle, in his Man and Morals, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950 (pp.44-46). First, “the action directly intended must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent.” The reason for this is that morality is a matter of intention. If Mr X do wrong unintentionally (e.g. injure someone in a game of football), he cannot be held to blame for it – unless, of course, he acted recklessly, in which case my fault would be reckless behavior, not having injured someone. Morality is not a mere matter of externals. Even a good action may be rendered less worthy if it is done for a unworthy motive: for instance, a person makes a big donation to the poor, not because he cares for them, but because he wants to win votes.

Secondly, “the good effect must follow from the action at least as immediately as the evil effect; or the evil effect may follow from the good effect.” However, “it is never morally right for the good effect to be produced through the evil effect.” This follows from the above. Remember, good or evil is primarily in the intention.

 We must always intend directly what is good or indifferent; if we intend what is evil directly, we are doing something evil. This would involve claiming that the end justifies the means.

The above-presented figures should make it clear why Case (I) and Case (II) are permissible and Case (III) is not: it is the only one where evil is directly intended. In this last case, moral evil makes an entry into the intention of the agent. 

Thirdly, the foreseen evil may not be intended or approved, but merely ‘permitted’ to occur.” The reason for this is obvious enough and also follows from the first condition. In Bittle’s words, “If the evil effect were intended or, when it occurred, approved, then the will itself thereby would become evil in its inclination, and the action would be morally wrong.”

Finally, “there must be proportionate and sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to occur while performing the good action.” Obviously, one could hardly justify an action which produced a minor good effect and a proportionately high bad effect

Vishnu's case would  belong to the Case (III) if he allows the students to continue the photocopy as the immediate evil effect would be violation of copy rights. Thus in no way he should allow the students to go for the photocopy.

Casestudy2/2015

Ravi is a committed doctor and works in a local government mental hospital. He is very well aware of the fact that the doctors should not disclose the secret information of their patients to anyone. Disclosing the information and ailment history of patient without her/his permission is against the professional ethics of any doctor.

One day a women visit him for the check up. After regular check up Ravi came to the conclusion that she suffers from traumatic mugging which require her adjustment in the medication she is prescribed to control anxiety and mood swings. In certain severe conditions she can even harm others physically and mentally.  In the worst situation she can be a threat to the lives of others as well. On further inquiry she told that she works is the nearby school. Ravi was surprised to know that she is a teacher in the same school where his 8 year old daughter is enrolled.

After she leaves, Ravi immediately calls her daughter and asks the names of teachers that are teaching her. He gets disturb to know that lady that came for the check up is the class teacher of his daughter.

Ravi’s daughter seems very happy in her school and he cannot violate patient confidentiality by informing the school of a teacher’s mental illness but he is not comfortable with a potentially unstable person in a position of influence and supervision over his eight year old daughter and other students.

What should Ravi do?