Gamma ray telescope to be flagged off to Ladakh

The world’s largest high-altitude telescope for detection of gamma ray emissions is all set to be transported to Hanle, Ladakh where it will be installed by 2015 summer and become operational by early 2016.

Secretary, DAE, and Chairman Atomic Commission R.K. Sinha will flag off the transportation of the giant telescope to Hanle on Saturday. It will be dismantled and taken to Ladakh in about 45 to 50 trucks.

The ‘Major Atmospheric Cherenkov Experiment’ (MACE) Telescope will be the second largest in the world and the largest at high altitude with a 21m diameter. The largest telescope of the same class is the 28m diameter HESS telescope in Namibia. The responsibility for design, manufacturing, installation and commissioning of the telescope is with the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to Electronics Corporation of India Limited here.

Very high energy gamma rays offer a unique insight into some of the extreme phenomena of the universe and the MACE telescope would enable scientists to study exotic objects like pulsars, super nova remnants and active galactic nuclei.

It will provide a better understanding of high-energy processes in the universe and help gain more insight into cosmic ray origins. When gamma ray photons enter the earth’s atmosphere, they generate a shower of secondary charged particles which cause a flash of blue Cherenkov light, lasting a few nano seconds.

Made up of 356 indigenously manufactured mirror panels and a high-resolution imaging camera capable of detecting extremely short duration light flashes such as Cherenkov events.

The 45-metre tall telescope is designed to operate in winds speeds up to 30 kmph and retain structural integrity in the parking position in winds speeds up to 150 kmph.

At a press conference here on Friday, Chairman and Managing Director, ECIL, P.Sudhakar said the unveiling of the telescope marked an important day for Indian science and technology. He said other similar telescopes had been built by developed countries in consortium whereas this was built indigenously. He said Hanle was the most suitable place in India to conduct gamma ray experiments. There was a live demonstration of MACE telescope at ECIL for media persons.

What are Bharat emission standards?

Euro norms define the maximum limit of pollutant that a vehicle can emit. (CO2, nitrogen oxide, sulfur and suspended particulate matter)
If vehicle emits more than this limit, it cannot be sold in Europe.
In India, we follow Euro norms under the label “Bharat stage” norms. we are gradually implementing them in more and more cities
higher stage means less emission (just for reference, exact numbers not important for exam)
Euro normBharat Stage limit of RSPM* India implements from
I (1) 0.14 2000: nation wide
II (2) 0.08 2005: nation wide
III (3) 0.05 2010: nation wide
IV (4) 0.025
2010:
2011: 7 cities
2014: 24 more cities#
2017: (All India)#
V (5) 0.005 2022 (All India)#
VI (6) 0.0025 after 2024 (All India)#

The futility of ranking

The futility of ranking
Once more, the issue of Indian universities not figuring in global rankings is cause for hand wringing and heart burn.
This time, a sense of indignation has also crept in, as the QS Asia and QS BRICS surveys show that our universities are not figuring adequately even among Asian or BRICS countries. The argument goes that these global surveys do not consider the unique context of India, they give too much weightage to research, to the funding received for research, the percentage of foreign students and so on. Valid points, but the creation of an India-specific ranking system is hardly the kind of measure that will help India improve the quality of its higher education.
My belief is that India featuring among the top 200 universities in world rankings is not a problem. Institutions such as the Indian Institute of Science and the IITs are within striking distance and can be funded and supported to make the grade. But neither the status symbol of a presence in international league tables nor an India-specific ranking system will address the real malaise in our higher education, which is the very poor undergraduate system for basic disciplines.
Our 550 universities and their 16,000 colleges, which ought to be the backbone of a thriving higher education system for the basic disciplines, are in dire straits. Most of them are defeated by inadequate resources, the lack of teaching talent and infrastructure, and are without the means to aim for any measure of quality. Our schoolteachers emerge from these poor quality colleges and teach our schoolchildren in a system that is based on rote learning, devoid of the spirit of enquiry and critical thinking. The vicious cycle continues as these children in turn graduate in science, arts or commerce, neither evolved in his or her discipline nor having acquired a social orientation or values.
So even if we create our own “contextually valid” ranking system with faultless methodology and perfect execution, it is not going to address the core systemic problem. While the top 25 universities will be in a rat race as they chase the rankings, there would be unhealthy jostling for precious talent and the exercise would suck up resources and public attention. It will do nothing for the lakhs of desperate students who pass through our colleges.
We have evidence that this university assessment abhiyan could be an exercise in futility. First, an examination of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) will show that its assessment and ratings are not taken seriously or acted upon. The inadequacy of its assessment is also reflected in the manner it liberally gives out “A plus” and “A” ratings. Perhaps the first step is to take a hard look at the NAAC,
shake it up, make it use serious yardsticks where the highest rating is reserved for truly global quality institutions and the rest are placed in relation to that standard. That would address one half of the issue, that of reliable and meaningful assessment.
What of the other and more significant half, the use of these assessments for continuous improvement? That brings me to the second piece of evidence — the various school assessment exercises across the country that have not improved levels of learning. ASER, the dip-stick survey of the country for a decade now, tells us every year that half the children are not learning. Similarly, statewide, detailed quality assessment exercises show that the majority of schools are not doing their job. Other studies show that neither in private nor in public schools are children learning to develop their potential. But none of these assessments has helped improve school education because the answer lies not in these assessments but in a major systemic overhaul, most importantly, a deep and intensive revamp of our teacher education system. If these assessments have not moved the needle even a little in school quality, what makes us believe they will have different results for college education?
The answer to improving the quality of our higher education is actually a long-term, difficult process to totally reform our university programmes, organisation and regulation. We need governance reforms that question the purpose and functioning of the existing governing and statutory bodies. We need regulatory reforms to address deep-rooted rent seeking and to deal harshly with corruption and unethical commercialisation, organisational reforms that enable decentralisation, splitting up universities and explicitly preventing political appointments. We need reforms so that colleges and universities can implement structural changes that foster academic freedom in the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and they are able to recruit and appoint faculty without political interference.
Other things need to be done simultaneously to address the core issue. First, increasing public spending on higher education, because currently we spend a mere 1 per cent of our GDP on it. Second, significantly invest in basic disciplines. Third, improve and give teeth to the NAAC, make it meaningful by including measures of inclusion and equity as well as quality of learning outcomes. Fourth, address the great shortage of quality teachers in our universities by creating a system where the best people in a discipline, be it humanities or the sciences, choose teaching as a career.
We need a 10- or even 20-year strategy and we should implement it steadfastly, without wavering on the way. If one accepts this premise of long-haul reform, where a number of core systemic issues are painstakingly addressed, one will appreciate the limited value of ideas like the creation of a fresh Indian university ranking system.

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception
The biggest problem in Sino-Indian relations is the utter lack of ingenuity and innovativeness. Six decades after the formal engagement through Panchsheel and five decades after the bloody disengagement due to the 1962 War, leaders of both the countries struggle to come up with new and out-of-the-box answers to the problems plaguing their relationship.
When there are no new ideas, one resorts to symbolism and rituals. These are projected as the great new ideas to kickstart a new relationship. However, there is nothing great or new about them. They are the very same worn out and tried-tested-and-failed actions of the last several decades.
The Panchsheel itself is one ritual that successive Indian governments have unfailingly performed. Vice President Hamid Ansari will be visiting Beijing today to uphold India’s commitment to the ritual. The occasion is the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Panchsheel Agreement.
It was exactly six decades ago, on June 28, 1954, roughly two months after the formal signing of the Panchsheel, that Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai visited India. He and then-prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had issued a historic statement, reaffirming their commitment to the five principles enshrined in the Panchsheel to “lessen the tensions that exist in the world today and help in creating a climate of peace”.
Contrary to public perception or propaganda, Panchsheel was actually an agreement between the “Tibetan region of China and India” on “trade and intercourse”. It did include five principles, like mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, etc, but the very title of the agreement was a defeat for India.
The British had, at least from the Simla Accord of 1912 until they left India, not conceded that Tibet was a part of China. Unfortunately, one of the first foreign policy deviations of the Nehru government was the signing of the Panchsheel, wherein India had formally called the Tibetan region as “of China”. Thus the Panchsheel was signed as a treaty of peaceful coexistence over the obituary of Tibetan independence. That was why parliamentarian Acharya Kripalani called the agreement as “born in sin”.
The Panchsheel met its end just three months after its signing, when the Chinese were found violating Indian borders in Ladakh in late-1954. A formal death note was written by Mao Zedong a few months before the 1962 war, when he told Zhou that what India and China should practice is not “peaceful coexistence” but “armed coexistence”. The war followed and ended in humiliation and loss of territory for India. It left behind a massive border dispute that continues to haunt both the countries.
However, this didn’t seem to deter the Indian and, to some extent, the Chinese leadership in continuing with the deception of the Panchsheel. The history of Sino-Indian relations in the last five decades isreplete with instances of violations of sovereignty, mutual animosity, attempts to upstage each other and general ill-will. Mostly the Chinese have been on the wrong side of the so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Yet, the ritual continued through the decades and changing governments in India. Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao to Atal Bihari Vajpayee continued paying lip service to the Panchsheel during bilateral visits.
“Only with coexistence can there be any existence,” declared Indira Gandhi in 1983. The next prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, expressed confidence in 1988 that “the five principles of peaceful coexistence provide the best way to handle relations between nations”. Rao as prime minister declared in 1993 that “these principles remain as valid today as they were when they were drafted”. While Vajpayee too was forced to continue this ritual, he made a significant departure by refusing to falsely credit China for following the Panchsheel. He put extra emphasis on “mutual sensitivity to the concerns of each other” and “respect for equality”.
At a time when Beijing is celebrating six decades of the Panchsheel, it is important to look at a new framework for Sino-Indian relations beyond Panchsheel. Vajpayee laid the foundation for a renewed outlook by emphasising on sensitivity and equality. That can form the basis for the new framework.
The Chinese have a clever way of promoting their superiority and exclusivism. Sinologists describe it as the Middle Kingdom syndrome. While Nehru wanted to take credit for the Panchsheel, Zhou told Richard Nixon in 1973 that “actually, the five principles were put forward by us, and Nehru agreed. But later on he didn’t implement them”. The Chinese also entered into a similar agreement with Myanmar (then Burma) in 1954, thus ensuring that the Panchsheel wasn’t exclusive to their relationship with India.
For the Beijing event, the Chinese government has invited the president of India as well as the president of Myanmar, General Thein Sein, who will be present. Ansari will lead the Indian delegation. Without any malice towards Ansari, one would notice the downgrading of India’s participation in the Beijing event. Beijing was keen on having the president or prime minister at the event. But for once, the South Block mandarins seem to have done their homework, advising the Indian government against sending either of them. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj too decided to skip the event and chose to visit Dhaka around the same time, sending a rather strong signal.
If Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is expected to visit India in September, decide to depart from the Panchsheel framework and embark on a new relationship, both countries will benefit. Both leaders have that ability. Both enjoy the trust and confidence of their countries. Most importantly, both are seen to be out-of-the-box leaders.
India and China can cooperate with each other on the principles of sovereign equality and mutual sensitivity. China has emerged as an economic superpower, but is exposed to serious internal and external threats. It is facing problems with almost all of its 13 neighbours
The fact that China spends more money on internal security than on external security speaks volumes about its internal vulnerability. So, while India is not as big economically as China, its security apparatus is better-placed.
Modi and Xi can chart a new course in Sino-Indian relations if they are prepared to unshackle themselves from ritualism and symbolism. Both have the ability and the support to do it.

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception

Moving beyond the Panchsheel deception
The biggest problem in Sino-Indian relations is the utter lack of ingenuity and innovativeness. Six decades after the formal engagement through Panchsheel and five decades after the bloody disengagement due to the 1962 War, leaders of both the countries struggle to come up with new and out-of-the-box answers to the problems plaguing their relationship.
When there are no new ideas, one resorts to symbolism and rituals. These are projected as the great new ideas to kickstart a new relationship. However, there is nothing great or new about them. They are the very same worn out and tried-tested-and-failed actions of the last several decades.
The Panchsheel itself is one ritual that successive Indian governments have unfailingly performed. Vice President Hamid Ansari will be visiting Beijing today to uphold India’s commitment to the ritual. The occasion is the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Panchsheel Agreement.
It was exactly six decades ago, on June 28, 1954, roughly two months after the formal signing of the Panchsheel, that Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai visited India. He and then-prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had issued a historic statement, reaffirming their commitment to the five principles enshrined in the Panchsheel to “lessen the tensions that exist in the world today and help in creating a climate of peace”.
Contrary to public perception or propaganda, Panchsheel was actually an agreement between the “Tibetan region of China and India” on “trade and intercourse”. It did include five principles, like mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, etc, but the very title of the agreement was a defeat for India.
The British had, at least from the Simla Accord of 1912 until they left India, not conceded that Tibet was a part of China. Unfortunately, one of the first foreign policy deviations of the Nehru government was the signing of the Panchsheel, wherein India had formally called the Tibetan region as “of China”. Thus the Panchsheel was signed as a treaty of peaceful coexistence over the obituary of Tibetan independence. That was why parliamentarian Acharya Kripalani called the agreement as “born in sin”.
The Panchsheel met its end just three months after its signing, when the Chinese were found violating Indian borders in Ladakh in late-1954. A formal death note was written by Mao Zedong a few months before the 1962 war, when he told Zhou that what India and China should practice is not “peaceful coexistence” but “armed coexistence”. The war followed and ended in humiliation and loss of territory for India. It left behind a massive border dispute that continues to haunt both the countries.
However, this didn’t seem to deter the Indian and, to some extent, the Chinese leadership in continuing with the deception of the Panchsheel. The history of Sino-Indian relations in the last five decades isreplete with instances of violations of sovereignty, mutual animosity, attempts to upstage each other and general ill-will. Mostly the Chinese have been on the wrong side of the so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Yet, the ritual continued through the decades and changing governments in India. Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao to Atal Bihari Vajpayee continued paying lip service to the Panchsheel during bilateral visits.
“Only with coexistence can there be any existence,” declared Indira Gandhi in 1983. The next prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, expressed confidence in 1988 that “the five principles of peaceful coexistence provide the best way to handle relations between nations”. Rao as prime minister declared in 1993 that “these principles remain as valid today as they were when they were drafted”. While Vajpayee too was forced to continue this ritual, he made a significant departure by refusing to falsely credit China for following the Panchsheel. He put extra emphasis on “mutual sensitivity to the concerns of each other” and “respect for equality”.
At a time when Beijing is celebrating six decades of the Panchsheel, it is important to look at a new framework for Sino-Indian relations beyond Panchsheel. Vajpayee laid the foundation for a renewed outlook by emphasising on sensitivity and equality. That can form the basis for the new framework.
The Chinese have a clever way of promoting their superiority and exclusivism. Sinologists describe it as the Middle Kingdom syndrome. While Nehru wanted to take credit for the Panchsheel, Zhou told Richard Nixon in 1973 that “actually, the five principles were put forward by us, and Nehru agreed. But later on he didn’t implement them”. The Chinese also entered into a similar agreement with Myanmar (then Burma) in 1954, thus ensuring that the Panchsheel wasn’t exclusive to their relationship with India.
For the Beijing event, the Chinese government has invited the president of India as well as the president of Myanmar, General Thein Sein, who will be present. Ansari will lead the Indian delegation. Without any malice towards Ansari, one would notice the downgrading of India’s participation in the Beijing event. Beijing was keen on having the president or prime minister at the event. But for once, the South Block mandarins seem to have done their homework, advising the Indian government against sending either of them. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj too decided to skip the event and chose to visit Dhaka around the same time, sending a rather strong signal.
If Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is expected to visit India in September, decide to depart from the Panchsheel framework and embark on a new relationship, both countries will benefit. Both leaders have that ability. Both enjoy the trust and confidence of their countries. Most importantly, both are seen to be out-of-the-box leaders.
India and China can cooperate with each other on the principles of sovereign equality and mutual sensitivity. China has emerged as an economic superpower, but is exposed to serious internal and external threats. It is facing problems with almost all of its 13 neighbours
The fact that China spends more money on internal security than on external security speaks volumes about its internal vulnerability. So, while India is not as big economically as China, its security apparatus is better-placed.
Modi and Xi can chart a new course in Sino-Indian relations if they are prepared to unshackle themselves from ritualism and symbolism. Both have the ability and the support to do it.

India’s Intervention on Eradicating Poverty & Achieving Prosperity, within the Earth’s Safe Operating Space, through Sustainable Consumption and Production

An estimated 1.3 billion people, living mostly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan African countries, survive on per capita income of less that US Dollar 1.25 a day. The wide gap between the per capita income of people living in developed and developing countries is stark. Clearly, eradicating poverty and reducing inequality has to be the overarching priority for achieving sustainable development. The development we all are aiming at has to be inclusive, addressing the concerns of the most oppressed, marginalized and poverty ridden people in the world.

One of the most significant outcomes of Rio+ 20 Summit has been to place poverty eradication at the centre of the global development agenda. I quote from paragraph 2 of the outcome document, “The future we want”:



Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. In this regard we are committed to freeing humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency.”



It is a matter of great satisfaction that out of various focus areas being considered for developing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by the Open Working Group (OWG), established by the UNGA, the first proposed goal relates to ending poverty in all its forms everywhere.



The importance of sustainable consumption and production for sustainable development cannot be overstated. The topic of today’s discussion makes a reference to “..within the earth’s operating space”. This instantly brings to my mind the famous quote of Mahatma Gandhi “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”.



1.3 billion tons of food produced is wasted every year, amounting to over one-third of all food produced. The wastage of food at consumer level alone in industrialized countries is nearly as much as the total food production in sub-Saharan Africa. Food waste has been often clubbed with the issue of post-harvest losses in developing countries, which is a flawed approach.

There is a wide variation in the per capita energy consumption level in the world. While the world average per capita energy consumption is 1.8 tons of oil equivalent (toe), the corresponding figures for OECD countries and India are 4.28 toe and 0.6 toe respectively.



All this points towards unsustainable and wasteful consumption patterns in developed countries and makes it imperative for them to take lead to shift towards sustainable consumption and production patterns.



The principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and “equity” must continue to be the bedrock of the ongoing and future global discourse on sustainable development. Clearly, our efforts to put the global economy on a sustainable path cannot be and must not be on the backs of the poor.



While attaining sustainable production and consumption pattern would result in release of unproductive and wasteful resources which could then be gainfully utilized, it would be simplistic to assume that sustainable production and development by itself would be sufficient to eradicate poverty across the globe. Eradication of poverty requires much more proactive and concerted action.



Sustained and inclusive economic growth is a key enabler for achieving poverty eradication. The developing countries requiring assistance to implement poverty eradication policies and programmes have to be assured of predictable, additional and adequate international financing.



The developed countries need to not only urgently fulfill their commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) as official development assistance (ODA) for developing countries but also pledge additional and predictable funding considering the ambition levels for post- 2015 development agenda. The options for other supplementary modes of financing could be looked at once this basic commitment is met by the developed countries