Proud of uttarakhand !!!! in ‪#‎upsc‬ 2015 final result

Proud of uttarakhand !!!! in ‪#‎upsc‬ 2015 final result
News Highlights
रुड़की की गजल भारद्वाज ने हासिल की 40वीं रैंक
बीरोंखाल की बंदना पोखरियाल को मिली 83वीं रैंक
उत्तरकाशी के नरेंद्र भंडारी को हासिल हुई 228वीं रैंक
देहरादून के गौतम थपलियाल ने पाया 378वां स्थान

संघ लोक सेवा आयोग की सिविल सेवा परीक्षाओं में आबादी के लिहाज से बेहद छोटे उत्तराखंड प्रदेश से बड़ी संख्या में होनहारों ने कामयाबी हासिल की है। रुड़की की गजल भारद्वाज 40वीं रैंक के साथ प्रदेश में टॉप किया है।
वहीं, पौड़ी के बीरोंखाल निवासी बंदना पोखरियाल ने 83वीं रैंक हासिल कर दूसरा स्थान हासिल किया। उत्तरकाशी के नरेंद्र भंडारी को ऑल इंडिया स्तर पर 228वीं मिली है, जबकि देहरादून के गौतम थपलियाल सहित कई और युवाओं को इस परीक्षा में शानदार सफलता हासिल हुई है।
मंगलवार को यूपीएससी का सिविल सेवा परिणाम प्रदेश के कई होनहारों के लिए मंगलकारी साबित हुआ। रुड़की के प्रीत विहार कालोनी की रहने वाली गजल भारद्वाज ने 40वीं रैंक हासिल की है।

A job for every Indian

A job for every Indian
The Labour Bureau has compiled statistics for job creation in labour-intensive sectors in the country each quarter since the 2008 global financial crisis. The latest figures show that 1.35 lakh jobs were created in 2015, the lowest figure by far of any year since then — lower than the 4.9 lakh new jobs in 2014 and 12.5 lakh in 2009. In fact, the last quarter of 2015 recorded job losses. Private surveys suggest that the services sector will hire more than manufacturing this year, but there is little to suggest that this will be sharp enough to gainfully employ the one crore Indians who enter the workforce annually. The latest job creation figures come as a sobering reality check for the NDA government, as increasing employment opportunities has been at the heart of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s economic plan. In the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign, he had repeatedly attacked the UPA government for failing to create enough jobs during its decade in office. In fact, the spectre of ‘jobless growth’ had been put in sharp relief since 2011, when official employment data (captured every five years) showed a deceleration in new salaried jobs, a dip in self-employment and a surge in casual work between 2004-05 and 2009-10. These were the boom years for the Indian economy. Annual economic growth has dipped somewhat since then, but the challenge for the country remains as stark: how to better its job creation for every percentage point of GDP growth, a ratio on which it significantly lags behind most other emerging economies.
A report outlining the NDA’s vision, Transforming India, released by the Department of Administrative Reforms last month, says 175 million new jobs could be created by 2032 if the economy grows by 10 per cent annually; the figure is 115 million if it grows by 7 per cent. To create jobs on such a scale, it proposes tax incentives and interest subsidies for firms creating jobs and some blue-sky interventions to invigorate sectors. For instance, negotiate free trade pacts with major markets such as the European Union and the U.S. to boost textiles, improve regional air connectivity for tourism, and so on. This year’s Budget offers to pay 8.33 per cent of the salary (as contribution for a pension scheme) for new employees getting formal sector jobs. But according to the Economic Survey, high statutory dues deducted from salaries in formal jobs force employers and employees to enter into informal contracts. Tinkering will not do; neither will piecemeal interventions in the form of incremental reforms in labour laws. The median age in the country is well short of 30, and along with the young entrants to the workforce there will be those seeking a shift from low-paying farm jobs. We need a holistic action plan that covers every base — one that includes a skilling and re-skilling programme to increase employability and productivity, incentives for smaller enterprises that absorb a greater number of workers, and the embedding of job generation in the massive infrastructure upgrade that India requires. Jobs must be the pivot for social and economic policy.

Compensatory Afforestation Fund bill passed to create special funds

Compensatory Afforestation Fund bill passed to create special funds
The bill paves the way for unlocking of nearly Rs.41,000 crore earmarked for forest land which is lying unspent, Javadekar said.
Lok Sabha has passed the much talked about Compensatory Afforestation Fund bill, 2015 that seeks to establish setting up of a National Compensatory Afforestation Fund and also a State Compensatory Afforestation Fund.

Thanking the members for their cooperation in passing the bill, Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar on Tuesday evening said it will be a historical legislation and will go a long way in ensuring countrywide afforestation programme.
Members cutting across party lines supported the bill.
The bill paves the way for unlocking of nearly Rs.41,000 crore earmarked for forest land which is lying unspent, Javadekar said.
The salient features of the afforestation programme will be people’s participation, social audit and there will not be any displacement, the minister said while replying to specific queries from Asaduddin Owaisi of All India Majlis—e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM).
“Besides the exotic plants, emphasis will be on native species,” Javadekar said.
The bill also ensures that the funds encourage compensatory afforestation. The national fund will receive 10 percent of it, and the states will receive the remaining 90 percent of the fund.
“These funds will be primarily spent on afforestation to compensate for loss of forest cover, regeneration of forest ecosystem, wildlife protection and infrastructure development,” he said.
However, Javadekar said the funds under the new law under the provisions of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund bill should not be the only forest budget for the states.
“The states must give their regular budget to forest (department). But this will be only an additional funding,” he said.
Stressing the importance of people’s participation in the afforestation programme, he said: “Wherever people’s participation is there, and wherever people’s livelihood is connected to the forest, they just don’t allow illegal destruction of forest.”
Among others, Pinaki Mishra of Biju Janata Dal also lauded the bill.
“Odisha is already doing very good in afforestation programme under the personal supervision of Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik. This bill only gives the efforts further boost,” Mishra said.
The bill was passed by voice vote and at the end of the process even the Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan appreciated the draft legislation passed unanimously with members from different parties making their positive contribution by way of suggestions to improve the system.

Atomic Material

Atomic Material

Radiation Sterilisation is a cold process that uses gamma radiation for sterilisation of Healthcare Products. Controlled gamma energy which is released by radioisotope such as Cobalt-60 is used for sterilisation. Cobalt-60 is most preferred radioisotope as it is readily available from single nuclear reaction in reactor and also cost effective. Gamma radiation is characterised by deep penetration and kills microorganism by destroying DNA structure. The process is suitable for Industrial scale sterilisation. Radiation dose of 25 kGy (2.5 Mrad) is officially accepted dose for sterilisation of healthcare products. Delivery of dose to the products is measured by dosimeter. Radiation sterilised products are acceptable by Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

Advantages and Benefits of Radiation Sterilization

(a) Products of any shape can be sterilised because powerful gamma rays can penetrate right through the package and the product.

(b) Being a cold process, heat sensitive plastic medical devices and pharmaceutical products can safely be sterilised.

(c) Flexibility in packaging, as the products can be packed individually in sealed bags and sterilised in the fully packaged form.

(d) Since sterilisation is effected after final packaging, product sterility is retained indefinitely provided the package is undamaged.

(e) Radiation Sterilisation enlarges the market for ready to use pre-packaged products. The process does not result into residual toxicity of any form in the product.

(f) Products sterilised by this process do not become radioactive and are safe for use.

(g) Presently out of 18 operating plants in Government/Semi-Government/Private/Co-operative sectors, around 13 are also engaged in sterilisation of medical products.

Major components of a Radiation Sterilisation Plant

(i) A source of gamma radiation (Cobalt-60)

(ii) A radiation processing cell (irradiation cell)

(iii) Product conveyors and control mechanisms

(iv) Safety devices and interlocks

A Gamma Radiation Processing Facility is licensed by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and Local Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

High energy Electron Beam (EB) and X-ray machines are also used nowadays for this purpose. The major difference in gamma radiation and EB lies in their penetration powers, where gamma radiations can penetrate deep inside the products the electron beams do not have as good penetration power.

Though X-ray have comparable penetration power to gamma radiation at suitable energy range but they are not yet very popular.

(b) Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT)/Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) has not carried out any impact assessment studies independently for Radiation Sterilisation of healthcare products.

(c) BRIT/DAE had setup a radiation sterilisation plant ‘ISOMED’ which is in operation since 1974 for sterilisation of medical products. Technology has been found to be effective, reliable and acceptable among users. Later two more Radiation Processing Plants one at BRIT, Vashi Complex, Navi Mumbai and other at Lasalgaon near Nashik were set up for radiation processing of food and allied products. Both these plants are operating and users of this radiation technology are regularly increasing. In view of this BRIT has not carried out any impact study independently. However, it is promoting setting up of commercial radiation processing plants and so far 15 such plants are commissioned in Government/Semi-Government/Private/Co-operative Sectors excluding 3 plants of BRIT/DAE. Thus, the use of this technology is found to be acceptable.

Economics needs a new paradigm

The aim must not be merely GDP growth, but more urgently, fair inclusion and environmental sustainability

India will be a $10 trillion dollar gross domestic product (GDP) economy by 2032, the government has announced. The concern is whether the growth will create enough jobs. So far, India has generated fewer jobs every percentage point increase in GDP than other countries have with less growth. The governor of the Reserve Bank of India has sparked a controversy by saying that high growth of GDP is not a sufficient measure of a good economy. Bernie Sanders has grabbed the imagination of young people in the US with his vision of a “moral economy” in which the fruits of growth reach everyone, not only the top 1%. Around the world, GlobeScan reports, two-thirds of citizens no longer believe their country’s GDP reflects their well-being. Even the venerable The Economist has declared that GDP is an increasingly poor gauge of well-being and it is time for a new approach.

In his classic treatise, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn explains why paradigms are hard to change. In each science, whether physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy, a core idea is adopted by its community, and all its experiments and theories are built around this idea. There are long periods of what Kuhn calls ‘normal’ science during which it is heresy to challenge this core idea. Anyone who does is ostracized by the scientific community. Revolutions occur, he explains, when after many decades of accumulation of contrarian evidence, this idea is let go off and a new one replaces it. The process of learning of new paradigms must go along with the unlearning of old ones. For example, acceptance that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe, that matter has wave-like properties and that species evolve, required the letting-go of core beliefs to the contrary. Unlearning is not easy because vested interests in the established order will resist changes that diminish their importance. Thus, unlearning of a scientific paradigm often creates upheavals, not only within the scientific community, but in the wider body politic too when the state and the church are aligned with the established scientific order.

The science of economics is experiencing the pains of a paradigm shift. Mainstream economists failed to predict the recent global economic crisis. Now, they are searching for a “new normal”. James Galbraith says in The End of Normal: The Great Crisis and the Future of Growth that economists have redefined human experience into a special language limited to concepts that could be dealt with inside their established model. A core idea of the prevalent paradigm of economics is: humans are rational, self-interested beings. Another core idea driving economic policies is: markets must be made free to enable self-interested individuals and corporations to fulfil their material aspirations and produce more economic growth. Galbraith says, “Any refusal to shed the larger perspective—a stubborn insistence on bringing a broader set of facts or a different range of theory to bear—identifies one as ‘not an economist’. In this way, economists need only talk to one another. Enclosed carefully in their monastery, they can speak their code, establish their status rankings and hierarchies, and persuade themselves and one another of their intellectual and professional merit.” Thus, echoing Kuhn, Galbraith describes symptoms of a science stuck in an old normal.

Scientific revolutions change scientific paradigms. Political revolutions are often required to change economic paradigms. Karl Marx’s Das Kapital stirred revolutions in many countries in the 20th century. The human costs of those revolutions has made people wary of revolutionary political change as a means for changing the economic order. However, a safer option may not bring about the paradigm change required. This was the essence of the great debate between two political thought leaders, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, in the 18th century about the courses of the American and French revolutions. Burke advocated that some parts of the established order must be preserved to prevent chaos while making big changes. Paine countered that those pieces of the established order would protect their vested interests and prevent the paradigm change required.

That human beings have emotions, that they cherish many traditions of their communities, that they value their identities, that they have many aspirations that cannot be accounted in monetary terms, have become challenges for the dominant paradigm of economics. Such non-material values are difficult to include in a monetary measure of the economy. This is the conceptual challenge for economists. The challenge for economic policy reform, which Sanders points out, is that beneficiaries of the established paradigm will not let go.

The need for a new paradigm of economic policies, whose overriding aim must not be merely more GDP growth, but more urgently, fair inclusion in growth and environmental sustainability, is being realized around the world, even by economists. India is one of the most water-stressed countries; its cities the most polluted; its need for jobs for its huge population of youth the greatest. Leaders and their economic advisers have to urgently let go of the old paradigm of economics, and develop and apply a new one.

For India to realize its aspirations to be a global leader in the 21st century, it must lead the development of a new, democratic and inclusive, and sustainable, paradigm of economic management. To begin with, its leaders must report to citizens their plans and progress with a better scorecard than the growth of GDP.

Banks Board Bureau: Old wine in a new bottle?

The problem of bad loans, raising capital, and an overhaul of the banking sector cannot be done by merely asking the bureau to select bankers for top jobs

Early April, after the first meeting of the Banks Board Bureau at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) central office in Mumbai, minister of state for finance Jayant Sinha tweeted: “excellent discussions at the Banks Board Bureau meeting today”. Subsequently, it held another meeting, but we still don’t know the exact terms of reference for this bureau.

A government release had earlier said that the bureau was being set up to improve the governance of public sector banks. It would recommend for selection the heads of public sector banks and financial institutions and help banks in developing strategies and capital-raising plans.

Vinod Rai, a former comptroller and auditor general of India, is the chairman of the bureau. Its members include Anil K. Khandelwal, a former chairman of Bank of Baroda; H.N. Sinor, a former joint managing director of ICICI Bank Ltd, who also headed two national lobbies of banks and mutual funds; and Roopa Kudva, a former managing director of rating company Crisil Ltd and now managing director of Omidyar Network India Advisors, a US-based philanthropic investment firm. Then, there are three so-called ex officio members—R. Gandhi, a deputy governor of the RBI; Anjuly Chib Duggal, secretary, department of financial services, in the ministry of finance; and Ameising Luikham, secretary, department of public enterprises.

Saddled with a large pile of bad assets, public sector banks need dollops of capital. They also need to focus on sharpening efficiency and strengthening corporate governance. How will the board help banks in developing strategies and raising capital? I am sure the competent members of the board will pick the right candidates for the top jobs at these banks, but what about the other directors on the board? If there is no change in the constitution of the board and the bureau does not have any say in the selection of independent directors, it will be difficult to help these banks develop strategies and raise capital as many directors on the boards of various banks neither understand strategy nor do they lend credibility to their institutions.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley announced in August the plan to set up the bureau as part of the Indradhanush programme to revamp state-run banks. It was expected that the bureau would help create a holding company for the government’s stakes in the public sector banks and facilitate consolidation in the sector, something which the government has been pushing for even as the banking regulator is planning to open up the sector further and exploring options of allowing different types of banks to set up shops.

A committee set up by the RBI to review the governance of bank boards, headed by former chairman and managing director of Axis Bank Ltd P.J. Nayak, in May 2014 had suggested the formation of the bureau as a first stage in a three-phase process to empower the boards of public sector banks. In the run-up to the incorporation of a Bank Investment Company as an intermediate holding company for these banks, the bureau would advise on all board appointments, including the whole-time directors and the top bank management, to “professionalize and depoliticize” the appointment process. The members of the bureau would have a tenure of three years or until powers are passed on to the investment company, whichever is shorter, and their remuneration would at least be on a par with the senior bank chiefs, the panel had recommended.

The investment company can be set up only after legislative changes. For instance, the Bank Nationalisation Acts of 1970 and 1980 and the SBI Act and the SBI (Subsidiary Banks) Act need to be repealed and all banks need to be incorporated under the Companies Act ahead of this. Indeed, this is a long-drawn process, but by keeping mum on this and selectively picking only the suggestion of setting up the bureau, what the government is doing is essentially replacing the appointments committee with the bureau.

After the CBI found that the appointment of Syndicate Bank’s former chairman and managing director S.K. Jain was not appropriate (following his arrest for accepting a bribe and being sacked in September 2014), the government scrapped the selection of heads of quite a few public sector banks and overhauled the entire selection process. It constituted three screening committees of two members each—a deputy governor of RBI, financial services secretary and four independent experts. In the second stage, the recommendations of these committees were to be screened by an appointment board, headed by the RBI governor.

The bureau is nothing but pouring old wine in a new bottle as there is no change in its constituents: An RBI deputy governor, two bureaucrats and four external experts—Rai, Khandelwal, Sinor and Kudva.

The gross non-performing assets (NPAs) of the state-run banks rose by about Rs.1.3 trillion in the December quarter toRs.3.93 trillion and those of all publicly traded banks were to the tune of Rs.4.38 trillion. After provisions, net NPAs of the listed banks crossed Rs.2.5 trillion in December, and state-run banks accounted for more than 90% of this. Fifteen Indian banks in December had at least 7% and up to 12.64% gross NPAs and 14 of them are in the public sector. The situation will take a turn for the worse once public sector banks announce their March-quarter earnings.

It will not be easy to raise capital unless the government plans to overhaul the way public sector banks operate and this cannot be done by merely asking the bureau to select bankers for the top jobs. The government must clarify whether it is an intermediate step towards setting up the investment company, and if it is, then the scope of work must be widened to include the appointment of independent directors of the board, as envisaged by the Nayak committee. It also must look at the tenure of the managing director and the chief executive and the compensation of senior bankers, among other things. Finally, the process of appointment must also change.

Ranking India’s states on consumption

NSSO surveys paint a rather different picture from the conventional narrative of growth in the states

Which state has the highest consumption per capita? Consumption is, after all, one of the chief measures of well-being. And which states have shown the highest increase in per capita consumption? The accompanying charts tell the story for selected major states. The data have been taken from the National Sample Survey Office’s (NSSO’s) Household Consumer Expenditure Surveys for 2003 and 2011-12.

Click here for enlarge

The chart shows that, in 2011-12, rural Kerala had the highest per capita consumption per month among rural areas. At Rs.2,668 per month, it was far above the All-India rural average of Rs.1,430 and well above that of Punjab, which was the next highest. There are no surprises among the laggards—these include the usual suspects Odisha, Jharkhand and Bihar.

More interesting, though, is the change from 2003. In that year, too, the numero uno in rural consumption was Kerala, followed by Punjab. Rural Haryana, at No. 3, was at the same rank in both 2003 and 2011-12. But rural Gujarat, which was the fourth from the top in consumption in 2003, slipped to a lowly No. 9 among the selected states. On the other hand, rural Andhra Pradesh, which was at No. 6 in 2003, improved its rank to No. 4 in 2011-12. Both rural Rajasthan and rural Karnataka also saw good growth in consumption.

What about urban India? The 2011-12 survey showed that urban Haryana topped the charts, no doubt aided by the growth of Gurgaon and other areas near Delhi. Among the selected states, urban Haryana improved its rank from No. 4 in 2003 to No. 1 in 2011-12. Urban Kerala, the top consumption rank holder in 2003, was pushed to second place. Maharashtra retained its No. 3 position. Urban Punjab however, slipped in the rankings. Urban consumption in Gujarat in 2011-12 slipped below the all-India average. Indeed, average urban consumption in Gujarat fell below that of West Bengal.

To be sure, the consumption figures also include the effect of local inflation and consumption patterns, but we have excluded the north-eastern states and the hill states for that reason. The results for Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh need to be adjusted for the fact that their 2003 figures included Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh, respectively.

The results show tepid improvement in consumption in Assam and Jharkhand. Bihar, on the other hand and in keeping with other data, shows a lot of improvement. Among the richer states, Punjab has slipped badly. Consumption growth in Gujarat has been nothing to write home about. Consumption growth in Karnataka has been high. Rajasthan, too, has done well. And, perhaps, Kerala’s high consumption rank owes a lot to remittances.

So, is there an Andhra or Tamil Nadu model of rural growth then? Or a Karnataka or Haryana model of urban growth? What’s interesting is that the NSSO surveys paint a rather different picture from the conventional narrative of growth in the states.