China to establish robot station on moon

China to establish robot station on moon
China is planning to establish a robot station on the moon to conduct bigger and more complicated experimental research on lunar geography
China is planning to establish a robot station on the moon to conduct bigger and more complicated experimental research on lunar geography, a media report said on Wednesday.

The station could slash the costs of returning rock samples to Earth, said Jiao Weixin, a Peking University space science professor.

A sustainable robot station would enhance lunar geography studies and “have better energy efficiency than lunar rovers as the station can deploy a much bigger solar power- generator,” he said.

The base can conduct bigger, more complicated research and experiments, state-run Global Times quoted space officials who announced the plan at an international symposium in Shanghai earlier.

China’s ambitious space programme included several manned missions, building permanent space station and reaching to Mars.

In support of the lunar landing programme, China will launch a carrier rocket with a 100-ton-plus payload for the first time by about 2030, the report quoted a report of the symposium published on the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the central cabinet.

The schedule for the heavy-lift rocket was disclosed by Lu Yu, director of Science and Technology Committee of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, a State-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation branch institute.

China plans to land the Chang’e-4 lunar probe on the dark side of the moon in 2018, the report said.

The Chang’e-5 probe will be launched next year, the last chapter in China’s three-step - orbiti, land and return - lunar exploration programme. Chang’e-5 will collect and return rock samples to Earth. After that, China will launch three more missions to study the moon’s south pole.

China’s first Mars probe is scheduled to be launched on a Long March 5 by 2020 from the Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site, South China’s Hainan Province. The probe will hopefully orbit, land and deploy a rover on the Red Planet, the report said

Is China muddying Brahmaputra waters?

Is China muddying Brahmaputra waters?
It is not China’s water diversions, but intentional flooding or contamination that should be India’s major concer
Sporadic reports on China’s water diversion plans on the Yarlung Tsangpo, the upper stream of the Brahmaputra river, are invariably met with sustained overreactions in India. Late last month, reports of China planning a 1,000km-long tunnel system to divert these waters to arid Xinjiang were followed by thick black soot coming from the Siang tributary of the Brahmaputra. It led to Ninong Ering, member of Parliament (MP) from East Arunachal Pradesh, writing a letter to the prime minister. This was followed by visual, online and print media, as also the MP, doing their bit in highlighting this as yet another example of the dragon’s evil designs. The chief minister of Assam and the Congress state committee took it from there until Union minister Arjun Meghwal clarified that preliminary findings of the Central Water Commission suggested this was caused by the earthquake that hit Tibet on 17 November.

What does this episode tell us?

First and foremost, it takes an MP over a week to make the relevant authorities take notice of the thick black soot in Siang which, of course, continues to destroy the aquatic life, birds, flora and fauna and even the livelihood of thousands in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam as the water remains unusable. Its long-term ecological and environmental impact will also reach lower riparian Bangladesh. Whether its trigger was man-made or natural does not alter the intensity of its impact.

Second, India’s snail-paced response in providing even a preliminary assessment, and inaction in providing relief from this contamination, is now leading to calls for setting up hydrological labs across the region. However, there is not much hope that this will be implemented any time soon. Remember, it’s been decades since India has been unsuccessfully trying to clean the river Ganga. This track record makes pressing all panic buttons our first response to seek attention.

Third, of course, is China’s continued disregard of even agreed norms and the overall tenor of India-China relations, which surely leads policy experts to begin with no less than the worst-case scenario.

Even a cursory check tells us how, despite China having 50% spatial share of this 3,000km-long water system, low precipitation and desert conditions mean that Tibet generates only 25% of its total basin discharge, while India, with 34% of the basin, contributes to 39% of the total discharge. So, it is not China’s water diversions, but intentional flooding or contamination that should be a major concern for India. Is India working on preparing itself to tackle such eventualities?

China has been building at least five hydropower projects in addition to the 510-megawatt one at Zangmu that was commissioned in October 2015. These are claimed to be run-of-the-river projects, but can also facilitate storage if required. Given the seismically sensitive and geologically evolving Himalayas, such storages can unleash man-made or natural disasters. Unlike Tibet, the Indian side has scores of population centres on the banks of these river systems. To recall, the entire debate on India-China ‘water wars’ was triggered in 2000 by the sudden burst of one such dam, causing flash floods that resulted in 25 deaths and damage to property and livestock. This is what perturbed India when China began building its Zangmu hydropower project in 2008 and this high-pitch rhetoric over water continues to linger.

There is no denying that China has been reticent, allowing no more than a snail-paced incremental increase in its cooperation. Starting from their 2002 memorandum of understanding (MoU) for exchange of data on water levels, discharge and rainfall during the monsoon season, China and India had set up an expert-level mechanism for the Brahmaputra and Sutlej rivers in 2006. In their follow-up MoUs of 2013 and 2015, China agreed to supply data between 15 May and 15 October every year, with India agreeing to pay for these services. However, the last meeting of this mechanism was held in April 2016 and India has received no data for this year. First in the name of the Doklam standoff and then on the pretext of ongoing upgrade and renovation of data-collection stations in Tibet, China has refused to share hydrological data with India. But these excuses fall flat as Bangladesh continues to receive the same data.

How can India enhance its leverage against China?

There is a need to refrain from populist high-octane China bashing, which has been counterproductive so far. India must build its own capabilities to redress and withstand such disasters. It is only from such a position of sanity and strength that India can get China to regularize existing mechanisms and expand them beyond just data exchange on water flows, levels, rainfall, etc. These need to expand to cover quality of water and mutual inspections by joint or third-country observers.

The plans for gigantic diversions seem formidable, if not fanciful. These have been floated occasionally over the past two decades but repeatedly faced serious financial and technical impediments. The impact on India, if ever, would depend on factors like wherefrom and how much of Yarlung Tsangpo water can be diverted. Undertaking such a project in the seismically sensitive virgin high Himalayas carries deadly ecological and environmental implications for China. The impact on India would follow later and will be marginal.

Let us be realistic about the UNSC

Let us be realistic about the UNSC
recent victory in the hotly contested election to the International Court of Justice seems to have lifted our spirits as a nation. We are justifiably proud of our success and of the skill and determination with which our diplomacy was deployed. It would be prudent, however, not to interpret this in a way as to raise hopes of a permanent seat in the Security Council.

The UNSC election

The two most prestigious organs of the United Nations are the Security Council and the International Court of Justice. While the Security Council has 15 member states, the ICJ has 15 judges. Election to the UNSC is conducted only in the General Assembly and requires two-thirds majority to get elected. Election to the ICJ is held concurrently in the UNGA and UNSC and requires absolute majority of the total membership in each organ. Veto does not apply for election to the ICJ. India has lost elections to both these organs in the past.

Of the two, the UNSC is by far more important from the national interest point of view. It deals with questions of peace and security as well as terrorism and has developed a tendency to widen its ambit into other fields, including human rights and eventually environment. In addition to the Kashmir issue, which Pakistan forever tries to raise, there are other matters in which India would be interested such as the list of terrorists — Hafeez Saeed for example. Since it is in permanent session, we have to try to be its member as often as possible.

The ICJ is required to represent the principal civilisations and legal systems of the world. The judges sitting on ICJ are expected to act impartially, not as representatives of the countries of their origin. That is why they are nominated, not by their governments but by their national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague. To have an Indian judge at the ICJ, when we have an active case on its agenda regarding our national in illegal custody of Pakistan might be of some advantage, though it would be wrong to assume that the final judgment will go in our favour simply because an Indian is on the bench. He will surely act in an objective manner. We will win because we have an excellent legal case and are ably represented by an eminent lawyer.

There are other bodies in the UN that are not as well known but are important enough to be represented on like the ACABQ (Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions) and the Committee on Contributions. The former consists of 16 members elected by the UNGA on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee of the UNGA dealing with the budget of the UN. Usually, the members are officers of the permanent missions serving on the Fifth Committee. Most often, they are of the rank of first secretary or counsellor; Ambassadors rarely offer their candidatures.

The Committee on Contributions recommends the scale of assessments to the budget and the share of each member. This is a very important function, since the share decided by the UNGA applies to all the specialised agencies, etc. Even a 0.1 % change can make a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have had distinguished persons serving on both these committees, such as G. Parthasarathy, S.K Singh, as well as our current permanent representative, ambassador Syed Akbaruddin. Some stalwarts have also lost these elections. There is also the Human Rights Council; we have had almost continuous representation on it. The U.S. lost the election to it a few years ago; there is widespread resentment against the P-5’s presumption to a permanent seat on all bodies.

The veto question

Primarily at our initiative, the question of Security Council reform, euphemism for expansion, has been under consideration since 1970s. There is near unanimous support for increasing the number of non-permanent seats. The controversial question is about the increase in the category of permanent seats. The rationale for expansion has been accepted in-principle by nearly all, but the difficulty arises when the actual numbers and their rights are discussed.

India, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, has proposed an increase of six additional permanent seats, the other two being for Africa. The African group is demanding two permanent seats, recognised as reasonable by every member, but there are at least three and perhaps more claimants for the two seats. Then there is the question of the rights of the additional members. The G-4’s initial position was for the same rights as the present permanent members, essentially the veto right. Over the years, they have become more realistic and would be willing to forego the veto right. The firm position of the Africans is that the new members must have the same rights as the existing ones. This is a non-starter.

The larger picture

The P-5 will never agree to give up their veto right, nor will they agree to accord this right to any other country. (France supports veto for additional permanent members.) Also, the general membership of the UN wants to eliminate the existing veto; they will never agree to new veto-wielding powers. Variants of the veto provision have been suggested, such as the requirement of double veto, i.e. at least two permanent members must exercise veto for it to be valid. The P-5 are not willing to dilute their self-acquired right.

Many member-states have been pledging support for our aspiration for permanent membership. This is welcome and should be appreciated; it would come in useful if the question ever comes up for a vote in the UNGA. Several P-5 countries have also announced support. The principal P-5 member opposing us is China. We should not be misled by their ambiguous statements on the subject. It has to be underscored that there is no way that India alone, by itself, can be elected as permanent member. It will have to be a package deal in which the demands of all the geographical groups, including the Latin America and Caribbean group which, like Africa, does not have a single permanent member, will have to be accommodated.

Even if the Americans are sincere in their support for us, they will simply not lobby for India alone; it will be unthinkable for them to try to get India in without at the same time getting Japan also in. It is equally unthinkable, for a long time to come, for China to support Japan’s candidature. The P-5 will play the game among themselves but will stand by one another, as was evident recently at the time of election to the ICJ.

So, we should be realistic. If a permanent seat is not available, there are other proposals on the table. One proposal is for the creation of ‘semi-permanent’ seats, according to which members would be elected for six-eight years and would be eligible for immediate reelection. Given India’s growing prestige and respect, it should not be difficult for us to successfully bid for one of these seats; it might be a better alternative than to unrealistically hope for a permanent seat.

What is DNA fingerprinting and how is it done?

What is DNA fingerprinting and how is it done?
It is a technique for identification of an individual by examining their DNA.

The Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology (RGCB) in Thiruvananthapuram is carrying out DNA fingerprint examination to identify the bodies of fishermen found from the sea after the Ockhi storm.

What exactly is DNA fingerprinting? And does it look like crime scene investigations in TV shows?

What is DNA fingerprinting?

It is a technique, for identification of an individual by examining their DNA.

DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic acid, is the basic building block of life. This component in cells contains all the information about an organism and it also helps transfer the characteristics to the next generation.

The DNA of each individual is composed of Bases [Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C)], Sugar and a Phosphate. Two bases link to each other using hydrogen bonds to form base pairs.

“Every human has three billion such base pairs. Though 99.7% of the make up is similar between any two people; there is a 0.3% difference which accounts to almost 10 million different base pairs. By examining this we can identify the relation between two people. There is a 50% match between a child and his/her father or mother. Between siblings it can range anywhere between 25% to 75%. Monozygotic twins show a 100% match,” explains Dr. Madhusudan Reddy, staff scientist and in-charge at Lab of DNA Fingerprinting Services, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad.

Can DNA fingerprinting be done only with blood samples?

Blood, bones, hair with root, saliva, semen, teeth, and tissue can also be used to study the DNA.

“We have received the bone and sternum (breast bone) as reference sample for identification of the fishermen. The relatives of the missing person would be asked to come and provide blood samples for DNA study. We will compare the DNA to get a match,” says an official who wished not to be named from regional facility for DNA fingerprinting at RGCB.

How is DNA fingerprinting done?

The DNA is isolated from the available sample. Each type of sample has a specific protocol for isolation. The DNA fragments are then multiplied using a reaction called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).

One small DNA fragment can become a thousand to million copies. This amplified DNA sample then undergoes a technique called gel electrophoresis, which splits it into different visible bands. The band pattern formed by an individual’s DNA is unique. The bands of two or more DNA samples can then be compared using software.

What are its uses?

DNA fingerprinting can be used to resolve disputes of maternity/paternity.
DNA fingerprinting can be used to resolve disputes of maternity /paternity | Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

- For criminal identification

- To resolve disputes of maternity /paternity

- To identify mutilated remains

- In cases of exchange of babies in hospital wards,

- In forensic wildlife (The arrangement of the nucleotides is unique to any living form (except identical twins) be animals, plants, or microbes.)

Can anyone get their DNA checked with their parents?

The official from RGCB explained that to resolve parental disputes you need a court order and will be done in the supervision of authorities from police and court.

Are there any laws in India regarding DNA fingerprinting?

In July, 2017 the law commission of India drafted a Bill for the use and regulation of DNA-based technology called the Human DNA Profiling Bill.

As there are currently no legal mechanisms for identifying missing persons and victims of disasters, the new Bill seeks to regulate human DNA profiling and establish standard procedures for DNA testing.

Kumbh Mela enters UNESCO list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity

Kumbh Mela enters UNESCO list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity
Kumbh Mela which is held once every 12 years has been recognised as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity by the UNESCO on Thursday.
The Kumbh Mela is held in Haridwar, Allahabad, Ujjain and Nashik
The inclusion of the Kumbh in the UNESCO list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity was done during the ongoing session of the committee's meeting in South Korea. The inscription of Kumbh is the third in two years after the addition of Yoga and the Parsi festival Nouroz on December 2016.
The culture ministry, which expressed happiness over the inclusion of Kumbh in the list, said the inscription of Kumbh Mela was recommended by the expert body after it observed that it is the largest peaceful congregation of pilgrims on earth, and that it represents a syncretic set of rituals related to worship and ritual cleansing in holy rivers in India.
The committee also noted that knowledge and skills related to the Kumbh are transmitted through the 'Guru-Shishyaparampara parampara', which ensures the continuity and viability of this festival in perpetuity.
In 2003, the UNESCO General Conference adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage as an international treaty acknowledging that cultural heritage is more than tangible places, monuments and objects, and that it also encompasses traditions and living expressions.

Everyrhing ABOUT UKPSC by samveg ias

Samveg ias academy

December 9, 2017 at 2:43pm · 

Everyrhing ABOUT UKPSC by samveg ias
#UKPSCVIDEO
#ABOUTUKPSC
PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO ABOUT UKPSC AND SHARE IT, AND ALSO MAKE SUGGESTIONS TOO.
WE ARE WAITING FOR RESPONSE!!!
https://youtu.be/dv0oMzmV4ec

Fifty years of shared space

Fifty years of shared space
In October 1967, as the heat of the Cold War radiated worldwide, the Outer Space Treaty came into force. What is its legacy?
In January 1967, the Outer Space Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository governments—the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Entering into force in October 1967, the treaty provided a basic framework of international space law.

This framework includes many principles which signatory nations need to follow. It states that the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, and shall be the province of all mankind. It also outlines that states shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit, or on celestial bodies, or station them in outer space in any other manner.

Further, the treaty saw astronauts as envoys of all mankind. The treaty also put many restrictions on the signatories. Thus, outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. It further cautions that states shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects and dictates that they avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

It is, in some sense, a treaty that one wishes was in force on Earth.

***

To understand the context in which this treaty came into being, one needs to go back a decade before its signing. In 1957, the launch of Sputnik 1 by the USSR marked the dawn of the space age. A space race between the US and USSR followed. The whole world watched as the superpowers battled for supremacy in space just as they butted heads on Earth.

Since both superpowers were also nuclear powers, it was widely feared that a nuclear showdown between them in space was merely a matter of time. It must be kept in mind that the space rivalry between the US and USSR was not just a race to outdo one another in terms of science, technology and engineering, but also a matter of national honour and prestige. That is why explorers such as Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong were looked upon as national heroes and paraded all over the world.

Yet, for all this transformation of space into an arena of political contestation, it was also something of a lawless land. Few had foreseen man in space, let alone that space would be something nations would compete over. Space needed protecting.

***

In 1967, when the Outer Space Treaty was signed, the Cold War was in full swing. Both the US and USSR wanted to prevent the expansion of the nuclear arms race into a completely new territory. And as space technologies became more advanced, there was a concern that Earth’s orbit and beyond provided a whole new area from which weapons of mass destruction could be launched. That’s why an article in the treaty prohibits countries from putting nuclear weapons in orbit or on other planetary bodies.

The treaty was opened for signature in Moscow, London, and Washington on 27 January 1967. Both the US and Soviet Union signed the treaty on that day and later ratified the treaty, again on same date, on 10 October 1967. India signed the treaty in March 1967; however, it took another 15 years for the Indian Parliament to ratify it in 1982.

The treaty, which has been signed by 107 countries till date, was the outcome of a protracted process of legislation. As discussed earlier, the launch of Sputnik 1 by the Soviets had already made news headlines across the world. With the dawn of the space age, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was established in 1959 (shortly after the launch of Sputnik) as an ad hoc committee. In 1959, it was formally established by United Nations Resolution 1472.

The aim of COPUOS was to govern the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humanity; for peace, security and development. The committee was tasked with reviewing international cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space, studying space-related activities that could be undertaken by the UN, encouraging space research programmes, and studying legal problems arising from the exploration of outer space.

The committee, at its inception, had only 18 member countries, including the US and USSR. With the passage of time, a few more countries joined the club, and by 1961, the committee was divided into two sub-committees. One looked into scientific and technical aspects, while the other looked into legal aspects. This was the same year that Yuri Gagarin was sent into space by the Soviets.

Just after Yuri Gagarin became the first human to enter space, the UN General Assembly adopted the “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space”. It recognized “the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes”. The declaration also stated that neither outer space nor celestial bodies should be appropriated by any country.

According to the archives of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), the Outer Space Treaty was largely based on the aforementioned declaration, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but with a few added provisions. Further, the treaty was considered by the legal subcommittee in 1966. After much deliberation and discussion, the Outer Space Treaty was opened for signatures half-a-century ago.

Key points of the treaty

The basic idea behind the treaty was to prevent “space weaponization”. And to the merit of this treaty, no signatory nation has violated it by putting a nuclear weapon in outer space or on the Moon. At least as far as we know. The treaty remains one of the most important pieces of space-related legislation in the last half-century.

Article 1, the soul of the Outer Space Treaty, if you will, states that, “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies. There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such investigation”.

The treaty calls for peace, harmony and cooperation among states in the arena of outer space as the race for supremacy in outer space could prove destructive for Earth. Only the great powers possessed both the will and capability to explore outer space, and in this endeavor, they became much more powerful when they started tasting success.

With great power, it is said, comes great responsibility, and the idea behind the treaty was to entrust the great powers with the responsibility of using outer space for peaceful purposes.

***

The treaty has been successful insofar as it has been able to achieve its primary goal, which is to prevent the weaponization of space. The reason why the treaty still passes the test of the time is that both the US and USSR came together to agree upon the fact that outer space shouldn’t be used as a battleground.

This coming together, however, was far from straightforward.

As per the US department of state website, “between 1959 and 1962 the Western powers made a series of proposals to bar the use of outer space for military purposes. Their successive plans for general and complete disarmament included provisions to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction”.

It further states, “Soviet plans for general and complete disarmament between 1960 and 1962 included provisions for ensuring the peaceful use of outer space. The Soviet Union, however, did not separate outer space from other disarmament issues, nor did it agree to restrict outer space to peaceful uses unless U.S. foreign bases at which short-range and medium-range missiles were stationed were eliminated also. The Western powers declined to accept the Soviet approach; the linkage, they held, would upset the military balance and weaken the security of the West.”.

The Soviet position changed when the US signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963. After that, both powers agreed that they had no intention of orbiting weapons of mass destruction, installing them on celestial bodies, or stationing them in outer space. Once that happened, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on 17 October 1963, welcoming the Soviet and US statements and calling upon all states to refrain from introducing weapons of mass destruction into outer space.

Seeking to sustain the momentum for arms control agreements, the United States—in 1965 and 1966—pressed for a treaty that would give further substance to the UN resolution.

The US department of state finally states that “on June 16, 1966, both the United States and the Soviet Union submitted draft treaties. The U.S. draft dealt only with celestial bodies; the Soviet draft covered the whole outer space environment. The United States accepted the Soviet position on the scope of the Treaty, and by September agreement had been reached in discussions at Geneva on most Treaty provisions. Differences on the few remaining issues—chiefly involving access to facilities on celestial bodies, reporting on space activities, and the use of military equipment and personnel in space exploration—were satisfactorily resolved in private consultations during the General Assembly session by December”.

It was after all these twists and turns that the Outer Space Treaty came into being. The treaty, thus, is an example of the kind of outcomes sustained diplomacy can achieve—even when the topic in question is highly contentious.