14 July 2017

Ahmedabad takes giant leap, becomes India's first World Heritage City

Ahmedabad takes giant leap, becomes India's first World Heritage City
The historic city Ahmedabad has been declared as a World Heritage City at the 41st session of Unesco's world heritage committee meet in Karkow in Poland on Saturday. This day (July 8, 2017) will be remembered in history as for the first time an Indian city was declared a world heritage property.
The nomination of Ahmedabad was supported by close to 20 countries, including Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, Portugal, Peru, Kazakhistan, Vietnam, Finland, Azerbaijan, Jmaica, Croatia,Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Korea, Croatia, Angolam, Cuba, and the host country of the Unesco session, Poland.
The countries unanimously supported Ahmedabad citing a secular co-existence of Islamic, Hindu and Jain communities along with exemplary architecture of intricately carved wooden havelis dating back hundreds of years. The countries also recognized that the city was a cradle for India's non-violent freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi.
The walled city has 26 ASI-protected structures, hundreds of 'pols' that capture the essence of community living and numerous sites associated with Mahatma Gandhi who lived here from 1915 to 1930.
It will now join the likes of Paris, Cairo and Edinburgh. Of the 287 world heritage cities across the globe, there were only two cities in the Indian subcontinent-- Bhaktpur in Nepal and Galle in Sri Lanka. The Unesco tag will add immense value to the city and boost tourism.

ukpcs mains :test series running.make out of it by doing writting practice. lower pcs mains batch from 22nd july.

ukpcs mains :test series running.make out of it by doing writting practice.
lower pcs mains batch from 22nd july.
12 candidates out of 16 had qualified ukpcs mains 2012.

NGT declares 100m from edge of Ganga river as ‘no-development zone’

NGT declares 100m from edge of Ganga river as ‘no-development zone’
National Green Tribunal (NGT) also prohibits dumping of waste within 500 metres of Ganga river, declares Rs50,000 fine on anyone found doing so
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Thursday passed a slew of directions to rejuvenate the Ganga river, declaring a “No-Development Zone” 100 metres from the edge of the river between Haridwar and Unnao and prohibiting dumping of waste within 500 metres from the river.
A bench headed by NGT chairperson Swatanter Kumar also declared that an environment compensation of Rs50,000 will be imposed on anyone who dumps waste in the Ganga river.
The apex environment regulator directed all authorities concerned to complete various projects including setting up of a sewage treatment plant and cleaning drains within two years. It also said the Uttar Pradesh government should be “duty-bound” to shift tanneries within six weeks, from Jajmau in Kanpur to leather parks in Unnao or any other place it considers appropriate.
The NGT also directed the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to formulate guidelines for religious activities on the ghats of Ganga or its tributaries. The tribunal also appointed a supervisory committee, headed by the secretary of the water resources ministry and comprising IIT professors and officials from UP government to oversee implementation of the directions passed in its 543- page verdict. It also asked the committee to submit reports at regular intervals.
The NGT said the concept of zero liquid discharge and online monitoring of affluents should not be applied to industrial units. It said that all industrial units falling in the catchment area of the Ganga river should be stopped from indiscriminate extraction of groundwater.
The tribunal had heard the arguments of the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government, pollution control boards and various other stakeholders for almost 18 months before reserving the judgement on 31 May.
The green panel has divided the work of cleaning the river in different segments—Gomukh to Haridwar (Phase-I), Haridwar to Unnao (termed as segment B of Phase-I), Unnao to border of Uttar Pradesh, border of Uttar Pradesh to border of Jharkhand and border of Jharkhand to Bay of Bengal. It has already delivered the verdict in December 2015 with regard to first phase between Gomukh to Haridwar. The verdict came on a 1985 PIL of noted environment activist M.C. Mehta which was transferred to the NGT from the Supreme Court in 2014.

What exactly are antibiotics? How do they work? And why haven’t we curbed their use, despite the overwhelming evidence of growing antibiotic resistance?

What exactly are antibiotics? How do they work? And why haven’t we curbed their use, despite the overwhelming evidence of growing antibiotic resistance?
Today, less than 100 years after the serendipitous discovery of penicillin, antibiotics have almost become a household remedy. Though we were quick to exploit the therapeutic values of antibiotics, for too long we paid scant heed to the sustainability of these wonder drugs (long-term thinking has rarely been mankind’s forte).
In a few decades, antibiotics may very well be as useless as placebo sugar pills. On the bright side, a few of us at least are watchful of fast-approaching threats. For years now, scientists have issued dire warnings about the dangers of antibiotic resistance (unfortunately, we still have a long way to go). But before we get into why that is, let’s consider a simple question: exactly what are antibiotics?
It may surprise you to know that antibiotics were not made by, or for, humans. Many microbes produce various substances, including antibiotics, to kill other microbes that are their competitors for food and space. Humans just happened to find a way to take advantage of this microbe-on-microbe conflict.
The molecular weapons deployed are nasty chemicals which can harm the enemy in different ways. They can bore holes in the sheath that protects microbial cells. Or they can short circuit important life processes when ingested.
The microbial artillery of antibiotics varies widely, with different capacities and specificities. Some antibiotics merely arrest the growth of their enemy, while others outright kill their target. Every environment on the planet—from soil to water to sand to the bodies of other living beings (like us)—is the battleground for this bacterial warfare for food and space.
Some of the parties involved bode ill for human beings. Our organs are 'space' for them, and the stuff inside those organs, including our cells, serves as food. Our natural defences against these enemies: the wonderfully complex and effective human immune system.
The battle has been raging for millions of years—our ancestors, and the ancestors of the microbes we battle today, kept evolving new weapons and defence systems. Each side loses some of its battles and, quite naturally, in spite of multiple lines of defence employed by our immune system, bacterial infections can often maim or kill. This happens most often when the immune system is not at its best—for instance, when an individual is severely wounded or suffers from long-term illnesses, or when people are on immunosuppressive medication.
Wonder drug
The discovery of antibiotics was a fortunate accident. On 3 September 1928, in St Mary’s Hospital in London, Alexander Fleming, a professor of bacteriology, found something curious while studying a Staphylococcus specimen (this particularly notorious bacterium is often responsible for food poisoning, abscesses, boils and sore throats).
Fleming saw that the petri dish was full of Staphylococcus colonies, thriving on the nutritious jelly, save for a blob of unwanted fungus growing in the middle and a nice clear zone around it. Clearly, the fungus was somehow inhibiting the growth of Staphylococcus. A substance oozing out of the miracle fungus was later identified as penicillin. The rest is history.
Let’s come back to the present for now. We have reached a stage where antibiotics have become an indispensable part of our medical system. Hundreds of different antibiotics have now been identified and many more are discovered every year. Their chemical structure, mechanism of action and possible targets are well known.
Scientists first found the microbes that make the weapons against microbes that infect humans, and then devised a way to separate these weapons from their makers. Afterwards, they took it a step further and synthesized antibiotics chemically, without any microbial aid.
In 2000, a staggering 150 million pounds (68 million kg) of natural and synthetic antibiotics were produced worldwide. We use antibiotics not only to treat the bacterial infections but also to prevent infections.
So, what's the problem?
Amid all this, though, we underestimated the bacteria. Not unlike us, microbes have millions of years of experience in this warfare and over time, more and more grew resistant to the antibiotics. Our estimates for the evolution and spread of these defence strategies, unfortunately, were quite off the mark.
In 1950, 20 years after penicillin was discovered, scientists were largely of the opinion that antibiotic resistance would be a rare phenomenon. We now have ample evidence to the contrary.
In the face of the antibiotic menace, microbes evolve different kinds of mechanisms to render the drugs useless. For instance, one common strategy is to recognize the harmful antibiotic and pump it out of the cell. Another is to change the structure of the the socket where the antibiotic would plug in, preventing the short-circuit. A microbe with any of these tricks, unhindered by the presence of antibiotics, will reproduce happily.
And what’s more, once evolved, the genes for resistance are swiftly circulated through a microbial game of passing the parcel. Unfortunately, the music never stops and the resistance can spread across continents. On top of that, it is only (relatively) recently that we began to fathom the magnitude of this problem. And when it comes to predicting the course of antibiotic resistance, we are only slightly better than cavemen trying to judge the distance between the moon and the earth.
The laws of physics allow us to predict the movements of planets and stars. Remember that scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey (the book, not the film) where a spaceship uses the gravitational field of Jupiter to speed itself up, sort of like a slingshot, and propels itself towards Saturn? Well, we’ve actually managed to pull off something similar, during the Voyager launch. And with superb precision. The same, alas, cannot be said for most of things in biology.
The most important reason for this failure is the fact that, unlike astrophysicists, biologists deal with living things. In the antibiotic wars, we fight against beings that have been selected through billions of years of evolution and whose survival skills are second to none.
A way out
Does this mean that the trick, i.e. resistance to any given antibiotic, needs to evolve only once on our planet? Before spreading to every microbe?
Not at all. Life is rarely wasteful—if there isn’t an antibiotic in the environment of the microbe, building the defences to keep it out is a waste of energy. If the antibiotic is not encountered for a long time, storing and sharing the defensive trick is also a waste.
And there lies the crux of the problem. We now use antibiotics to such an extent that most environments are teeming with them. The pressure to retain survival techniques is always on. And hence the resistance is persisting and spreading.
What does this mean for us? Soon, antibiotics might not be effective at thwarting the infections. We might have to suffer our day-to-day infections a bit longer. But we still have our almighty immune systems, right?
Yes, we do. But many medical procedures, from common surgeries to cancer treatments to organ transplants, involve the active suppression of immunity. The patient faces a tremendous risk of infections. Simple accidents, like stepping on a nail, could prove tragic in the absence of effective antibiotic treatment.
This might sound overly pessimism to many, but unless we take immediate measures, it may become reality in the not-too-distant future.
This brings us to another question: what is it that we can do? Currently, our best bet is the moderation of antibiotic use. How, though, can we achieve this without serious drawbacks? There are quite a few options.
One is to minimize the administration of antibiotics to domesticated animals. Nearly 50% of antibiotics produced in the world are administered to animals, not as a treatment, but to improve the yields of meat.
Two, for humans, antibiotics are often prescribed before the disease-causing agent is identified. In the majority of instances, the culprit is some kind of virus, against which antibiotics are useless. But testing samples of bodily fluids is costly and time consuming. This results in blind prescription of antibiotics—sometimes even a cocktail of them—by physicians.
In many countries, India included, antibiotics can be bought over the counter without a prescription, and hence are consumed more than actually necessary or even effective.
If globalization has bought world the closer, it has also bought its own “global” problems with it. We should try, and I dare say we are trying, to fight them globally.
Across the world, attempts are being made to regulate the usage of antibiotics. Scientists are trying to discover more and better antibiotics, as well as new ways to utilize the existing repertoire. We might even stumble upon a new wonder weapon. But these attempts will require much time and, of course, large amounts of money. For now, though, we must build awareness of the issue and minimize the use of antibiotics.

Indian astronomers discover supercluster of galaxies, name it ‘Saraswati’

Indian astronomers discover supercluster of galaxies, name it ‘Saraswati’
The Saraswati supercluster, 4 billion light years away from us, has 43 galaxies, discover Indian astronomers
In a significant discovery, a team of Indian astronomers have identified a previously unknown, extremely large supercluster of galaxies located in the direction of constellation Pisces.
The supercluster of 43 galaxies, which they named “Saraswati”, is one of the largest known structures in the nearby universe, and is 4 billion light years away from us and may contain the mass equivalent of over 20 million billion suns
Google acquires Halli Labs, a 4-month old Bengaluru AI start-up
Why a Dalit businessman planted mango trees in his Alibaug farmhouse
A supercluster is a chain of galaxies and galaxy clusters, bound by gravity, often stretching to several hundred times the size of clusters of galaxies, consisting of tens of thousands of galaxies. The Saraswati supercluster, for instance, extends over a scale of 600 million light years.
The Milky Way, the galaxy we are in, is part of a supercluster called the Laniakea Supercluster, announced in 2014 by Brent Tully at the University of Hawaii and collaborators.
The Saraswati discovery was made by astronomers from India’s Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA) and the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), both in Pune, and members of two other Indian universities. IUCAA is an autonomous institution set up by the India to promote the nucleation and growth of active groups in astronomy and astrophysics at Indian universities.
“This novel discovery is being published in the latest issue of The Astrophysical Journal, the premier research journal of the American Astronomical Society,” said an official statement from IUCAA.
“The Saraswati supercluster is observed as it was when the universe was 10 billion years old,” IUCAA said in the statement. Thus, the findings could push researchers to rethink the popular theories of how the universe got its current form.
“The long-popular ‘cold dark matter’ model of the evolution of the universe predicts that small structures like galaxies form first, which congregate into larger structures. Most forms of this model do not predict the existence of large structures such as the Saraswati Supercluster within the current age of the universe. The discovery of these extremely large structures thus force astronomers into re-thinking the popular theories of how the universe got its current form, starting from a more-or-less uniform distribution of energy after the Big Bang,” the statement said.
Interestingly, Somak Raychaudhury, currently director of IUCAA and a co-author of the paper, had also discovered the first massive supercluster of galaxies on this scale (the Shapley Concentration), during his PhD research at the University of Cambridge decades ago.
In his paper published in the journal Nature in 1989, Raychaudhury had named the supercluster after the American astronomer Harlow Shapley, in recognition of his pioneering survey of galaxies.
Joydeep Bagchi from IUCAA, the lead author of the paper, and co-author Shishir Sankhyayan (PhD scholar at IISER, Pune) said, ‘’We were very surprised to spot this giant wall-like supercluster of galaxies, visible in a large spectroscopic survey of distant galaxies, known as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.”
“This supercluster is clearly embedded in a large network of cosmic filaments traced by clusters and large voids. Previously only a few comparatively large superclusters have been reported, for example the ‘Shapley Concentration’ or the ‘Sloan Great Wall’ in the nearby universe, while the ‘Saraswati’ supercluster is far more distant one. Our work will help to shed light on the perplexing question; how such extreme large scale, prominent matter-density enhancements had formed billions of years in the past when the mysterious Dark Energy had just started to dominate structure formation,’’ the duo said in a statement.

Rethinking regulators and regulatory Acts

Rethinking regulators and regulatory Acts
It is of immediate concern to take a fresh look at prevailing regulatory Acts if regulators are to be effective in the markets of the future
The pace of innovation in high-technology disruptive markets, defying traditional market boundaries, has created fluidity in the definitions of market, monopoly and the concept of dominance outside the confines of existing regulatory Acts. A rethink on the role of regulators and their efficacy in these markets, as also the revision of existing Acts, is of immediate concern.
Telecommunications is one sector where the changes have been disruptive and innovative, covering a wide range of services far removed from the traditional fixed-line telephones—the natural monopoly segment associated with the sector.
MORE FROM LIVEMINT »
When big retail meets small farmers
The 30-year itch in India-China ties
Why India must have a new textile policy
The telecommunication sector now includes networks, internet services, virtual markets, the Internet of Things, cloud computing and the entire gamut of services using the information highway with innovative approaches to combining voice and data. It is the digital space of virtual markets that promises growth to Indian start-ups and multifold benefits to consumers.
Should this sector come under the purview of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) or the Competition Commission of India (CCI)? Or should it be left to the market, with regulation limited to safety and dispute resolution mechanisms for consumers? After all, inappropriate intervention by any regulator can sound the death knell for the sector.
Trai’s attempts at repositioning itself in the new dynamism of markets has seen it come out with consultation papers, most recently on fixing retail tariffs. These are positive developments that should provoke wider discussion. Unfortunately, Trai, like all regulators, is caught between an archaic legislation and a sector that defies legal confines.
“Forbearance”, or distancing from fixing retail tariffs, is the new principle that Trai plans to follow. Under the suggested dispensation, telecommunications service providers (TSPs) will be free to fix their retail tariffs and are only required to comply with a list of conditions that emphasize transparency, consistency and clarity.
However, Trai seems compelled by Section 11(2) of the Trai Act to bring in two principles of tariff fixation. Even more surprising is the choice of non-discrimination and predation as principles of tariff fixation.
As ex-post facto outcomes, the two principles, fixed on an ex-ante basis, will fail to capture the benefits of a nuanced dynamic pricing policy that the sector is currently witnessing. Instead, TSPs such as Bharti Airtel Ltd, Vodafone India Ltd, Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (MTNL), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) and other service providers may prefer to revert to the traditional staid pricing schemes, if only to avoid regulatory intervention.
Discriminatory pricing between consumer groups can be consumer-welfare enhancing while zero pricing need not necessarily be predatory, especially if the marginal costs are zero. Pricing decisions taken by firms are based on several factors, which include information of consumer consumption patterns and “willingness-to-pay”; their own long-run cost structures and the pricing strategies of competitors. Under competitive conditions, price discovery is by the market. The Trai Act structured in the economics of natural monopoly set within the framework of “principal agent” may not be able to appreciate dynamic pricing schemes.
As a licensed activity, the tail-end activity of TSPs also comes under the domain of Trai. Section 11(2) mandates Trai to fix tariffs for all licensed activity. Unease stems from the fact that Trai lacks both the expertise and the legal backing.
Meanwhile, CCI, under the Competition Act, has no powers to fix tariffs. It can only investigate allegations of abuse using the economic analysis of monopolistic competition facilitated by the right to private action (Section 19) unique to the Competition Act. This right vested with CCI provides access to private consumer information that is so essential in understanding discrimination or defining predation.
Further, the commission has the right to levy fines but Trai doesn’t. If Trai seeks powers for damage claims by way of subordinate legislation, it will only encourage firms to indulge in forum shopping to the disadvantage of new entrants and consumers.
If expertise and legal backing indicate that predatory pricing and discriminatory pricing are in the realm of CCI, it is equally important to see if the Competition Act constrains the CCI from assessing competition on the information highway.
The digital space of this highway has no boundaries between products and services and between nations at odds with traditional price-cost parameters of competition. Antitrust authorities are currently grappling with the following questions : i) how to define the relevant product market when the product is free; ii) how to demarcate geographic boundaries for viral networks that do not follow national boundaries; iii) what constitutes predatory pricing or discrimination when prices are not charged purely on account of the fact that marginal costs are negligible within the framework of legal structures.
Emergent new metrics of competition fail to establish unequivocally the dominance of large entities and of abuse. The recent dismissal of the allegation of predatory pricing by CCI in the Bharti Airtel versus Reliance Jio case was on traditional measures of dominance. As in the case of the consultation paper, CCI’s decision is a welcome one. But does it provide comfort for intervening in future information markets? That said, it does provoke a rethink on prevailing regulatory Acts if regulators are to be effective in the markets of the future.

The 30-year itch in India-China ties

The 30-year itch in India-China ties
The biggest foreign policy crisis of the year is India’s chance to comprehensively revamp its China policy
The stand-off at the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction reflects the dissonance in the Sino-Indian relationship, driven by a hardening of the Chinese stand on territorial claims. Some Indian analysts suggest a comprehensive relook at India’s approach to such assertiveness, while others believe such a “reset” is already under way.
The last such “reset” of relations was in 1988, when Rajiv Gandhi visited China. Though a trip had been in the making since 1984, a formal invitation arrived with the Chinese vice-foreign minister in 1987. The trip next year, the first premier-level exchange since 1960, eased strains accumulated from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru-Zhou Enlai. This indicates that a relationship “reset” has a shelf-life of about three decades. So, if it is time to reassess, what should it entail?
MORE FROM LIVEMINT »
The Chinese encirclement: within and without
Sikkim standoff: Border row won’t affect economic, cultural ties, says China
A superpower with an inferiority complex
As part of my research, I recently interviewed senior members of the foreign policy establishment in the Rajiv Gandhi government. They said they knew that the engagement resulting from the 1988 visit would break from established policy. It was their opportunity to separate border disputes from other issues and introduce cooperation into a relationship of contention.
The benefits of the 1988 modus vivendi accrued to both sides. Bilateral trade flourished, the boundary issue was managed, and both countries could grow as economic powerhouses without being tied down in their backyards.
Thirty years later, there is a growing view that the 1988 rapprochement has run its course. As those I interviewed explained, with both countries expanding global roles, the agreement needs a revisit.
For some years now, the Chinese elite have believed that their time as the pre-eminent power has arrived. Initiatives like “China Dream” for a “fully developed Chinese nation”, or the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are critical to hoist China to the centre of the international system. Publicizing the BRI summit in May was a way of claiming legitimacy for this role.
These alone perhaps would not have required an immediate reorientation. However, US President Donald’s Trump’s apparent transactional approach to Asia makes it a pressing necessity. There is little clarity on how a distracted American administration would react to developments in South Asia.
China believes this is its opportunity to claim geopolitical space in Asia. The selective approach to terrorism, or opposing India’s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, indicate where it wants to see India in a China-led order. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through Gilgit-Baltistan helps tie down India in South Asia. Similarly, the current stand-off is China’s attempt to legitimize its claim and change the status quo.
The Doklam incident follows a template that China has been using for a while. This involves identifying an area with unsettled claims, and moving in. When challenged, an indignant China claims rights “since ancient times”. As evident elsewhere, China has carefully separated the project of reclaiming national pride from economic relationships—which means better trade relations or Chinese direct investment alone is unlikely to change anything.
The closeness following 1988 was as much a necessity for China as it was for India. Still not an economic behemoth, China needed newer markets to expand. The post-Tiananmen crackdown soon after also made it necessary to nurture new relationships. The China of 2017, however, is far removed from the China of 1988, and India must account for this asymmetry.
First, recalibrating the relationship will require clear signalling of expectations and nuanced communication. Not all developments will merit a reaction but the ones that do will need to be identified and responded to, purposefully. These may include China inciting anti-India sentiment in the neighbourhood, or impeding infrastructure development in Indian territory. To consider these red lines will demand communicating the message clearly; if tested, India will also need to demonstrate that it has a multi-step strategy, and the willingness to follow it.
Second, the government will have to decide on responses—will it challenge China’s own red lines, its “core interests?” India’s approach has changed since the 2015 Chumar incursion. Tibet policy, too, shifted when the “prime minister” of the Central Tibetan Administration attended Narendra Modi’s swearing-in. Turning these separate incidents into cohesive strategy will leave little room to dither. Missteps like the one involving Uyghur activist Dolkun Isa’s visit will have to be avoided. Closer relations with Taiwan will also demonstrate resolve. Following up on these will require determination and finesse, and no space for muddling through.
Third, India will have to consider context while responding. For instance, is it sufficient to only protest China’s stand on Masood Azhar, or will questioning China’s equivocation on terrorism help more? How do the economic and strategic benefits of BRI stack up against the objections?
Admittedly, answering these questions is far easier in theory than in practice. An ad-hoc approach will not work for a reorientation of foreign policy of this magnitude. Serious institutional energy will have to be spent in considering all options and planning a coherent strategy. As in 1988, it will require deliberate signalling that the entire relationship will not hinge only on these issues. As the veterans of South Block explained, the earlier “reset” worked because it was consistently nurtured for years. Another one, if considered, will also need to play the long game

Featured post

UKPCS2012 FINAL RESULT SAMVEG IAS DEHRADUN

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