PARAM ISHAN

PARAM ISHAN
The Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Prakash Javadekar has inaugurated the super computer PARAM ISHAN at IIT Guwahati campus. PARAM ISHAN is the fastest and most powerful computer in North East, Eastern and Southern region of India outside Bengaluru (Karnataka). Key features of PARAM ISHAN PARAM ISHAN has been jointly developed by IIT Guwahati and C -DAC (Centre for Development of Advanced Computing). It has a peak computing power of 250 Teraflops and three hundred tera bites capacity. It will help to augment the research initiatives and also in creating an ecosystem for attracting right talents to the field of research. Potential applications: It can be used research initiatives such as computational chemistry, computational electromagnetic, computational fluid dynamics, civil engineering structures, nana-block self-assemble, optimization etc. It can be also used for Weather, climate modeling and seismic data processing.
 ............................................................................
Indian Navy’s indigenously built most Advanced Guided Missile Stealth Destroyer ‘Mormugao’ was launched in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The bedecked ship was launched by Navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba’s wife Reena at a function at Mazagaon Docks. Key Facts It has been Christened ‘Mormugao’ after the Mormugao port of Goa, the home State of Union Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. The stealth vessel was built by government-run Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd and belongs to Visakhapatnam class of ships being constructed under Project 15B

What’s in a NAM? Not much

The location—Margarita Island, a Venezuelan island resort— and the long list of absentees at the recently concluded NAM summit argue for the group’s dissolution 

It is time to put the Non-Aligned Movement out of its misery. It was never more than a talking shop, and there’s little to suggest anyone’s listening—not even among its 120 members.
The NAM summit in a Venezuelan island resort is of less consequence, if such a thing is even conceivable, than the 2012 gathering in Tehran. And nothing symbolizes its irrelevance than the statement issued at the end of the proceedings: an appeal for the United Nations to be more inclusive. Plainly, the delegates could come up with nothing to discuss in Margarita Island that could not have been more usefully discussed on another island where most of them are headed this week: Manhattan, home to the UN General Assembly.
Indeed, the two most salient things about the NAM summit both argue for the group’s dissolution. First, the location: Venezuela, one of the world’s most repressive states, where a corrupt and inept dictator, Nicholas Maduro, had managed to impoverish a small population, despite having access to vast petroleum resources. No self-respecting world leader would attend a $120-million party designed to aggrandize this odious man, which may explain why the most prominent head of state present was Iran’s Hassan Rouhani. (Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe kept him company.)
Which brings me to the second damning aspect of the summit: the long list of absentees. Only eight heads of state bothered to show up, down from an already embarrassing 35 in Tehran. The absentee-in-chief was Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who correctly decided he had more important things to do.
This may seem like a sad decline for a noble idea: NAM was conceived in the atmosphere of excitement and possibility that characterized the 1950s, when the world was emerging out of the long, dark period of colonialism. Newly independent nations dreamed they could make their way in this new world without hewing to either of the big powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, eschewing the icy hostilities of the Cold War and bask in the warmth of Third World (as it was then known) cooperation. The co-founders were India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesia’s Sukarno, Egypt’s Gemal Abdel Nasser, Yugoslavia’s Josep Broz Tito, and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah were all figures of international consequence, and their collective charisma attracted lesser lights from around the world.
But by the time NAM actually got off the ground, in 1961, the idea had already been undermined. Tito, host of the very first summit, was for all practical purposes aligned to the Soviets. Many members would go on to pick sides in the Cold War, including India.


Thus born under an ill omen, NAM grew into a forum where developing nations could blame all their problems on the big powers, pretending that much of the membership survived on the dole or protection of those very same powers. Long before Margarita Island, the triennial summits were exhibitions of shameless hypocrisy by American and Soviet puppets, all professing complete independence.
Worse still, NAM became a platform for some of the world’s most despicable leaders to preen and posture: the list of secretary-generals includes Fidel and Raul Castro, Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. This effectively denied the movement any kind of moral high ground, and rendered risible its rhetorical broadsides against the inequities of the US and the USSR. Nor could it claim, with a straight face, to represent peoples freed from colonial servitude when so many of those people found themselves enslaved by homegrown tyrants.
NAM’s reason to exist ended in 1989, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War. The world was left with a single superpower, the US, but quickly became multipolar, with China and India emerging as strong magnetic forces in their own right. There would be new kinds of alignments, more likely to be defined by economics and geography than by ideology. To be aligned is now a virtue, a sign of good leadership. Countries, especially small ones, can and should aim for multiple alignments of their interests. There is now no country in the world that can claim to be non-aligned, not even North Korea, which is in many ways a Chinese protectorate.
The oldest joke about NAM is that it was always aligned, and never a movement. But we’ve laughed at this anachronism long enough. The vast bureaucracy that supports the institution is a waste of and manpower, and most members could use those resources more gainfully elsewhere. If there are issues that unite the member nations, these would be better pursued by forming lobbying block within the UN.
As for the pious pablum that passes for the collective statement of resolve at the end of each summit, that too can just as easily be issued from the UN.
Let Margarita Island be the last exhibition of this nonsense. NAM is dead. Let’s have a moment’s silence, not for the useless institution but for the noble idea that died at its birth, and then move on.

India slips 10 notches in World Economic Freedom Index 2016

India slips 10 notches in World Economic Freedom Index 2016

The Economic Freedom of the World: 2016 Annual Report has been released worldwide by the Centre for Civil Society, a public policy think tank, along with Canada’s Fraser Institute.

• The report measures the degree of economic freedom in countries in five broad areas based on 2014 data – size of government: expenditure, taxes and enterprises; legal structure and security of property rights; access to sound money; freedom to trade internationally and regulation of credit, labour, and business.

Highlights:

• Hong Kong topped the index, followed by Singapore and New Zealand among 159 countries.
• India has been ranked 112^th. India has slipped 10 positions and ranks behind Bhutan (78), Nepal (108) and Sri Lanka (111) but stood higher than China (113), Bangladesh (121) and Pakistan (133).
• India has fared badly in all categories i.e. legal system and property rights (86), sound money (130), freedom to trade internationally (144) and regulation (132) except the size of the government (8),” as per the report.
• The 10 lowest-ranked countries are Iran, Algeria, Chad, Guinea, Angola, Central African Republic, Argentina, Republic of Congo, Libya and lastly Venezuela.
• Other notable countries include the United States (16), Germany (30), Japan (40), France (57) and Russia (102).
• In the top quartile, the average income of the poorest 10% was $11,283, compared with $1,080 in the bottom quartile in 2014. Interestingly, the average income of the poorest 10% in the most economically free nations was twice the average per capita income in the least free nations, says the report.
• Life expectancy was 80.4 years in the top quartile compared with 64 years in the bottom quartile, while political and civil liberties were also considerably higher in economically free nations.

Successful Flight Tests of LRSAM

Successful Flight Tests of LRSAM

Long Range Surface to Air Missile System (LRSAM) for Indian Navy successfully flight tested against Pilotless Target Aircraft (PTA) on 20th Sept 2016 at 10:10 hrs and again at 14:25 hrs from Interim Test Range (ITR) at Balasore, Odisha, yesterday. The LRSAM has been developed through a joint venture between DRDO India and IAI of Israel. The naval version of the SAM system, this time was tested from land and the earlier was flight tested from Naval Ships, at ITR. Both missiles directly hit their respective targets at different ranges and altitudes. The trajectory of the flight of missiles was throughout tracked and monitored by the radars and electro-optical systems installed at ITR.

Many industries viz. BDL, MIDHANI, TATA, GODREJ, SEC, PEL, ADITYA and others have contributed towards the development of Missile systems. Both Israel and Indian scientists and technicians have been involved in the launch campaign. The Israel team was led by Mr. Boyes Levy, Vice President, IAI of Israel, whereas the Indian Team by Mr Patrick D’Silva, Project Director, Mr. MSR Prasad, Director DRDL and Dr. BK Das, Director ITR. Dr. G Satheesh Reddy, DG (MSS) & SA to RM witnessed the launches
.

Cabinet approves merger of rail budget with general budget

Cabinet approves merger of rail budget with general budget; advancement of budget presentation and merger of plan and non-plan classification in budget and accounts

The Union Cabinet has approved the proposals of Ministry of Finance on certain landmark budgetary reforms relating to (i) the merger of Railway budget with the General budget, (ii) the advancement of the date of Budget presentation from the last day of February and (iii) the merger of the Plan and the Non-Plan classification in the Budget and Accounts. All these changes will be put into effect simultaneously from the Budget 2017-18.

Merger of Railway Budget with the General Budget:

The arrangements for merger of Railway budget with the General budget have been approved by the Cabinet with the following administrative and financial arrangements-

(i) The Railways will continue to maintain its distinct entity -as a departmentally run commercial undertaking as at present;

(ii) Railways will retain their functional autonomy and delegation of financial powers etc. as per the existing guidelines;

(iii)The existing financial arrangements will continue wherein Railways will meet all their revenue expenditure, including ordinary working expenses, pay and allowances and pensions etc. from their revenue receipts;

(iv)The Capital at charge of the Railways estimated at Rs.2.27 lakh crore on which annual dividend is paid by the Railways will be wiped off. Consequently, there will be no dividend liability for Railways from 2017-18 and Ministry of Railways will get Gross Budgetary support. This will also save Railways from the liability of payment of approximately Rs.9,700 crore annual dividend to the Government of India;

The presentation of separate Railway budget started in the year 1924, and has continued after independence as a convention rather than under Constitutional provisions.

The merger would help in the following ways:

·         The presentation of a unified budget will bring the affairs of the Railways to centre stage and present a holistic picture of the financial position of the Government.

·         The merger is also expected to reduce the procedural requirements and instead bring into focus, the aspects of delivery and good governance.

·         Consequent to the merger, the appropriations for Railways will form part of the main Appropriation Bill.

Advancement of the Budget presentation:

The Cabinet has also approved, in principle, another reform relating to budgetary process, for advancement of the date of Budget presentation from the last day of February to a suitable date. The exact date of presentation of Budget for 2017-18 would be decided keeping in view the date of assembly elections to be held in States.

This would help in following ways:

·         The advancement of budget presentation by a month and completion of Budget related legislative business before 31^st March would pave the way for early completion of Budget cycle and enable Ministries and Departments to ensure better planning and execution of schemes from the beginning of the financial year and utilization of the full working seasons including the first quarter.

·         This will also preclude the need for seeking appropriation through 'Vote on Account' and enable implementation of the legislative changes in tax; laws for new taxation measures from the beginning of the financial year.

Merger of Plan and Non Plan classification in Budget and Accounts:

The third proposal approved by the Cabinet relates to the merger of Plan and Non Plan classification in Budget and Accounts from 2017-18, with continuance of earmarking of funds for Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan/Tribal Sub-Plan. Similarly, the allocations for North Eastern States will also continue.

This would help in resolving the following issues:

·         The Plan/Non-Plan bifurcation of expenditure has led to a fragmented view of resource allocation to various schemes, making it difficult not only to ascertain cost of delivering a service but also to link outlays to outcomes.

·         The bias in favour of Plan expenditure by Centre as well as the State Governments has led to a neglect of essential expenditures on maintenance of assets and other establishment related expenditures for providing essential social services.

·         The merger of plan and non-plan in the budget is expected
to provide appropriate budgetary framework having focus on the revenue, and capital expenditure.

The 28th and 29th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit

The 28th and 29th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit was held in Vientiane, Laos from 6th to 8th September 2016. Prime Minister of the Lao PDR H.E. Thongloun Sisoulith was Chairperson of the summit. The theme of the summit was “Turning Vision into Reality for a Dynamic ASEAN Community”. The summit was attended by the leaders of all 10-member nations of ASEAN viz. Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR (host), , Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia. India-ASEAN Prime Minister Narendra Modi had represented India at the ASEAN summit at the 14th ASEAN-India summit. ASEAN-India adopted a document aiming at politically cohesive, economically integrated, socially responsible and people oriented people centered ASEAN-India Community. The document recognizes the vital importance of the planned review of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods (AITIG) Agreement. It seeks to ensure that the agreement is trade-facilitative and remains relevant to the current global trading practices. The document also emphasizes the importance of maintaining peace, security and stability, unimpeded commerce, freedom of navigation in and overflight above the South China Sea. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed deep concern over the rising export of terror in an apparent reference to Pakistan. He also mentioned that export of terror is common security threat to the region and there was need for a coordinated response from the ASEAN member nations to combat it.

IAS reforms: Cleaning rust from the frame

IAS reforms: Cleaning rust from the frame
Big data can provide metrics on officers’ performance in the field to inform promotion and retention decisions
We cannot march through the 21st century with the administrative systems of the 19th century,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in a recent speech delivered at the government think-tank Niti Aayog. The quip served as a welcome acknowledgment that the essential bureaucratic organs of the Indian state are badly out of sync with today’s demands.

The state of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the country’s elite civil service cadre, confirms this fact. Of the 3.3 million individuals employed by the public sector, the IAS constitutes a tiny fraction—totaling fewer than 5,000 officers. Yet, because it occupies the very nerve centre of the Indian state, no single bureaucratic entity receives as much scrutiny. While a competent, functional IAS may not be a sufficient condition for improving governance outcomes, it is likely a necessary one.

The charges levied against the bureaucracy, and the IAS more specifically, run the gamut; it is hamstrung by political meddling, governed by outmoded personnel procedures, crippled by a lack of domain expertise, and marked by a mixed record on policy implementation. It is no surprise then that there are opinion columns penned on a daily basis calling for everything from the complete dismantling of the IAS to modest tweaks of its promotion regulations.

Although there is no shortage of opinions related to the IAS, there has been a surprising paucity of hard data on its operations and performance until now. A new body of research, combining unprecedented access to the profiles of IAS officers with granular data on local development outcomes and electoral dynamics, sheds new light on their career trajectories, their impact on development outcomes, and their relationship to politics.

For officers early in their careers, Union Public Service Commission entrance exam scores and demonstrated improvement during the post-entry training period are positively correlated with officers’ perceived effectiveness, as judged by a diverse set of stakeholders, including civil society leaders and politicians. But, while initial characteristics shape career trajectories, they are not deterministic. In the long term, there are rewards for officers who invest in training and specialized skills.

For the first time, we have highly disaggregated data which demonstrates that individual bureaucrats can have strong, direct, and measurable impacts on tangible health, education, and poverty outcomes. But, there is considerable variation on this score. Older officers who enter as part of large cadres and face limited career prospects—given the fixed retirement age—tend to fare worse at improving economic outcomes. In a surprising twist to conventional wisdom, some evidence suggests that officers serving in their home-state are linked to superior service delivery. While local bureaucrats are typically thought to be susceptible to corruption, the presence of strong local accountability mechanisms, such as a strong media presence, can act as a check on malfeasance.

However, political interference poses a constant threat to bureaucratic functioning. Historical data suggests there is a 53% chance that an IAS officer is transferred in any given year. As a result, political loyalty rather than professional qualifications often represents an alternative path to success. However, politics can also work in surprising ways. Where elections are less competitive, some bureaucrats actually appear better motivated to do their job, presumably because there is less uncertainty about who will wield political power in the future. This finding is at odds with the prevailing belief that greater electoral competition incentivizes better bureaucratic performance.

This new literature suggests several areas for reform.

Graphic: Santosh Sharma/Mint
Click here for enlarge
First, there is valuable information that can predict the future effectiveness of civil servants, yet those in charge of making personnel moves rarely utilize these data points. The advent of big data provides a natural opportunity to use metrics on officers’ performance in the field to inform promotion and retention decisions. Seniority, after all, is a blunt instrument for deciding who gets promoted and who does not.

Second, given that older officers entering the bureaucracy are perceived as less effective, reducing the maximum age of entry into the IAS is a relatively easy reform the government could introduce. A much thornier issue is tackling under-performing officers already in the service. Here, the government should consider the proposal that officers deemed unfit for further service at specified career benchmarks be compulsorily retired through a transparent, uniform system of performance review.

Third, the government might contemplate allowing IAS officers to work more closely with their home states. Although India’s founders chafed at the prospect that officers be too closely linked with their state of origin for fear of elite capture, this issue could be revisited for further consideration. There is room for experimentation on this front.

Finally, it is imperative that the Central and state governments institute safeguards to protect against arbitrary, politically motivated transfers and postings of civil servants. Despite judicial prodding, most states have stalled on such moves.

Modi ended his Niti Aayog remarks by declaring that “a transformation of governance cannot happen without a transformation in mindset. A transformation in mindset cannot happen without transformative ideas.” While far from revolutionary, the policy changes suggested by new research on the Indian bureaucracy promise concrete benefits. As current chief economic adviser Arvind Subramanian noted in 2012, there is a race between rot and regeneration in the underlying institutions of the Indian state, and it is far from clear that the latter is winning.