11 April 2017

Pulitzer Prize: ‘Daily News’, ‘ProPublica’ win public service award, ‘NYT’ leads with 3

Pulitzer Prize: ‘Daily News’, ‘ProPublica’ win public service award, ‘NYT’ leads with 3

Daily News and ProPublica garnered the coveted public service Pulitzer Prize for uncovering abuse of eviction rules that drove many minority families from their homes
The New York Daily News and ProPublica garnered the coveted Pulitzer Prize for public service for uncovering abuse of eviction rules by police that drove many poor minority families from their homes.
The New York Times led all news outlets with three Pulitzers for international reporting, feature writing and breaking news photography. For national reporting, David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post won a Pulitzer for his coverage of the Donald Trump campaign. For investigative reporting, Eric Eyre of the Charleston Gazette-Mail in Charleston, West Virginia, was awarded for exposing a local opioid crisis.
In the Trump era, big newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post are building vital digital businesses to fend off challenges from tech platforms like Facebook and Google that are taking advertising sales from newspapers globally. The president has railed against both news outlets, accusing them of unfair news coverage of him. But those criticisms, often in the form of early-morning tweets, amount to free advertising and have helped feed the online subscription surge.
At the same time, local papers like the Charleston Gazette-Mail continue to struggle, putting at risk valuable local investigative reporting like Eric Eyre’s prize-winning work.
For breaking news, the staff of the East Bay Times in Oakland, California, won for its coverage of the “Ghost Ship” fire that killed 36 people at a warehouse party, and the city’s failure to take actions that might have prevented it.
The Salt Lake Tribune staff earned the local reporting prize for revealing the “perverse, punitive and cruel treatment” given to sexual assault victims at Brigham Young University, one of Utah’s most powerful institutions.
Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism announced the 101st annual Pulitzer Prizes Monday in New York. A board of editors, publishers, writers and educators voted on 21 categories of journalism, letters, drama, poetry and music. Winners in all categories except public service receive $15,000. The public-service prize, awarded to an American news organization, is a gold medal.
In recent years, the board has expanded eligibility for five categories—investigative reporting, feature writing, international reporting, criticism and editorial cartooning—to include many online and print magazines that publish at least weekly. The board also changed its rules on partnerships, letting news organizations nominate journalists who work at partnering outlets even if those groups aren’t eligible to compete. 

India’s wasted tourism potential

India’s wasted tourism potential

The sector could generate significantly more foreign exchange earnings, if India could get its act together
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) travel and tourism competitiveness index, released last week, showed that India had moved up 12 places and now ranks 40th among 136 nations globally. The report also noted that this was the largest leap made by any country in the top 50, thereby making India, with its rich and diverse cultural heritage and natural beauty, a prime candidate to lead the so-called Asian century in travel and tourism. So much for potential—but will India deliver?
The numbers tell a complex story. On the one hand, foreign tourist arrivals have been on an upward trajectory at least since the turn of the century. According to the ministry of tourism, India hosted 8.89 million tourists last year compared to only 2.65 million tourists in 2000. But when compared with other countries, India’s performance leaves much to be desired. For example, while India hit an all-time high last year, it was still nowhere close to France, which topped the list of foreign tourist arrivals with 84.5 million visitors. The US (77.5 million) was second, followed by Spain (68.2 million), China (56.9 million) and Italy (50.7 million).
Europe’s dominant position on the list can be explained through the Schengen agreement, which allows citizens of member states to travel freely across international borders. The US too has a visa-waiver agreement with most European Union countries as well as a handful of others for easy access. But what about non-Schengen states like China—or, for that matter, Turkey (39.4 million tourists in 2015), Mexico (32.1 million) and Russia (31.3 million), all of which have significantly higher tourist numbers than India?
India’s foreign exchange earning from tourism has followed a similar pattern. In 2015, for example, India earned more than $23 billion in revenue from international tourism, a significant hike from the $3.5 billion it made in 2000. However, the US earned $204.5 billion from international tourists and China $114.1 billion, in 2015—making India’s $23 billion seem like chump change.
However, parsing the numbers more carefully shows that while overall revenue from tourists in India is low because of fewer visitors, the average revenue per tourist is actually quite high. For example, while the average tourist spends about $2,639 in the US, she spends about a comparable $2,610 in India and about $2,005 in China. In France (and this is generally true for other European countries as well), the number drops to $543 per tourist.
This is because a large chunk of the tourists visiting France are other Europeans with Schengen privileges on short trips from across the borders. But while such tourists add to the numbers, they don’t always spend a lot of money. In contrast, when a French or German tourist takes a long-haul flight to India for what is ostensibly a well-planned holiday, they tend to stay longer and spend more money. For India, this is not as much a success story as much as it is an indication of a missed opportunity: When they are here, tourists are clearly willing to spend; but they are simply not coming here in adequate numbers in the first place.
Is this because of India’s many problems, such as cumbersome visa regulations, bad travel infrastructure, poor sanitation, collapsing law enforcement systems and concerns about women’s safety? On each of these counts, India ranks poorly on the WEF index. Five-star luxury—given the high revenue per tourist—may shield visitors somewhat from these issues but it cannot get rid of them entirely. Yet another factor at play here is the large number of business tourists (who expectedly are high-spenders) that India gets vis-a-vis leisure tourists, which somewhat skews the narrative. It is worth asking then: Is India getting its fair share of budget travellers especially since it is otherwise one of the most affordable travel destinations? Are middle-class tourists, who want a certain degree of comfort and hassle-free travel but cannot afford to go the five-star route, staying away?
If true, that is another challenge for India as it will have to prepare for the changing profile of the international tourist. As the WEF report notes, foreign travel is no longer a luxury enjoyed only by wealthy Westerners. The lowering of trade barriers and the rise of the middle class in many emerging economies mean that North America and Europe, which have dominated the travel markets till now, may give way to international travel from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Currently, India receives the maximum number of tourists from the US, followed by Bangladesh, while regionally, Western Europe and North America make up for a large chunk of the country’s foreign tourists—at 23.42% and 18.62% in 2015, respectively. South Asia tops the list with 24.25% but that is to be expected given that it is India’s neighbourhood. What is of concern though is that other regions that are expected to send out tomorrow’s tourists don’t seem to have India on their radar. In 2015, only 8.72% of India’s foreign tourists were from South-East Asia while East Asia made up 6.92%, West Asia 5.20%, Eastern Europe 4.12%, Australasia 3.89%, Africa 3.66% and Central and South America, 0.88%.
The silver lining here is that all these regions, except Eastern Europe, have been sending more tourists to India than before and the government is also cognizant of the fact that a lot more needs to be done on the home front. It has started with liberalizing the visa regime which is expected to improve the numbers quickly. But that’s only the first step. Making it easier to visit India won’t do much when being a tourist in India is replete with problems.
How do you think India can become more tourist-friendly? 

10 April 2017

Prime Minister to Inaugurate Exhibitiion ‘Swachhagraha “Bapu Ko Karyanjali”-a Mission, an Exhibition’ Tomorrow

Prime Minister to Inaugurate Exhibitiion ‘Swachhagraha “Bapu Ko Karyanjali”-a Mission, an Exhibition’ Tomorrow
The Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi will inaugurate the exhibition entitled ‘‘Swachhagraha “Bapu Ko Karyanjali”-A Mission, An Exhibition’ on the occasion of 100th Anniversary of Champaran Satyagrah tomorrow in National Archives of India (NAI) Janpath, New Delhi. Briefing media persons here today, Shri Raghvendra Singh, Director General, NAI said that this exhibition is a humble tribute to Gandhi Ji on hundred years of his first experiment of Satyagraha in India, in Champaran and is an attempt to sensitize future generations to fulfill Gandhi’s dream of ‘Swachh Bharat’, where society’s reflection would be as clean as the thoughts within, of every citizen of India. This digital and experiential exhibition strives to connect the essential principles of Satyagrah ‘Jeevan-Chakra’ evolved by Gandhi Ji, with the elements of Swachhagraha, the movement. The exhibition will be open for public in NAI campus for one month and later on, it will be taken to other cities of the country as Mobile exhibition. He informed the media persons that the Prime Minister will launch an “Online Interactive Quiz” on the occasion which will continue for 30 months till October, 2019. 

Gandhi Ji was initially reluctant to visit Champaran. Rather, he had hardly knew where Champaran was and was unaware of the conditions of the farmers who cultivated Indigo. Upon his arrival in Patna on 10th April 1917 and thence to in Motihari on 15th April, he immediately realized that his stay there would be a long haul. The drama of Champaran has been succinctly depicted in this exhibition. During his stay, Gandhi Ji delved in detail with the problems of people. Social practices of scavenging, illiteracy, issues covering women and health were found to be the main impediments. These obstacles were common to the political issues that Gandhi Ji confronted. Satyagraha was the weapon he employed to overcome hurdles on both these fronts. 

The Champaran Satyagraha changed the dynamics of Indian politics, catapulting Gandhi Ji to the forefront of India’s freedom struggle. For the first time, people of India realized the power of non-violence and passive resistance, based on action. 

Gandhi Ji’s freedom struggle culminated in India’s independence on 15th August 1947. Though politically independent, India has long since grappled with the same vital issues that Gandhi Ji came face to face with in Champaran, that of health, sanitation, clean water, cleanliness, lack of awareness and education etc. This exhibition is an attempt to link Gandhi Ji’s core principles of Satyagraha with contemporary issues, a movement to improve conditions through Swachhagraha. The younger generation of India needs to understand its importance. In fact we all need to. 

The chemical attack in Syria must compel the global community to bring the war to an end

The chemical attack in Syria must compel the global community to bring the war to an end
The barbarism of Syria’s civil war was on display once again when at least 72 people were killed in a chemical attack in Idlib province. The heartbreaking images of dead and injured children and desperate parents from Idlib’s Khan Sheikhoun have understandably triggered global outrage and calls for international action. Syrians have suffered a lot over the past six years. There have been multiple chemical attacks for which both the regime of Bashar al-Assad and the jihadists were held to blame. More than 400,000 people are believed to have been killed and millions displaced since the crisis broke out. With violence continuing unabated and the Assad regime not showing any real interest in settling the crisis, even hopes for peace and normal life look surreal. The needle of suspicion for the Idlib attack points towards the regime whose murderous nature has been exposed several times in the past six years. Idlib is a rebel-held province where the regime is currently carrying out air strikes. Activists in the province and Western governments have claimed the regime used chemical agents in Khan Sheikhoun.
If they are right, Damascus has not only committed a war crime but also violated a major international agreement. After the 2013 sarin attack in Ghouta in a Damascus suburb that killed hundreds — which was also blamed on the regime — the U.S. and Russia had agreed to remove Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. As part of the deal, 1,300 tonnes of chemical agents were shipped out of Syria and destroyed. The question is, where did the latest chemical weapons come from? Syria had either hidden some of the stockpiles or clandestinely developed such weapons after the deal was reached — both serious violations. This is a regime that neither respects the fundamental human rights of its people nor cares about the international agreements it has entered into. Irrespective of its role in Tuesday’s attack, the Syrian regime is primarily responsible for the country’s humanitarian catastrophe. For years, it justified whatever it did in the war saying it was fighting terrorism. But how long can Mr. Assad sustain this argument, leaving millions of people vulnerable to bombers, snipers, chemical agents and tanks? The real crisis of Syria is that its regime is acting with a sense of impunity, thanks to the blank security cheque the Russians have issued to Mr. Assad. The international community could not hold Mr. Assad to account for his actions at any point of the Syrian war, which worsened with the involvement of other regional powers. The latest attack should be a wake-up call for all these countries. Syria has to be treated as an immediate priority, and in a way that transcends the narrow geopolitical interests of regional and global powers. There must be a coordinated effort to bring the war to an end, and to hold the perpetrators of war crimes accountable for their barbarism. Only then can Syria be rebuilt.

ANS OF ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING TEMPERING OF EVM MACHINE

ANS OF ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING TEMPERING OF EVM MACHINE
FAQs on Security Features of The ECI-EVMs
In the recent past, there have been some queries in the minds of common people about the security features of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) of Election Commission of India (ECI). The Election Commission has, time and again, stated that ECI-EVMs and its systems are robust, secure and tamper-proof.

The following FAQs give a detailed view of security features including latest technological features of EVMs and stringent administrative measures taken at every step of its usage from manufacturing to storage.

1. What is meant by Tampering of EVM?

Tampering means alteration in the software program written either on existing microchips of Control Unit (CU) or introducing malicious software program by inserting new microchips in CU and also making keys - pressed in Ballot Unit (BU) not record faithfully in the Control Unit.

2.  Are the ECI- EVMs hackable?
NO.
M1 (model one) of EVM machines were manufactured till 2006 and had all necessary technical features making M1 non-hackable contrary to claims made by some activists.

On the recommendations of the Technical Evaluation Committee in 2006, M2 model of EVMs produced after 2006 and upto 2012 incorporated dynamic coding of key codes thereby enabling transfer of the key – press message from  Ballot Unit (BUs) to  Control Unit (CUs), in an encrypted form as an additional security feature. It also contains Real time setting of each key press so that sequencing of key presses including so called malicious sequenced key presses can be detected and wrapped.

Further, the ECI- EVMs are not computer controlled, are stand alone machines and not connected to the internet and /or any other network at any point of time. Hence, there is no chance of hacking by remote devices.
The ECI-EVMs do not have any frequency receiver or decoder for data for wireless or any external hardware port for connection to any other non-EVM accessory or device. Hence no tampering is possible either through hardware port or through Wireless, Wi-Fi or Bluetooth device because CU accepts only encrypted and dynamically coded data from BU. No other kind of data can be accepted by CU.

3. Can ECI-EVMs be manipulated by Manufacturers?
Not Possible.
There is very stringent security protocol at manufacturer level regarding security of software. The Machines have been manufactured in different years starting from 2006. After manufacturing, EVMs are sent to State and district to district within a State. The manufacturers are in no position to know several years ahead which candidate will be contesting from a particular constituency and what will be the sequence of the candidates on the BU. Also, each ECI-EVM has a serial number and the Election Commission by use of EVM – tracking software can find out from its database which machine is located where. So, any manipulation at manufacturing stage is ruled out.



4. Can Trojan Horse be incorporated into the chip in CU?

Sequence of voting in EVM eliminates the possibility of injection of Trojan Horse as mentioned below. The stringent security measures by ECI make it impossible to introduce Trojan Horse in the field.
Once a ballot key is pressed in CU, the CU enables BU for registering the vote and waits for the key pressing in the BU.  During this period, all keys in the CU become Inactive till the entire sequence of casting of that vote is complete.  Once any of the keys (candidates vote button) is pressed by a voter in BU, the BU transmits the key information to CU.  The CU gets the data and acknowledges it by glowing the corresponding LED lamps in BU.  After the enabling of ballot in CU, only the ‘first key press’ is sensed and accepted by CU.  After this, even if a voter keeps on pressing the other buttons that is of no use as there will not be any communication between CU and BU as the result of those subsequent key presses, nor will BU register any key press.  To put it in other words, there can be only one valid key press (the first key press) for every ballot enabled using CU.  Once a valid key press (voting process) is complete, until another ballot enabling key press is made there will not be any activity between the CU and the BU.  Hence, sending of any malicious signal, by way of so called ‘sequenced key presses’, is impossible in the Electronic Voting Machines being used in the country.

5. Are Old model ECI- EVMs still in use?

M1 model of EVM machines were produced up to 2006  and were last used in 2014 General Elections. In 2014, EVM machines which completed 15 years of economic life and also because M1 were not compatible with VVPAT (voter-verified paper audit trail) , ECI decided to discontinue use of all M1 EVMs manufactured upto 2006. There is a Standard Operating Procedure laid down by ECI to discard EVMs. The process of destruction of EVM & its chip is carried out in the presence of Chief Electoral Officer of the state or his representatives inside the factory of manufacturers.




6. Can ECI-EVMs be Physically Tampered with/ their components be changed without anyone noticing?

In addition to the existing security features in earlier models M1 & M2 of ECI-EVMs, the new M3 EVM produced after 2013 have additional features like Tamper Detection and Self Diagnostics. The tamper detection feature makes an EVM inoperative the moment anyone tries to open the machine. The Self diagnostic feature checks the EVM fully every time it is switched on. Any change in its hardware or software will be detected.  
A prototype of a new model M3 with above features is going to be ready shortly. A Technical Experts Committee will examine it and then production will commence. About Rs. 2,000 crores have been released by the Government to procure M3 EVMs with above additional features and new technological advancements.

7. What are the latest technological features to make ECI-EVMs tamper proof?


The ECI-EVMs use some of the most sophisticated technological features like one time programmable (OTP) microcontrollers, dynamic coding of key codes, date and time stamping of each and every key press, advanced encryption technology and EVM-tracking software to handle EVM logistics, among others to make the machine 100% tamper proof. In addition to these, new model M3 EVMs also have tamper detection and self-diagnostics as added features. Since, software is based on OTP the program cannot be altered, re-written or Re-read. Thus, making EVM tamper proof. If anyone make, attempt, the machine will become in operative.

8. Do the ECI-EVMs use foreign technology?

Contrary to misinformation and as alleged by some, India do not use any EVMs produced abroad.  EVMs are produced indigenously by 2 PSUs viz. Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bengaluru and Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad. The Software Programme Code is written in-house, by these two companies, not outsourced, and subjected to security procedures at factory level to maintain the highest levels of integrity. The programme is converted into machine code and only then given to the chip manufacturer abroad because we dont have the capability of producing semi-conductor microchips within the country.
Every microchip has an identification number embedded into memory and the producers have their digital signatures on them. So, the question of their replacement does not arise at all because microchips are subjected to functional tests with regard to the software. Any attempt to replace microchip is detectable and can make EVM in-operative. Thus, both changing existing programme or introducing new one are detectable making EVM in-operative.

9. What are the possibilities of manipulation at the place of storage?

At the district headquarters, EVMs are kept in a double-lock system under appropriate securityTheir safety is periodically checked. The officers do not open the strong room, but they check whether it’s fully protected and whether the lock is in proper condition or not. No Unauthorized person can get access to the EVMs at any point of time. During non election period, Annual Physical Verification of all EVMs is done by DEOs and report sent to ECI. Inspection & checking have recently been completed.

10.       To what extent are allegations of EVM tampering in local body polls true?

There is a misunderstanding in this regard due to lack of knowledge about jurisdiction. In case of elections to Municipal bodies or Rural bodies like Panchayat Elections, the EVMs used do not belong to the Election Commission of India. Above local bodies elections come under the jurisdiction of State Election Commission/s (SECs), which procure their own machines and have their own handling system. ECI is not responsible for functioning of EVMs used by SECs in above elections.

11.       What are the different levels of checks and balances ensuring tamper proofing of ECI-EVMs?

      First Level Checking: BEL/ECIL engineers certify originality of components after technical and physical examination of each EVM, undertaken in front of representatives of political parties. Defective EVMs are sent back to factory. The FLC Hall is sanitized, entry is restricted and no camera, mobile phone or spy pen is allowed inside. Mock poll of at least 1000 votes is conducted on 5% EVMs selected randomly by reps of political parties and the result shown to them. The entire process is video graphed.
      Randomization: EVMs are randomized twice while being allocated to an Assembly and then to a polling booth ruling out any fixed allocation. Mock Poll at polling station is conducted in front of polling agents of candidates on the poll day, before polls begin.
After Poll, EVMs are sealed and polling agents put their signature on the seal. Polling agents can travel upto strong room during transportations.
      Strong Rooms: Candidates or their representatives can put their own seals on the strong rooms where polled EVMs are stored after the poll and also camp in front of strong room.  These strong rooms are guarded 24x7 in multilayers.
      Counting Centres: The polled EVMs are brought to the Counting Centres and Unique IDs of the seals and CU are shown to reps of candidates before start of counting.

12.       Can a manipulated ECI- EVM be re-inducted in the polling process without anyone coming to know?


Question does not arise.
Looking at the above series of fool-proof checks and balances that are undertaken by the ECI to make EVMs tamper proof, it is evident that neither the machines can be tampered-with nor defective machines can get re-inducted into the polling process at any point of time because Non ECI -EVMs will get detected by the above process and mismatch of BU & CU. Due to different level of stringent checks and balances neither ECI-EVMs can leave the ECI system nor any outside machine (Non-ECI –EVM) can be inducted into the system.

13.       Why have Developed Nations like the US and European Union not adopted EVMs and some have discontinued?

Some countries have experimented with electronic voting in the past. The problem faced with the machines in these countries was that they were computer controlled and connected to the network, which in turn, made them prone to hacking and hence totally defeating the purpose.  Moreover, there were not adequate security measures and safeguards in their corresponding laws regulations for security, safety and protection. In some countries, Courts struck down the use of EVMs on these legal grounds only.
Indian EVM is stand-alone whereas, USA, The Netherlands, Ireland & Germany had direct recording machines.  India has introduced paper audit trail, though partly.  Others did not have audit trail. Source code is closed during polling in all of the above countries. India also has closed source burnt into memory and is OTP.
ECI-EVMs, on the other hand, are stand-alone devices not connected to any network, thus making it impossible for anyone to tamper with over 1.4 million machines in India individually. EVMs are most suited for India, looking at the countrys past poll violence and other electoral malpractices like rigging, booth capturing etc. during the polls.
It is worth mentioning that in contrast with countries like Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands. Indian Laws & ECI regulations have in-built adequate safeguards for security & safety of EVMs  Besides, Indian EVMs are far superior on account of secured technological features. Indian EVMs also stand apart because VVPATs going to be used with EVMs in phases to make entire process transparent for voters.
In case of The Netherlands, rules regarding storage, transport and security of machine were lacking. Machines produced in The Netherlands were also used in Ireland & Germany. In a judgment in 2005, German Court found voting device ordnance unconstitutional on the ground of violation of the privilege of the public nature of election& the basic law. So, these countries discontinued the use of machines produced in The Netherlands.  Even, today many countries including USA are using machines for voting
ECI – EVMs are fundamentally different from the voting machines and processes adopted in foreign countries. Any comparison based on computer controlled, operating system based machines elsewhere will be erroneous and ECI – EVM cannot be compared with. 
14.       What is the status of VVPAT enabled machines?
The ECI has conducted elections in 255 assembly constituencies and nine Lok Sabha constituencies using Voters Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). The use of M2 and new-generation M3 EVMs along with VVPAT is the way forward for further confidence and transparency of the voters. 

Beyond governance by intentions

Beyond governance by intentions

Narendra Modi may claim that the intent behind his policies is good, but he must go beyond this to good implementation
Perhaps one of the most intriguing statements by Narendra Modi in his victory speech after the historic wins in the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand elections was, “We can make mistakes, but our intentions are never wrong.” In effect, he was urging the public to judge him on his intent rather than actions. Given the election results, there is little doubt that he has largely been able to convince the electorate. The challenge now is to see how good intentions can be operationalized.
Traditionally, government actions (or lack thereof) have mostly been extensively researched, debated and judged by outcomes. Is the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) a failure or success? Was bank nationalization necessary? Have our education and health policies achieved the desired outcomes? Did the Agriculture Produce and Marketing Committees meet their objectives? No doubt, all these policies were well-intentioned, but intention alone never mattered as much as this government wants it to. In fact, it would be foolish for any government to act without the best interests of the public in mind, and this government is no exception.
The Modi government has adopted several well-intentioned moves during its tenure. The most recent of these include surgical strikes across the Line of Control, demonetization, and pushing digitization, among others. Armed with unparalleled communication skills, and with little time or data to enable independent impact evaluation of government policies, not to mention a listless opposition, Modi has been successful in getting votes based on intent. The strategy has been simple yet effective: Take an economically risky decision; build a narrative of it being well-intentioned, necessary, in the national interest and reflective of a strong and decisive authority; exhort the people to contribute to such a nation-building exercise; strike an emotional chord in the process and get votes.
It has been suggested that emboldened by election wins, Modi will aggressively push his reforms agenda. Difficult decisions could be taken on important issues like benami property, land acquisition, labour reforms, stressed assets, job creation, farmer incomes, subsidy rationalization, expanding use of Aadhaar, digital payments and ease of doing business, among others. Fortunately, the goods and services tax is on course for implementation from July 2017. This narrative suits Modi as he is not afraid to take difficult decisions. He may once again get the intent absolutely perfect, yet the delivery may not be as good.
This seems to be a high possibility given Modi’s panache for intent and political message. Already, his critics are denouncing the way the demonetization, digitization, Jan Dhan Yojana and Aadhaar linkages have been pushed in the country. This is something that Modi would want to avoid at all costs in light of his national status. The question then is: Does Modi have the courage to go beyond headlines to address implementation and sustainability-related concerns? Is he ready to walk an extra mile to address the concerns of those oft neglected? Will he hear his critics and be open to course-correction, if need be?
Decision making on each of the issues mentioned above, and several others, would require dealing with a complex set of often conflicting interests. These include environmental and sustainability concerns, rehabilitation and resettlement issues, welfare of labour, rural inhabitants, and taking into account the interests of small and medium enterprises. Many of the existing problems have arisen owing to archaic and complex policies, an ill-equipped bureaucracy, lack of a coherent strategy, and process flaws in policy-making. Dealing with these issues will require structural changes in governance and administration, an area which might not make headlines like other popular reforms initiated by Modi. To truly make progress, the government will need to encourage impartial impact assessment of initiatives like mandating Aadhaar for social security schemes, Digital India, Make in India and Startup India. It will also need to take a long-term approach and introspect over its stand on issues like citizen surveillance, privacy, data protection, and consumer choice and protection.
Efficient decision making and effective implementation will require Modi to go beyond governing by intent. A comprehensive plan of action, outlining the objective of government policy, stakeholders involved, estimated impact, defining implementation, monitoring, compliance responsibilities and fixing accountability of actors, will need to be adopted. Such plans must be formulated after efficient public consultation and taking into account the concerns of diverse groups.
Process reforms like regulatory impact assessment, which require estimating and comparison of costs and benefits of policy and regulatory alternatives, will need to be integrated into the policymaking process. Data and its sources must be available for scrutiny in the public domain and be open to independent review.
Most experts argue that Modi has already won the 2019 general election as he is set to be in government for a decade, perhaps more. He has the opportunity to set the direction for India for the next 50 years, and truly become one of the country’s greats. He must not waste this opportunity. While good intentions will be important, they are not sufficient. It is time Modi realizes this and gets his act together in implementation.

Can unarmed states prohibit nuclear weapons?

Can unarmed states prohibit nuclear weapons?

While a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is a favourite of experts to prove the humanitarian consequences of even limited use will be global, this scenario is far more alarming when considering nuclear use by the US, Russia and China.
120-odd nations—nearly two-thirds of UN members—that do not possess nuclear weapons participated in a UN conference seeking a ban on nuclear weapons
Guess what terrifies nations armed with the most powerful weapons ever invented? Believe it or not—a mere UN conference to ban them, which began on 27 March in New York. This gathering of nations without nuclear weapons to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”, has caused greater consternation among the nine nuclear-armed states and their shielded allies than the spectre of Armageddon through deliberate, inadvertent or accidental nuclear use.
This was amply demonstrated when the US, UK and France, along with several other countries which live under nuclear umbrellas, publicly protested against the conference and sought to justify why they were boycotting it. In doing so, they not only exposed their uber anxiety over the conference but also, inadvertently, focused a spotlight on the proceedings, which might otherwise not have garnered as much attention.
The supreme irony is that despite the fear of the nuclear-armed states, neither the conference nor the subsequent treaty, which is likely to be concluded later this year, will disarm a single nuclear weapon. Yet the trepidation of the nuclear weapon states is not entirely irrational.
First, the 120-odd nations that participated in the negotiations highlight that nearly two-thirds of UN members have been able to ensure their security without the possession or protection of nuclear weapons. In contrast, the 40 nations staying away—less than one-fourth of all UN members—perceive that nuclear weapons are essential to ensure their security. This is also the rationale provided by the US and its allies to justify their nuclear weapons and their boycott of the conference. However, as Alexander Marschik, the Austrian delegate to the conference, retorted: “If nuclear weapons are truly indispensable in providing security, then why should not all states benefit from this advantage?” This argument also lays bare the fallacy that deterrence based on nuclear weapons is more stable than deterrence without nuclear weapons, given that relations among nuclear weapon states are crises-ridden.
Second, the conference participants and deliberations have also underlined the dangers of nuclear weapons use to non-nuclear weapon states. While a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is a convenient favourite of experts to prove that the humanitarian consequences of even limited use will be global, this scenario is far more alarming and existential when considering nuclear use by the US, Russia and China.
Unsurprisingly then, some of the countries spearheading the negotiation process—Austria, Cuba, Ireland, Mexico, Mongolia and Sweden—are likely to face the brunt of nuclear fallout if weapons are used in their region by the heavily-armed nuclear nations. To put this in context, the fallout from the single biggest nuclear test conducted by the US on Bikini Atoll in the Pacific on 1 March 1954 with a yield of 15 megatons—five times more than all the firepower used in World War II—spread over 18,000 sq. km and showered radioactive material as far as Australia, India, Japan and the US. It was this one test that prompted Jawaharlal Nehru to propose a nuclear test ban treaty.
Third, the conference and treaty will plug a serious legal gap in that nuclear weapons (unlike chemical and biological weapons) are the only weapons of mass destruction that are not prohibited by international law. This is an unfathomable lapse given the potential of nuclear weapons use to lead to global extinction.
If nuclear-armed states are unhappy with the momentum picked up by the negotiations, then they have only themselves to blame. This conference is a direct result of the diminishing faith in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) process, the conference on disarmament, and the nuclear-centred world order even after the end of the Cold War. Ever since the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995, the nuclear-armed states failed on two counts. First, they failed to keep their commitments made in NPT review conferences, primarily on disarmament, thus alienating even the most loyal non-nuclear adherent. Second, despite the growing disconnect between the emerging nuclear disorder and the evolving world order, the nuclear weapon states (also permanent UN security council members) failed to accommodate aspirant powers and establish a new world order that was not based on nuclear weapons.
Against this backdrop, the proposed treaty offers a significant opportunity, at the very least, to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in deterrence and subsequently to move towards a nuclear-free world order. To be clear, the treaty will not eliminate existing nuclear weapons in the first instance; it is more likely to establish an international norm that prohibits the development, acquisition, manufacture, possession, transportation, transfer or use of nuclear weapons. As envisaged in these negotiations, the treaty is likely to allow for the future membership of nuclear armed states with the objective of eliminating their nuclear arsenals, but only in cooperation with them. Thus, by participating in the negotiations, nuclear-armed states could underscore their commitment to a nuclear-weapon free world and also contribute to the contours of the treaty. By staying out, they gain nothing and lose goodwill.
Whether the nuclear-armed states come in or stay out, one thing is clear: The pen that writes the treaty might still turn out to be mightier than the mightiest sword built by mankind.

Featured post

UKPCS2012 FINAL RESULT SAMVEG IAS DEHRADUN

    Heartfelt congratulations to all my dear student .this was outstanding performance .this was possible due to ...