10 reasons why happy people set better goals

Understanding the importance of goal setting and knowing how to set goals for yourself is crucial to accomplishing great things in your life. 

It is an empowering way to create the life you want and desire, instead of relying on external events and circumstances. Here are 10 characteristics of happy people that help them become better goal-setters:

1. PRIORITISING HAPPINESS
Happy people know that life is more about appreciating the journey, and not worrying about getting to a destination. While they may have big plans in the works, they also take time out to appreciate the present moment and all the good things they presently possess in life. This appreciation for life in turn inspires them and gives them the positive energy to continue achieving their goals. As the saying goes, success does not bring happiness; happiness brings success.

2. SEEING BEYOND SUCCESS AND FAILURE
Happy people know that there's really no such thing as a complete failure -even when things don't go as planned, they appreciate the opportunity for self-growth, the experience gained and the lessons learnt.

3. NOT COMPROMISING SELF-WORTH
Happy people find themselves to be complete and don't measure success and self worth by the house they own, the career they've picked or any other external goals. They understand that while following their dreams is a worthwhile endeavour, it's secondary to their primary objective in life -to grow into their authentic selves, love more and cherish each day as it comes.

4. LIVING BY YOUR OWN RULES
Happy people are driven to lead a life that's true to themselves.They rise above the pressure to conform to social norms or expectations of family and friends. They understand they have a unique gift to offer to the world, and that when they design a life that agrees with their soul, and feels like a natural extension of who they believe themselves to be.

5. BEING OPTIMISTIC ABOUT GOALS
Most people know deep down what they want in life. Some don't end up pursuing it because they're convinced that it won't work and that they don't have it in them to achieve it. Happy people understand the importance of believing in their goals, and they fill their minds with all of the reasons why it can work out and why they are worthy of attaining success.

6. NOT BLAMING CIRCUMSTANCES
Happy people realise that life can change quickly and sporadically and that significant change is entirely possible. They also understand that by following their passion, the right people, circumstances and opportunities will gravitate towards them. They's not focussed on all the steps needed to achieve their goals-they're just dead sure of the end result they hope to achieve, and work towards it.

7. HAPPY TO ACCEPT HELP
Happy people embrace a level of vulnerability and openness in their lives. This also makes them more than willing to accept help and support when they need it. They accept the fact that they can't always do everything on their own, and that it's fine to own up to it.

8. BEING OPEN-MINDED
Happy people know that they want to seek fulfilment by achieving their goals. They are also well aware that this fulfilment can come to them in many ways. They may set their sights on a particular career, partner or lifestyle, but they are also open-minded enough to spot alternatives that come their way which would also provide the same feeling of fulfilment.

9. NEVER FORGETTING YOUR GOALS
Happy people know the importance of being an active creator of their life, rather than a victim of circumstance. For this reason, they prioritise their goals and use them as a compass or guide on a regular basis.

10. LIVING IN THE MOMENT
Happy people strike a healthy balance between making plans for the future and visualising their dream life, and taking action in the present moment. They understand that being focused and taking action today can improve their tomorrow.

Dispossession, development and democracy

While liberalisation’s backers are not squeamish in admitting that democracy is an impediment to the free market economic model, farmers who are dispossessed of land argue that they are undercompensated and that the profit of private companies is not a public purpose

Since it was passed by Parliament in September 2013, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR) has been criticised from all sides. Farmers and social movements argued that LARR failed to adequately compensate land losers, contained large loopholes such as exempting irrigation projects, and, most importantly, continued to allow land acquisition for private companies. Industrialists, developers, and State governments, on the other hand, complained that the bill would delay projects, increase the costs of land acquisition, and impede economic growth. It was no secret that the government shared the latter view, and it was no surprise when it diluted many of LARR’s key provisions through an ordinance issued on December 31.

The ordinance effectively eliminates the main features of LARR that gave rural people some protection from arbitrary dispossession. First, it removes the requirement that the government obtain the consent of 80 per cent of affected people before taking their land for private projects, and 70 per cent of affected people for public-private partnership (PPP) projects. The ordinance thus restores the ability of the government to acquire land for any private purpose it likes, with no need to win the support of the affected. Second, the ordinance eliminates the Social Impact Assessments (SIA) that LARR had mandated as a pre-condition for proceeding with land acquisition. This restores the ability of the government to dispossess land from people without even assessing its negative consequences, much less weighing them against projected benefits. Without SIAs, there is no way to even determine who is affected, thus undermining the bill’s promise that non-land owners — such as labourers, sharecroppers, artisans, and fishworkers — will also be compensated. In addition to these major changes, the ordinance increases the amount of time that a government or company can keep unutilised land, and removes LARR’s strong penalties for non-complying officials. By making these sweeping changes through an ordinance, the government has undermined by executive fiat the spirit of a law that was passed with bipartisan support after seven years of public debate and revision.

The argument, of course, is that this move was necessary because LARR had become a large obstacle to economic growth. While there is no evidence to support this argument, economist Sanjoy Chakravorty provided one of its clearest articulations when he defended the ordinance in these pages (The Hindu, “Improving an unworkable law,” January 7, 2015). Chakravorty argued that LARR created a “windfall for land-losers” by doubling or quadrupling already high market prices, thus raising the cost of land acquisition to “unsustainable levels.” The ordinance, while keeping generous compensation levels in place, would helpfully reduce the indirect costs entailed by conducting SIAs and obtaining consent from affected people. Even with the ordinance, Chakravorty worried that compensation levels are still too high under LARR, and “may make many public projects unaffordable and private projects uncompetitive.” This position is widely shared within the private sector, state governments, and the economics profession.

Calculating compensation

“Capturing the dispossession windfall itself became the purpose of land acquisition as State governments quietly morphed into land brokers for private capital.”

But there are several problems with this argument. The first is that it rests on a misleading picture of how compensation is calculated under LARR. While it is true that land prices have skyrocketed in recent years, it is wrong to suggest that this forms the basis of how farmers are compensated under LARR. Like the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) that preceded it, LARR takes as its starting point the land’s assessed market value — what is known as the “circle rate.” The circle rate is based on the land’s past agricultural value and not its potential value as industrial, commercial, or residential land. It is no secret that it is kept deliberately low to minimise stamp duty. The difference between the circle rate and the market rate is usually vast. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), for example, became notorious for acquiring land at Rs.820 per square metre and reselling it to developers at Rs.35,000 per square metre — which is itself a fraction of the ultimate price of the high-end flats built on the land. But we should not single out GNIDA — this is the common practice of urban development authorities and industrial development corporations across the country.

Capturing the huge gap between market prices and compensation prices is, in fact, the primary motive behind much land acquisition in India today. We might call this gap the “dispossession windfall” — it exists only because the government is willing to force farmers into selling, and provides a subsidy to whoever receives the land. The transparent injustice of this practice was one factor behind the widespread farmer protests that finally pressured the United Progressive Alliance — with Bharatiya Janata Party support — into passing LARR. But it is important to note that LARR did not eliminate the dispossession windfall. LARR’s compensation formula involves multiplying the circle rate — not the market rate — by two in urban areas and four in rural areas (a distinction, moreover, it leaves for States to establish). Although one might argue that this multiplier is arbitrary, it certainly does not bring compensation prices up to market prices. To argue that farmers are reaping a windfall from LARR at the expense of the private sector is to reverse reality. To argue for a reduction in compensation to farmers is to defend the use of eminent domain for generating corporate super-profits.

In the name of development

The second problem with this argument is that by focussing on prices, it evades the more fundamental question of politics: why should a democratic government forcibly take land from farmers and give it to private companies? Since at least the English enclosures, governments have justified taking land from one group to give to another (usually wealthier) group with claims to be fulfilling a “public” or “national” purpose. In the last century, this has usually been done in the name of development. Most economists assume that any “higher value” land use than agriculture constitutes development and thus a public purpose. But what constitutes development, and whether that development is a “public purpose” worthy of dispossessing farmers, is not a technical or even a legal question, but a political one. And it is a political question that should be put in historical perspective.

During the post-Independence years, the Indian state mostly acquired land for public sector projects. Land acquisition for private companies was legal under LAA, but was limited in practice due to the existence of a development model in which the public sector built infrastructure and controlled the “commanding heights” of the economy. Most land acquisition was for public sector dams, mines, and industry. While tens of millions of people were dispossessed of their land for these projects, the Nehruvian state was fairly effective at convincing the public that these projects served the national interest in state-led development. Eventually, people began to point out that those dispossessed for this development received scandalously little compensation. And by the 1980s, groups like the Narmada Bachao Andolan began to pose the more fundamental question: development for whom?

Dispossession under neoliberalism

This question has only become more relevant since economic liberalisation prompted State governments to start acquiring land for private companies on a large scale. The reforms of the early 1990s gave greater importance to the private sector, which began demanding land not just for manufacturing (which remained fairly stagnant), but for real estate, mineral extraction, and all manner of infrastructure under PPP agreements. State governments, now competing with each other for this investment, began systematically acquiring land for private companies for almost any private purpose, whether elite housing colonies, hotels, private colleges, or Formula 1 race tracks. This new regime of dispossession reached scale in the mid-2000s with Special Economic Zones and the practice of urban development authorities simply auctioning off acquired land to private developers. Capturing the dispossession windfall itself became the purpose of land acquisition as State governments quietly morphed into land brokers for private capital. The flagrant injustices of this land brokering produced the “land wars” of the last 10 years, and generated the political pressure for LARR.

The question now facing India is about politics, not prices: should the government systematically redistribute land from farmers to private companies? Advocates of liberalisation say yes, ironically conceding that growth in a “free market” economy requires government expropriation of private property. They claim that this growth will trickle down to the poor, including those rural people asked to give their land for it. They are often not squeamish in admitting that democracy is an impediment to their model of economic growth. Many farmers, on the other hand, have voiced their scepticism, arguing not only that they are undercompensated but also that the profit of private companies is not a public purpose. They have expressed doubt that SEZs, hi-tech parks and real estate colonies represent “development” that will provide them with jobs or other benefits. And they have used the institutions of electoral democracy to challenge dispossession for these purposes. The land protests of the last decade, in short, represent a basic disagreement over the meaning of both development and democracy.

The current government has ambitious plans to push forward rapid growth through private investment in mega-projects such as industrial corridors, smart cities, and the like. The recent ordinance demonstrates that it is willing to subvert the democratic process to get the land for it. When more farmer protests erupt, what other threats to democracy are in store?

Cancer: Not beyond us

On World Cancer Day today, The Union for International Cancer Control calls the doctors, institutions and the community at large to come together and unite in the fight against cancer

It is estimated that in the next year, nine million people will die of cancer and these numbers will unfortunately only rise, if steps towards cancer prevention and control are not put in place now. This year’s World Cancer day programme focuses on taking a proactive role in the fight against cancer under the tagline “Cancer- Not Beyond Us”.

Adopt a healthy lifestyle

Recent research has shown that physical activity brings down the incidence of cancers as well. About 50 per cent of common cancers can be prevented by reducing alcohol consumption, giving up smoking, a healthy diet and regular physical exercise and that is a pretty good incentive to help in making the right lifestyle choices.

Get regular check ups

Very commonly, people are not aware of the importance of seeking care when symptoms are present, nor are they aware about recommended screening tests such as pap smears, HPV tests for cervical cancers and mammograms for breast cancers. This holds true for women across the socio-economic strata and varied educational backgrounds.There is now clear evidence that deaths due to cervical cancer can be reduced by 80 per cent in screened women. In fact, even a single screening for cervical cancer in women between the ages of 30 -40 years can bring down a woman’s risk of cervical cancer by 25 to 36 per cent. Cervical cancer can be easily prevented by a combination of HPV vaccination and regular screening. The question is how do we get women to access health care and who pays for it? Cancer is a complex disease and often needs a lot of psycho-social input apart from a multidisciplinary medical treatment.

Spread awareness

In spite of improving levels of education and economy, discussion about cancer is often considered taboo. While people would not hesitate to talk about their symptoms and the various medications they are on for their hypertension and diabetes, a diagnosis of cancer is one topic they do not feel they can talk about.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions that surround a diagnosis of cancer – a common one is that cancer is contagious which it is not. There is still a huge stigma attached to a cancer diagnosis especially in rural areas, very often leading to the person being ostracised from society.

Get involved

As a priority, levels of public and professional awareness about cancer screening and early cancer warning signs should be improved and we would like the health sector, government and the media to be part of this important initiative.

Cancer control has to begin with cancer awareness amongst the community at large. Understanding local cultural beliefs and practices is important and screening programmes will have to factor this into their programmes to succeed.

It is ‘Not Beyond Us’ to meet the challenge of cancer control, if communities and governments realise that prevention of cancer is better and definitely cheaper than cure, if cancer awareness is given priority and screening programmes are integrated in to existing health systems. On the occasion of World Cancer Day, let us all take a pledge to fight against cancer.

Valavadi Narayanaswamy Cancer Center, GKNM Hospital, and Coimbatore Cancer Foundation collaborate to give cancer awareness talks in schools, colleges, corporate offices and others, both in urban and rural areas as part of their community oncology programmes.

Wake up, B-schools

For a country which has had a history of management education of over six decades, it is unfortunate that no Indian business school is anywhere near the top 10 global institutions measured by various rankings. The China Europe International Business School or CEIBS, set up 20 years ago in China, beat the 53-year old Indian Institute of Ahmedabad (IIM-A) by a long margin to feature at the 11th place in theFinancial Times' Global MBA Ranking 2015, released earlier this week, and 17th in the Bloomberg Businessweek Ranking 2014. In contrast, IIM-A has climbed up slightly to the 26th spot (30th in 2014) in the FT Ranking. The Bloomberg Businessweek Ranking had taken into account only 17 international B-schools (none from India) against 100 considered by the FT.

The two other Indian B-schools which figured in the FT list have had mixed results in recent years. While the Indian School of Business climbed to the 33rd position from the 36th in 2014, IIM-Bangalore - which secured a place in the chart at the 68th position last year - has slipped to the 82nd rank. Those in favour of the status quo argue that the criteria employed by international ranking agencies do not fit the Indian design; but that's defeatist logic. It is a well-known fact that many Indian business schools - including the leading ones - falter on even the basic parameters of faculty, research, accreditation and students mix.

India has the largest MBA market in the world. According to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), regarded as the benchmark for business-school quality among the academic community, India tops the chart in terms of volume, followed by the US and the Philippines. But only three Indian business schools have AACSB accreditation. In China, 15 schools have been accredited by AACSB. Similarly, only a few have the other two key global accreditations - the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), or the Association of MBAs (AMBA). India needs an accreditation body which deals exclusively with B-schools to enhance their quality. Currently, the National Board of Accreditation (NBA) looks into different technical education institutions including business education. India must draw the right lessons from China, which set up its own MBA accreditation system in 2012-13. Another option is to create three tiers of management institutions, in which the best 25 to 30 B-schools could be asked to focus solely on pedagogy, generating international quality research, accreditation, ranking, global faculty and students exchange. The mid-tier schools could focus on teaching to produce managers that industry needs. The third tier could look at integrating skills education with management programmes. In fact, 90 per cent of the 3,600 MBA programmes running in universities and their affiliated colleges treat the MBA as merely another post-graduate programme, instead of focusing on skill development and improving employability of their graduates.

The IIMs in particular have indeed a lot of catching up to do in other spheres as well, as they seem to be content in what many call comfortable mediocrity. They need to focus on thought leadership instead of over-reliance on borrowed wisdom from case studies of businesses in developed countries. India has a robust corporate sector, and developing country-specific management theory should not be rocket science. The other problem is attracting quality faculty from all over the world through higher salaries - a point articulated several times by IIM-A Chairman A M Naik, who persuaded Ashish Nanda from Harvard Business School to join as director but only after the latter agreed to "serve his country" by making a huge economic sacrifice. Relying on patriotism can hardly be a viable proposition on a larger scale.

The case of missing regulators

In its efforts to resolve sectoral issues to promote investment and growth, the National Democratic Alliance government might have to deal with challenges purely in the realm of regulation. This is despite being armed with ordinances and moving forward with bidding for coal blocks, easing land acquisition norms for certain purposes and putting in place a legal framework for auctioning mining rights.

Liberalisation in a host of sectors saw the emergence of sectoral regulators from 1997, when the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (Tamp) and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) were constituted, followed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) the following year. The business environment might have changed since then leading to commercial and tariff disputes. Yet, sectors without regulators, such as mining, coal and highways, are found groping in the dark when disputes emerge.

Despite years of debate and Cabinet decisions in favour of a coal regulator and a railway tariff authority, appointments to these bodies haven't been made. Successive governments have been in two minds when it comes to empowering these entities, keeping them immune from government interference and the extent of their say in pricing. The NDA government might have to take up these issues soon. "It is surprising that while power is regulated, coal, which accounts for 65 per cent of the power cost is not," says Pramod Deo, former chairman of CERC.

Consider the Coal Mining Special Provisions Ordinance, which opens the sector to commercial mining. Even as the government has fast-tracked the bidding process without awaiting a parliamentary clearance, there is no word on a coal regulator. The bidding, despite being planned in detail, could create challenges to be tackled entirely by the Centre.

Closely linked is the mining sector, in which amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act have been made through an ordinance. Here, too, there hasn't been any discussion on a regulator. While auctioning of mining leases has been envisaged, tackling issues arising out of it and ascertaining how illegalities in mining are determined, as well as penalties, will be in the domain of courts.

For highway, reopening tender conditions and tolling fee, especially for projects for which aggressive bidding has led to projections going awry, the need for a regulator is felt to ensure an arm's length approach between private operators and the government. But here, too, the government has been quiet.

It's not that sectors with regulators don't face challenges. Deo cites the case of Tamp whose role has been restricted to regulating activities of major ports controlled by the Centre, with no say over privately-run ports. There have been reports of Tamp being wound up, as many in the government feel the regulator has outlived its utility.

Among regulators, the most visible and fruitful existence has been that of Trai. "Though it is empowered in many ways, its role is recommendatory on many crucial issues," says Deo. One such issue is the power to determine the price of spectrum, for which Trai can only recommend, which is not binding on the government. Deo says traditionally, the government played both policy-making and regulatory roles, but in the case of sectors with regulators, its role has been restricted to taking policy decisions. This, according to L Mansingh, former chairman, of the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board, leads to reluctance in the concerned ministry to give up discretionary powers in favour of a regulator. In the aviation sector, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation is expected to oversee the technical aspects of airlines. There is also the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority created in 2009 for tariff-related issues for airports. Since it's the newest of all infrastructure regulators, its challenges have been confined to issues relating to fees charged by new airports.

The power sector has faced the highest number of challenges. At the state level, regulatory commissions have to clear rates for retail consumers. "The biggest challenge is setting tariff for government-owned or controlled distribution companies. Governments ensure discoms do not file tariff petitions as price revision has a political aspect to it," says Deo. At the CERC level, as the entity tackles issues between the generator and distributor. Because contracts are given to generation companies on the basis of lowest tariff, the regulator has before it a host of disputes due to an increase in generation cost. The regulator tried to put in place a compensatory tariff mechanism, contractual disputes have become central to all petitions. Mansingh points out that a regulator has to be fair and seen as promoting a level playing field so that objectives linked to the reform process in a sector are achieved. Industry players say any regulator's role is important if a market isn't well established, even as the challenges might be different for different regulators, depending upon the issues concerned.

The need for a tight regulatory regime is, however, no less now than in the late 1990s, when the first regulator came about.

REGULATORS AND THEIR DOMAIN

Aviation

• AERA for regulating airport tariffs and charges
• DGCA for technical issues relating to airlines but no hold over tariffs

Telecom

• Telecom Regulatory Authority of India for regulating mobile tariffs and other service issues but no control over spectrum pricing
• Appeal lies with Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal

Power

• CERC approves inter-state tariff issues and tariff for sale of power by generator to distributor
• State Regulatory Commissions for approval of retail tariffs

Petroleum

• Director General of Hydrocarbons for upstream oil producers
• Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board for downstream pipeline, city gas distribution, but petroleum products not included
• Appeal for both power and petroleum lies with Appellate Tribunal

Shipping

• Tariff Authority for Major Ports regulates charges at major ports

Govt should focus on having regulators in mining, coal, highways, railways, and empowering existing ones

Socialism with Indian characteristics

Soon after chairman Mao Zedong's death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping became the paramount leader of China and focus shifted from class struggle to reconstructing the economy. Seeking truth from facts, rather than ideological dogmas, he steered towards neither communism of the Soviet style nor democracy, but socialist economics, politics and culture with Chinese characteristics. There are critics galore of the euphemistic "socialism with Chinese characteristics", but its success speaks for itself. In purchasing power parity terms, China surpassed the United States to become the world's largest economy in 2014!

What was India doing when China under Deng was shifting gears? India was more steadfast in its ideological commitment. Eight days before Mao passed away, the 42nd amendment to the Constitution was introduced in Parliament, and before the Great Helmsman's embalmed body could be placed in Tiananmen Square's new mausoleum, India's tribute to the chairman was a new Indian republic that was also "socialist secular" rather than just "sovereign democratic".

To contest an Indian election as a "recognised" political party, the party's fundamental document has to contain a specific provision that it shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. In other words, from 1977, all recognised political parties in India are sworn to socialism. Former chief justice K G Balakrishnan had observed that socialism in a broader sense "means welfare measures for the citizens. It is a facet of democracy. It hasn't got any definite meaning. It gets different meanings in different times". Yet socialism conjures up images of some not-so-market-friendly statist policies. It often is a cover for populist policies that pit the toiling masses against a set of elites and dangerous "others" who deprive the masses of their prosperity and livelihoods.

In the Constituent Assembly debate on November 15, 1948, Babasaheb Ambedkar, while rejecting Professor K T Shah's proposed amendment to include "socialist" in the Preamble to describe the Indian state, had looked at socialism as a way of organising society and wanted to leave the people of sovereign India free to choose their ideology.

So what explains the steadfast commitment to "socialism" in Indian politics, even if it is purely for appearances in some cases? Why does Indian political discourse always have socialism as a given? First, there is a long history. Initially, the Indian freedom movement had little explicit economic content, with confusion about what was to be achieved in independent India. There was the nostalgic vision of an idyllic, simple and unchanging rural life with its roots in Mahatma Gandhi's Hind Swaraj. Gandhi wrote about the dangers of indulging our passions and substituting our hands and feet by machines. These views had a large following and even C Rajagopalachari, the late founder of theSwatantra Party (the first major political party with an openly pro-market and anti-statist ideology), supported the view that civilisation consisted not in the multiplication but the deliberate and voluntary restriction of wants.

Second, in the heady 1920s, the Soviet Union was making great strides in the erstwhile feudalistic tsarist Russia. Prior to independence, the colonial power in India had followed a broadly laissez-fairepolicy at least as a public stance, and the result of such a hands-off policy was chronic underdevelopment. It had to be an activist state, and there was near unanimity that policy had to be socialist with pronounced emphasis on a centrally planned strategy. At the 1928 Congress session in Lucknow, presided over by his father Motilal Nehru, the young Jawaharlal Nehru had announced his belief that "the only solution of the world's problems and of India's problems lies in socialism". There was some opposition to such an ideological position, but it was at best muted. For example, Vallabhbhai Patel expressed his ideological differences on the nature of capitalism. He withdrew his threat to contest Jawaharlal Nehru for the post of Congress president next year in Faizpur when Nehru clarified that socialism was not his plank for the presidency.

According to the first economic and social programme of the Congress, adopted at Karachi in 1931, the state would own or control key industries and services, mineral resources, railways, waterways, shipping and other means of public transport. By 1933, Jawaharlal Nehru had become convinced about the need for planning, which he said was a word into which "the Soviets have put magic". In 1934, the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) was formed within the Congress. Gandhi resigned from the Congress, citing it as one of the reasons. But practically everyone else who mattered in the freedom movement was a socialist! Minoo Masani, later a leading light and ideologue of the Swatantra Party, was a founding member of the CSP and became its joint secretary. Thus, after independence, India followed a "socialist" path.

Third, after independence, the abiding commitment to full-throttled democracy helped to shape "socialism with Indian characteristics" and make it a potent vote-catcher. For example, the Chinese experiment of forming farmers' cooperatives and benefiting from land consolidation and pooling agricultural machinery inspired the Indian leadership. In January 1959, at its 64th Plenary Session at Nagpur, the Congress declared that India's future agrarian pattern should be "cooperative joint farming", with a transition period of three years when "service cooperatives" would be organised on a large scale. However, farmers, including those newly enfranchised by the land reforms - under the guidance of new farmers' leaders, most notably Chaudhary Charan Singh from Uttar Pradesh - opposed such a move. The Nagpur resolution triggered the formation of the Swatantra Party in 1959. For once, enthusiasm for "socialism" was restrained by the electoral compulsion of winning elections, and cooperative farming was dropped from the agenda.

Over time, "socialism" in Indian politics became synonymous with sarvodaya or the welfare state. But again, the compulsions of electoral politics navigated towards promising a welfare state far in advance of the state's actual capacity. The promise of eradicating poverty now and here by, for example, free water, cheap power, more government employment and higher salaries has been far too potent to eschew. "Roti, kapda, makan" (food, clothing, shelter), rather than "bijli, sadak, pani" (electricity, roads, water), became the catchphrase. Like socialism with Chinese characteristics, India has evolved its own brand of "socialism with Indian characteristics". Elections witnessed a race to the bottom, with parties competing with each other in promising more immediate goodies for the same or even less taxes and pain.

Does the government advertisement on the occasion of the 66th Republic Day using an image of the Preamble of the Indian constitution without the word "socialist" indicate a likely change in the political discourse in India? Time will tell.

Recognize global trends, lead transformation process of India’s higher education system,

Recognize global trends, lead transformation process of India’s higher education system, President tells Central University Vice Chancellors

President of India Pranab Mukherjee opened a Conference of Vice Chancellors of Central Universities (CUs) at Rashtrapati Bhavan today (February 4, 2015). This is the third such Conference of Central University Vice Chancellors convened by the President since assumption of office. The Vice Chancellors of 40 Central Universities to which the President is the Visitor are attending this Conference. Speaking on the occasion, the President said it is important to recognize emerging global trends which are likely to bring sweeping changes in higher education worldwide. Rising costs of higher education and the changing profile of education seekers, aided by technological innovation are leading to the creation of alternative models of knowledge dispensation. Central universities have the responsibility to lead the transformative processes of India’s higher education system. The President said students passing out from the Indian higher education system will have to compete with the best in the world. There is a need to imbue young minds with competitive spirit and a sense of pride in their alma mater. In addition to international rankings, the universities should attempt ratings on a National Ranking Framework which needs to be expeditiously developed. The President said the vacancy position in Central Universities remains alarmingly high - in terms of percentage, vacancies have increased from 37.3 percent as on March 31, 2013 to only 38.4 percent as on December 1, 2014. Non-availability of Visitor’s nominees in the Selection Committee of faculty has been addressed. Each Central University will now have a panel of five names of nominees who can be called as per extant instructions. Efforts aimed at engagement of central universities with industry and alumni need far greater focus and direction than at present. Only four universities have so far established centres of excellence while another five are working towards these. The President said during his visit to Norway and Finland, he called upon academicians and experts to come and teach in India. Under the Global Initiative of Academic Networks (GIAN), the HRD Ministry has asked Central Universities for a list of eminent scholars and researchers for inviting them as guest speakers or scholars. An e-platform needs to be developed to facilitate scholars from within and outside the country to log in their details. It shall, in due course, lead to creation of a robust database of global experts for the Indian higher education system. The recently launched ‘Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya National Mission on Teachers and Teaching’ will set performance standards and create world-class facilities for innovative teaching. The President said Visitor’s Awards for ‘Best University’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Research’ will become a driving force in promoting research and innovation in our universities in future. There is an urgent need to put ICT Networks to effective use. Through the video-conferencing facility of NKN, he interacted with faculty and students of Universities three times. When he delivered his New Year Message 120 institutions of higher learning were connected through the National Knowledge Network and another 900 locations through web-cast. He urged the Ministry and all leaders in research and education institutions to use NKN’s reach to transform the quality of higher education system. The President said because of the diversities in evaluation systems, students have suffered in the acceptance of their credentials across the university system and in accessing employment opportunities. The initiative of Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) will ensure seamless mobility of students across higher education institutions in the country as well as abroad. The credits earned by students can be transferred and would be of great value to them in the event of their seeking migration from one institution to the other. 23 central universities have already implemented CBCS. He urged remaining universities to consider implementing this system from next academic year. The President said the university is a role-model for society at large. Its persuasive power extends beyond the classroom and teaching. Its influence must be tapped for greater good. The Central Government has launched several initiatives having enormous socio-economic significance. The Swachh Bharat Mission aims at a Clean India by the 150th Birth Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi in 2019. The Saansad Adarsh Gram Yojana (SAGY) envisages the integrated development of selected villages through community participation. He called upon Central Universities to start working with at least five villages each under SAGY to transform them into model villages. The President said due to limitations of public funding, costs of creation of physical infrastructure and academic facilities get transferred to students in terms of higher fees. Whereas universities earlier used to educate fresh scholars, they now have the added responsibility of training and re-training workers throughout their careers. An Oxford University Study predicts automation of 47 percent occupations in the next few decades. As innovation eliminates certain job types, changes others and creates new ones, the workforce will have to engage in life-long learning to up-grade and refine their skills and capabilities. The twin compulsions of increasing expenditure and dynamic demand can be addressed through extensive use of e-enabled learning. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which first began in 2008, allow students to hear lectures and read course material on-line, and earn a degree at a fraction of the cost of a brick and mortar education. Both SWAYAM (Study Web of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds) and MOOCs could pave the way for speed, scale and efficiency for teaching in the higher education system. The Ministry of HRD and institutes of higher learning should develop eco-systems for deriving maximum benefits from applying technology to learning. On-line instruction supplemented by periodic classroom interaction or blended MOOCs, could provide a solution for retaining the essential elements of traditional pedagogy. The President said particular emphasis has to be provided by our higher learning institutions on the inculcation of core values in our students. Our civilization has championed patriotism, pluralism, tolerance, honesty and discipline. Our democracy has thrived on these values. The next generation must learn to recognize our diversity, inclusiveness and assimilative capacities as inherent sources of strength. The President said a society takes the form of a creative enterprise when educated masses, with their interlinked rivers of thoughts and ideas, give rise to a sea of innovations. Teachers must encourage the taught to satiate their curiosity, question established knowledge, accept a proposition only after investigation, and pursue ingenuity. A scientific temper, which takes one’s imagination beyond the realm of grades and classroom, is essential in our students. In particular, the habit of reading and learning through books must be inculcated to sharpen their energetic and inquisitive minds. Books also break societal and cultural barriers. Among the dignitaries present on the occasion were Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani, Union Minister for Human Resource Development.