Awards for ‘Best University’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Research’ presented by the President

Visitor’s Awards for ‘Best University’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Research’ presented by the President of India at Rashtrapati Bhavan

The President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee presented Visitor’s Awards for Central Universities in the categories of ‘Best University’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Research’ for the year 2015 at a function held at Rashtrapati Bhavan yesterday (February 4, 2015). The University of Hyderabad received ‘Best University’ Award for academic excellence & overall outstanding work. ‘Innovation’ Award was presented to Prof. Vijay K. Chaudhary and Dr. Amita Gupta of University of Delhi for their invention of ‘TB Confirm’, a rapid diagnostic test for Tuberculosis. The ‘Research’ Award was received by Cosmology and Astrophysics Research Group, Centre for Theoretical Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia for path breaking research carried out in the field of Astrophysics and Cosmology. The Research Group comprises of Jamia Millia Islamia faculty - Prof. M. Sami, Prof. Sushant G. Ghosh, Prof. Sanjay Jhingan & Prof. Anjan Ananda Sen. The ‘Best University’ received a Citation and Trophy while winners of Visitor’s Award for ‘Innovation’ and ‘Research’ received a Citation and cash award of Rs. one lakh. L.C. Goyal appointed as Home Secretary The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the appointment of Shri L.C. Goyal, IAS (KL:79) Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development as Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs for a period of two years from the date of taking over charge as Home Secretary vice Shri Anil Goswami, IAS (JK:78).  The ACC has also approved the acceptance of the request of Shri Anil Goswami, Home Secretary for voluntarily retiring from service with immediate effect by waiving the notice period. The term of Shri Goswami as Home Secretary stands curtailed with immediate effect.

UKPCS-2012 MAINS TEST SERIES STARTING FROM 14th Feb,samveg ias

dear friends you can learn ,discuss about
how to approach such lenthy paper ?
how to complete paper on time?
how to score maximum marks?

Jan Aushadhi: Government's low cost generic drugs from July 1

From July 1, you can walk up to a chemist and ask for a 'Jan Aushadhi' brand for your medicine, with the government set to launch its own brand to sell low cost generic medicines.

The Centre will procure medicines in bulk from public as well as private drug manufacturing firms and rebrand them under 'Jan Aushadhi'. These will be sold in the retail market at a competitive price, allowing consumers to buy a cheaper yet quality product from the government, official sources said.

To start with, the government has identified 504 essential medicines, which include antibiotics, painkillers, vitamins and medicines used in treatment of cardiovascular, respiratory, diabetes and gastroenterology diseases. "In the first phase, we have mostly identified medicines from the top 100 drugs based on their sales. More medicines as well as medical devices will be included in the second phase," an official in the know of developments told TOI.

In the first phase, these drugs will be made available to 800 select chemists, mostly across Delhi. However, the government plans to expand the reach to most metros by the end of the year.

The Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India (BPPI), the nodal agency under the department of pharmaceuticals (DoP) for implementing this project, has already floated the tender seeking application for supply of medicines for the programme.

The Indian pharmaceutical retail market, pegged at Rs 87,000 crore annually, is dominated by branded generic products, unlike developed markets like the US and Europe. In other words, while there are very few patented medicines sold in India, most of the medicines available in the market are branded products sold by private firms.

Pharmaceutical firms spend huge amounts in creating these brands. However, since prescription-based medicines cannot be promoted through advertisements, companies often push these brands through doctors and chemists. Consumers, who are often unable to make an informed choice for purchasing medicines, have to rely on the doctor's prescription or on chemists. The government's latest move providing an umbrella brand for generic drugs is aimed at enabling consumers to make that choice.

However, there are concerns on whether the government will be able to maintain and monitor quality of all products sold under this brand since they will be procured from different firms. Government officials say procurement norms and sampling will ensure quality control.

The government, along with BPPI, has held consultations with various stakeholders including pharmaceutical firms to ensure there is regular and adequate supply of medicines. The proposal has also been vetted by the doctor fraternity, bringing on board the Medical Council of India as well as the Indian Medical Association to ensure doctors prescribe Jan Aushadhi drugs.

"Initially, the government had apprehensions that doctors would not support such a move because it may hurt the private sector. However, we have ensured them full support if the quality of products is maintained," IMA secretary general K K Aggarwal said. Once the brand is rolled out, the government also plans to make it mandatory for public hospitals to prescribe it wherever possible, an official said.

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.