India remains a bright spot in IMF’s global economic forecast

IMF retained India’s growth forecast for 2016-17 at 7.5% but lowered global growth forecast to 3.2% in 2016

India continues to remain a bright spot in the otherwise bleak global economic forecast of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). India will be the fastest growing major economy in 2016-17 growing at 7.5%, ahead of China, at a time when global growth is facing increasing downside risks, as per the World Economic outlook released by the IMF.

The April 2016 World Economic outlook titled ‘Too slow for too long’ retained India’s growth forecast while lowering global growth projections pointing out that volatility in financial markets and non-economic risks posed by migration and terrorism are increasing risks of a derailed recovery.

The world economy will grow at 3.2% in 2016 and 3.5% in 2017, IMF said, lowering its earlier projection by 0.2 and 0.1 percentage points respectively. It also marginally increased its growth projections by 0.2% percentage points for China to 6.5% and 6.2% in 2016 and 2017 respectively citing resilient domestic demand.

“Global growth continues, but at an increasingly disappointing pace that leaves the world economy more exposed to negative risks. Growth has been too slow for too long,” said Maurice Obstfeld, economic counsellor at the IMF.

“With its downside possibilities, the current diminished outlook calls for an immediate, proactive response. To repeat: there is no longer much room for error. But by clearly recognizing the risks they jointly face and acting together to prepare for them, national policymakers can bolster confidence, support growth, and guard more effectively against the risk of a derailed recovery,” he said.

IMF said global growth will strengthen from 2017 aided by the gradual increase in the global weight of fast-growing countries such as China and India.

India’s growth will continue to be driven by private consumption, which has benefited from lower energy prices and higher real incomes, IMF said, adding that “With the revival of sentiment and pickup in industrial activity, a recovery of private investment is expected to further strengthen growth.”

India expects to grow in a wide range of 7-7.75% in 2016-17 as against a projected 7.6% growth in 2015-16.

IMF, however, flagged the slowing trade growth as one of the risk factors to growth.

“Growth in China and India has been broadly in line with projections, but trade growth has slowed down noticeably. The trade slowdown is related to the decline in investment growth across emerging market economies, which reflects rebalancing in China but also the sharp scaling down of investment in commodity exporters, particularly those facing difficult macroeconomic conditions,” it said.

Though India has benefitted from falling global oil prices given its status as a net importer of crude oil, its trade balance has not improved much, given that Indian exports have been contracting for 15 consecutive months.

IMF stressed the need for India to continue with fiscal consolidation through revenue reforms and further reduction in subsidies. “Sustaining strong growth over the medium term will require labour market reforms and dismantling of infrastructure bottlenecks, especially in the power sector,” it added.

IMF said India’s inflation based on the consumer price index is projected to be around 5.3% in 2016 though there are upside risks like an unfavourable monsoon and expected public sector wage increase consequent to the recommendations of the seventh pay commission.

“In India, lower commodity prices, a range of supply-side measures, and a relatively tight monetary stance have resulted in a faster-than-expected fall in inflation, making room for nominal interest rate cuts, but upside risks to inflation could necessitate a tightening of monetary policy,” it said.

IMF’s growth predictions are largely in line with projections made by other global agencies. Last month, Asian Development Bank, in its annual outlook report said India will grow at 7.4% in 2016-17, marginally lower than the 7.6% in 2015-16. Global rating agency Fitch was more optimistic about India’s growth prospects, projecting a 7.7% growth in 2016-17.

India, US agree ‘in principle’ to sign logistics support pact

Both nations seek to initiate discussions on submarine safety, anti-submarine warfare and maritime security

 India and the United States on Tuesday agreed to ramp up defence ties, agreeing “in principle” to sign a key agreement that will give the two nations access to logistics support from each other besides refuelling and berthing facilities.

The Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) will be concluded “in the coming months,” defence minister Manohar Parrikar told reporters in New Delhi at a joint press conference with visiting US defence secretary Ashton Carter.

The US has been keen that India signs the LSA as well as the two other pacts that allows the two militaries to work in closer coordination with each other.

“We have agreed in principle that all the issues are resolved,” Carter said. India was previously wary that the logistics pact would make it seem align closer to the US and undermine its traditional autonomy but Indian officials said India’s concerns had been discussed with the US.

The two sides also announced the launch of two dialogues—one between the two navies on submarine safety and anti-submarine warfare and the other a maritime security dialogue between officials of the defence and foreign ministries of the two countries.

Carter added that the two countries would “soon” conclude a commercial shipping information exchange agreement.

The forging of closer India-US defence ties comes amid attempts by both countries to counter a rising China.

According to a US department of defense (DoD) statement ahead of Carter’s arrival in India on Sunday, one of the aims of the US defence secretary’s visit to India and then the Philippines—is to advance the solidification of the US’ rebalancing towards the region.

The US’ rebalancing towards Asia, announced in 2011, means assigning higher priority and more political, economic and security resources to the Asia-Pacific region because of its dynamism and the increased assertiveness of China, watched warily by many countries in the region.

It includes forging stronger relationships with allies like Australia and partners like India and Indonesia, a more extensive and structured relationship with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), drawing these countries into the US’ economic sphere of influence, as well as maintaining a stable relationship with China.

“Secretary Carter and defence minister Parrikar reaffirmed the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, including in the South China Sea. They vowed their support for a rules-based order and regional security architecture conducive to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean, and emphasized their commitment to working together and with other nations to ensure the security and stability that have been beneficial to the Asia-Pacific for decades,” a joint statement issued at the end of Carter’s visit said.

The India-US statement came on a day when China expressed anger at the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies opposing “any intimidating coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions” in the East and South China Seas.

China claims almost the entire South China Sea and is building islands on reefs to bolster its claims. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims to parts of the waters, through which an estimated $5 trillion in trade is shipped every year.

According to Parrikar, a “stronger India-US partnership will promote peace, stability and progress in our region and the world.”

On the bilateral front, Parrikar said the two countries had agreed to take forward discussions under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) between the two countries “more aggressively” in areas like jet engine technology. “We will also continue our very useful and productive discussions on cooperation...on aircraft carriers.”

In his remarks, Carter said India and the US had agreed to two new projects under the DTTI. These were the Digital Helmet Mounted Displays and the Joint Biological Tactical Detection System, the joint statement said.

“Both sides agreed to encourage their respective defence industries to develop new partnerships in the pursuit of a range of cutting-edge projects. In support of Make in India, the United States shared two proposals to bolster India’s suite of fighter aircraft for consideration of the government of India,” it added.

India has been keen establishing a fighter production line under the Make in India programme. India has been in favour of the F/A-18 Super Hornets manufactured by Boeing rather than the F-16s manufactured by Lockheed Martin. This comes against the backdrop of the Indian Air Force looking for replacements for its ageing fleet. India requires 45 fighter squadrons to counter a “two-front threat,” but the air force has only about 30 active fighter units.

The growing tribe of think tanks in India

The quality of output and influence in policymaking have been disappointing

In order to give a flavour of how important think tanks in Washington DC have been to the policymakers, Peter W. Singer, an American political scientist, once wrote: “...when President Reagan took office in 1981, he quickly gave every member of his cabinet an 1,100-page book from the Heritage Foundation, Mandate for Leadership, that provided an outline for conservative principles he wished to enact. Of its 2,000 recommendations, roughly 60% came to fruition— ‘which is why Mr. Reagan’s tenure was 60 percent successful,’ leading conservative William F. Buckley Jr. later quipped.” The think tanks in India are nowhere near that influential. But their numbers are growing. Last week, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) opened its sixth international centre in New Delhi.

An annual compilation done by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania pegged the number of think tanks in India at 192 and 280 in its 2014 and 2015 versions, respectively. With this rapid surge, India has leapfrogged Germany to become the country with the fourth highest number of think tanks, behind the UK (288), China (435) and the US (1,835). The growing numbers notwithstanding, the quality of output and level of influence in policymaking—the two are not entirely unrelated—have been underwhelming. In the TTCSP rankings of 2015, only one—Centre for Civil Society—found a place in the top 100. Another five figured in the top 150.

The “overarching reason” for the poor performance of Indian think tanks, argue Amitabh Mattoo and Rory Medcalf in a chapter on think tanks and universities in the recently compiled The Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy, “has been government’s determination, particularly within its powerful bureaucracy, to jealously hold the policy reins.” The lack of funding from sources other than government has also been a major problem.

The government-funded think tanks are not seen as objective enough and the rest do not find enough resources to invest in quality people and peripatetic projects. Of late, the sources of funding have diversified with the arrival of foreign private foundations such as Ford Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Indian corporate groups have also made a late appearance. Another healthy recent trend has been top foreign think tanks like Brookings Institution and CEIP opening centres in India.

The Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), the oldest Indian think tank, was set up in 1943. Most of the early think tanks had some level of government involvement. ICWA, for instance, is answerable to a governing body headed by the vice-president of India and includes the minister of external affairs among its members. The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) came about in 1956 as a public-private partnership; the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, set up in 1965, is funded by the ministry of defence; and the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy was jointly established by the ministry of finance, the Planning Commission, several state governments and academicians in 1976. According to a 2014 study by James G. McGann of TTCSP, more than 45% of the think tanks now are independent and autonomous. This is not to say that these institutes do not avail funds from the government for different kinds of projects and collaborative activities.

Apart from issues of quality and funding, the skewed geographical spread is also an area of concern. Capital cities tend to attract think tanks for entirely known reasons. In the US, DC alone houses close to 400 think tanks, but this is less than 22% of the total number in the country. Other states such as Massachusetts, California, New York and Virginia host more than 100 think tanks each. In India, however, Delhi accounts for—according to McGann—more than 42% of the think tanks in India. As the states now account for more than half the total government expenditure in India, the need for a greater number of think tanks—and of a better quality—in states cannot be overstated.

While a few good institutions have cropped up outside Delhi, a lot more needs to be done. This should not just be left to the state governments; policy entrepreneurs, private investors, foundations and business groups should also set their eyes on state capitals and other important urban centres across India.

Why have Indian think tanks not been able to influence government policy? 

Rebooting India’s agricultural policy

The efforts of the government in revamping the crop insurance and land titling schemes are long-term solutions which will take time to bear results

The agricultural sector is facing its worst moment in the last three decades. The last time India saw such distress caused by back-to-back deficient rains was during the drought of 1986-87 and 1987-88. The severity of the situation is evident from the stories of migration and severe water crisis in Maharashtra and elsewhere. After the collapse in international prices for major agricultural commodities since late 2014, the drought has only aggravated the crisis in agriculture.

While the government cannot be blamed for any of these, its response to both these shocks has been inadequate in most cases. In some cases, the delay in response has certainly aggravated the crisis. This is true of the response to the collapse of commodity prices, but even the response to the drought this year has left much to be desired. Not only was the government aware of the impending drought but it also knew that this is the second consecutive drought, which would require relief efforts on a scale larger than a normal drought.

While the government recognized the severity of the situation after protests by states, most states have not been given their share of the drought relief fund that was promised by the central government.

Some of this was also evident in the Union budget, with the government claiming to increase spending on agriculture. Unfortunately, the ambitious claim of doubling farm income by 2022 was not matched by the corresponding amount of money. Excluding the reclassification of Rs.15,000 crore of interest subvention on short-term credit, which was reflected in the budget until this year, the actual increase in the budget for the agricultural sector was a modest 27% against a claim of 127% by the finance minister in the 2016 budget.

The efforts of the government in revamping the crop insurance and land titling schemes are long-term solutions which will take time to bear results.

However, the real problem with the policy of this government on agriculture is not just the financial allocation, which remains inadequate given the enormity of the situation, but also the lack of a coherent policy for achieving the objective of doubling farm income. While there has not been a clear road map to revive agriculture, some idea of the government’s vision is available from a recent NITI Aayog paper . Although the paper reiterates some old policy directions, it lacks a clear understanding of the problems facing Indian agriculture.

The reason some of the old prescriptions are less relevant in the current context lies in the changing nature of agricultural production, which has seen a rising share of horticulture, floriculture and livestock. Although grown in an area smaller than food grains, horticulture production is now higher than the total output of the food-grain sector. It now accounts for almost one-third of total agricultural gross domestic product (GDP). So is the case of livestock and dairy, which have seen rapid growth in recent years.

Not only are these more vulnerable to weather shocks but they also require a different kind of support, including marketing and processing support, from what traditional agriculture need. These are also more vulnerable to price fluctuations, as has been witnessed recently, than traditional crops such as food grains.

Precisely because of the changing nature of agricultural production, traditional methods of raising productivity such as increasing input-use efficiency are less relevant today. What is required is to insulate these farmers not only from the risk and vulnerability which arise from production-related factors such as weather but also from risks in the price and output market.

Incidentally, most of the farmers (more than 80%) engaged in production of these crops are small and marginal farmers with little support from traditional agricultural policies such as insurance, marketing infrastructure, support prices and subsidies. Most of our agricultural policies are geared towards supporting and protecting farmers in traditional agriculture, including drought relief programmes.

Secondly, years of neglect of natural resource management have put enormous stress on the land and water resources of the agricultural sector. In this context, traditional approaches of input intensification are now yielding limited returns—in some cases, negative returns. The focus of the agricultural strategy has to move towards developing new technologies, agricultural practices and crop varieties which are not only less resource-intensive but also environment-friendly.

Finally, a sustainable agricultural policy requires efforts to not only support and protect farmers from the vagaries of the monsoon and market forces but also to create an enabling institutional framework. The neglect of agricultural universities, extension services and cooperative institutions has led to a collapse of the enabling institutional structure critical to development of sustainable agriculture which supports small and marginal farmers.

While most of these require a holistic approach to reviving agriculture in the long run, the crisis in the short run also requires efforts to augment the income of farmers suffering from the drought. This not only requires supporting and strengthening livelihood programmes and safety nets such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) but also implementing the much-delayed National Food Security Act.

While wholesale inflation continues to be low, the pressures of food inflation, particularly on prices of vegetables, pulses and oilseeds are already beyond the comfortable zone.

The current crisis in agriculture has forced the government to respond to the challenges facing the agricultural sector. The government should not only respond to the immediate challenges facing the farmer and the agricultural sector but also reboot the agricultural policy to create an ecosystem for the future of Indian agriculture. The ambition of doubling the farmer’s income in the next six years may be difficult to achieve but is not impossible.

India aims to achieve Defence Technological Sovereignty

India aims to achieve Defence Technological Sovereignty 

India has the third largest armed forces with an annual budget of around $ 40 Billion. 40 % of it is for capital acquisition.  The budget is also growing to take care of the needs of the armed forces.

India also happens to be one of the largest importers of Defence goods.  The nation aspires to change this situation. While ensuring that the Defence services always get the best quality equipment, India aims to achieve substantial self reliance and indigenization in Defence equipment technology.

Outlining the roadmap to bold reforms in the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), Defence Minister Shri Manohar Parrikar announced the salient features of the new DPP during the 9^th edition of DEFEXPO 2016, a biennial exhibition on Land, Naval & Internal Homeland and Security Systems Exhibition, which was held in South Goa this year. Participation from 47 countries is a clear indicator of India’s growing prominence and stature internationally; this year’s exhibition was the largest Defexpo held till to date.  In all, over 1000 companies, both foreign and Indian participated in the exhibition this year.

Shri. Manohar Parrikar said that the Indian-Designed Developed and Manufactured (IDDM) category will have the topmost priority now. Further simplification of procedure, reduced timelines, quick decision-making, transparency are added features of the new DPP.

Shri. Parrikar while answering a question on the importance of research and development said, “R&D is very close to my heart. Being an engineer myself I know that we are on the right path. Technology is changing almost every year and India is one country which has a huge pool of people in engineering and technology who can convert many defence requirements into actual production. Under the supervision of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), we have also been working with many academic institutions like the IITs, IISCs and NITs to take this cause to new heights”.   

The Raksha Mantri added, “This DPP, I believe, can actually push the agenda of ‘Make in India’ and India’s target of achieving major successes in creating a defence industry network for its own need as well as for exports”.

‘Make in India’ is an initiative launched by the Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi to encourage multi-national, as well as national companies to manufacture their products in India. The major objective behind the initiative is to focus on job creation and skill enhancement in 25 sectors of the economy, including defence manufacturing.

Talking about the steps that the Government of India has been taking in furthering the cause, Secretary (Defence Production), Ministry of Defence, Shri. Ashok Gupta in an exclusive interview said that during 2014-15 and 2015-16, 66 capital procurement cases which Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) has approved   at an estimated cost of Rs.1.98 lakh crore, 88 % of these cases by value have been approved under Buy Indian and Buy & Make Indian categories which means that request for proposals will be issued to the Indian vendors and they either on their own or in collaboration with the foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) will supply these items.   This is going to create a huge domestic demand.   This implies that if foreign OEMs want to leverage the Indian demand, the only route available is to enter into collaboration with Indian vendors.

Secretary (DP) also outlined several steps which have been taken in the last 2 years in order to promote the entry of private sector into Defence manufacturing :

1.         The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy for the Defence sector has been revised.  Now, the composite foreign investment up to 49 % is allowed under automatic route and beyond 49 % also with the approval of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).  Several conditions attached to the policy have also been removed to make the process simpler.

2.         In order to reduce the entry barrier, the Defence products list for the purpose of issuing industrial licenses (ILs) under IDR Act has been revised and most of the components, parts, sub-systems testing equipments, production equipments have been removed from the list.

3.         Level-playing field has been provided to Indian Private Sector. Public Sector no longer enjoys the special status in terms of excise and custom duty levies.

4.         To create a level - playing field between the Indian and foreign industry, the Exchange Rate Variation (ERV) protection has been allowed on foreign exchange components to all Indian companies, including private companies in all categories of capital acquisitions.

5.         Since domestic industry cannot survive purely on domestic demand, the entire procedure for exports has been streamlined.   Now NOCs for exports are issued online.   The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for export of military stores has been revised and put on the website. Under the revised SOP, the requirement of End User Certificate (EUC) to be countersigned / stamped by the Government authorities has been done away with, for the export of parts, components, sub-systems etc.

6.         For the first time, a specific Defence Export Strategy has been formulated and put in public domain. The strategy outlines specific initiatives to be taken by the Government for encouraging the export of Defence items.

7.         The provision of ‘Make’ category of capital acquisition is a vital pillar for realizing the vision of the ’Make in India’ initiative. ‘Make’ procedure has been restructured and a number of  provisions have been made to incentivize the industry e.g. increasing the share  of Government funding, full reimbursement  incase of foreclosure and non  issue of RFP (Request for Proposal) and giving preference to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in smaller projects.  These ‘Make’ projects will not only help in creating eco-system  in terms of vendor development but also kick-start race for development and/or technology acquisition by the industry, which will help the Defence manufacturing in the long run.   Such indigenously developed systems will also be available for export to establish India as a global Player in Defence market.

8.         Offsets (Liability of foreign OEMs to invest certain percentage of the contract value in manufacturing industry in India to offset a foreign exchange payment) play an important role in development of domestic industry and facilitating it to become part of global supply chain. Offset implementation has been one of major issues with foreign OEMs as far as doing business in India is concerned. We have undertaken the task of significantly overhauling the guidelines. The requirement of prescribing Indian Offset Partners and components for offset discharge for the entire period of contract, at the time of signing of contract, has been done away with.  One of the major demands of the industry has been to re-instate the provision of services for discharge of offsets. This also has been done.

“With these measures in place, coupled with large pool of cost effective human resource,  this is the best time to invest in India.  I am also seeing things happening on ground. Of late, there is a marked increase in the issue of licenses and exports are also going up”, said Secretary (Defence Production). Shri. Ashok Gupta. He added, “The Goverment is fully committed and geared up for further changes required in policy, processes and promotional measures for the industry.   Therefore, it is now for the industry to make the best use of this opportunity by investing in Defence Sector”.

3rd Asia Ministerial Conference on Tiger Conservation

3rd Asia Ministerial Conference on Tiger Conservation

Prime Minister Modi will inaugurate the three-day 3rd Asia Ministerial Conference on Tiger Conservation in New Delhi tomorrow.

More than 700 tiger experts, scientists, managers, donors and other stakeholders are gathering to discuss issues related to tiger conservation.

Ministers and government officials from all Tiger Range Countries, namely Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, India, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Russian Federation, Thailand, Vietnam, besides Kyrgyz Republic and Kazakhstan, having ranges of Snow Leopard are participating in the conference.

MoS for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Prakash Javadekar, said that government have allotted Rs. 380 crore to the Project Tiger in the current fiscal year, which is an all-time high and indicates that the Government of India is committed to the conservation of our national animal, Tiger.

At the Global Tiger Summit at St. Petersburg held in 2010, range countries committed to double the tiger number by 2022 and adopted the Global/National Tiger Recovery Programme.

President Shri Pranab Mukherjee Addresses 7th Public Sector Day Function

President Shri Pranab Mukherjee Addresses 7th Public Sector Day Function

 Gives away Scope Excellence Awards

To face the challenges of a Globally Integrated Economy, It is Equally Essential that our CPSES Collaborate and pool their resources to face and overcome Competition-Pranab Mukherjee

President Shri Pranab Mukherjee today addressed the 7^th Public Sector Day and   gave away SCOPE Excellence Awards in a function jointly organized by Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) and Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) here in New Delhi. On this occasion he also addressed the Chief Executives of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs). The President expressed his happiness on being with the audience. He thanked the Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (SCOPE) and Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) for their meticulous organization of this function every year since its inception in 2010. He also   complimented DPE and SCOPE for recognizing Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) for the efforts put in by them and their achievements in inculcating leadership qualities. It is also a matter of satisfaction that the role of women in CPSEs is being recognized and acknowledged through presentation of a special citation for Outstanding Woman Manager in CPSEs.

Shri Pranab Mukherjee said the contribution of the Indian Public Sector in ensuring balanced economic and industrial development cannot be over emphasized. The public sector has grown exponentially since independence in all metrics of measurement be it in terms of numbers, diversification, volume of investment and global presence. These achievements become even more significant when viewed in the backdrop of lack of capital and entrepreneurship skills in early years of post-independent India, reluctance of private players to set up capital intensive industries having a long gestation period and the need for generating employment and ensuring balanced socio-economic and regional development of the country. It is a truism that at most times, early on, the profit motive was eschewed in preference to the broader objective of overall societal development.

SCOPE EXCELLENCE AWARDS 2013-14

INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORY

Institutional Category I (Maharatna/ Navratna PSEs)

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Institutional Category II (Miniratna I & II PSEs)

SJVN Limited

THDC India Limited

Institutional Category III (Other Profit Making PSEs)

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd

NTPC-SAIL Power Company Pvt. Ltd (Commendation Certificate)

Special Institutional Category (Turnaround)

BEML Limited

INDIVIDUAL CATEGORY

Individual Leadership Category- I (Maharatna/ Navratna PSEs)

Ms. Nishi Vasudeva, Former CMD, HPCL

Mr.  S. Varadarajan, CMD, BPCL

Individual Leadership Category- II (Miniratna I & II PSEs)

Mr. R. K. Gupta, CMD, WAPCOS Limited

Outstanding Women Manager In PSEs

Mr.Vartika Shukla, ED, EIL

RECIPIENTS OF SCOPE EXCELLENCE AWARDS 2011-12

INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORY

Institutional Category I (Maharatna/ Navratna PSEs)

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited (Commendation Certificate)

Institutional Category II (Miniratna I & II PSEs)

WAPCOS Limited

THDC India Limited (Commendation Cerfificate)

Institutional Category III (Other Profit Making PSEs)

NTPC- SAIL Power Company Pvt. Ltd

Special Institutional Category (Turnaround)

National Seeds Corporation Limited

Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India

RECIPIENTS OF SCOPE EXCELLENCE AWARDS 2010-11

INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORY

Institutional Category I (Maharatna/ Navratna PSEs)

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited

GAIL (India) Limited

Institutional Category II (Miniratna I & II PSEs)

Goa Shipyard Limited

SJVN Limited (Commendation Certificate)

Institutional Category III

Petronet LNG Limited

Special Institutional Category (Turnaround)

Cement Corporation of India Limited