Krishi Vigyan Kendras

Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) are the frontline agricultural extension center funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The KVKs focus on training and education of farmers, rural youth, on field demonstration of new and improved farming techniques etc.
It was felt that the Indian Farmers do not have knowledge about scientific farming methods, the soil-crop linkages, fertilizer requirements etc. Hence, KVKs were set up to ensure a last mile linkage, which would provide farmers with information and training about scientific farming, mitigation measures in case of adverse climatic events, consultancy services regarding the type of crops to be sown, the type and amount of fertilizer to be used etc.
However the KVKs have not had the impact that was envisioned.
1. KVKs have different organisational structures. While some come directly under ICAR, others are monitored by State Agricultural Universities or even Civil Society Organisations. This has led to problems of monitoring and co-ordination problems.
2. While the KVKs have had some impact by proving training and some advisory services, their mandate was very expansive which they have not been able to fulfill due to lack of budgetary support.
3. One KVK has been established in every district in the country. However, a district could be very large (Upto 38000 sq kms). Hence, one KVK has not been enough to cover the entire district. Thus, the impact on KVKs has been only in the immediate surrounding areas.
4. The KVKs do not have integration with the weather monitoring and forecasting services. This impacts their ability to advise farmers about the mitigating steps in case of adverse climate.
While KVKs have had some impact, there is potential to do a lot more. The government must look at reviewing the locations of KVKs, meet the manpower requirements and also consider setting up more than one KVK in a district. KVKs are essential in order to reach the goal of at least 4% growth in agriculture. They must be empowered to help proactively in achieving that target.

Street Vendors Act, 2014

By enacting the Street Vendors Act, 2014, the government aimed to balance three key objectives - Protecting the livelihoods of the vendors, ensuring congestion free public spaces and streets and ensuring the convenience of vending services for the consumers. However while the intention was good, it has not translated on ground -
1. The Act aims at ensuring a uniform legal framework to protect the livelihood of street vendors. However, it leaves major areas of regulation to the street vending scheme to be formulated by the state governments and implemented by the local authorities.
2. Formation of the Town Vending Committee with at least 40% representation of street vendors, one third of whom are women is a good step. However, in the creation of the street vending plan or in dispute redressal mechanism, the TVC has no role whatsoever. The national policy on Urban Street Vending, 2009 required that TVCs be consulted while deciding the vending zones.
3. The role of TVCs has been reduced to specifying time limits for issue and renewal of registration and vending certificate. And to store data regarding street vendors like category of vending, stall allotted etc. Since this law supercedes the laws enacted by states like Rajasthan and Gujarat which provided significant powers to the TVCs, it is actually a step backwards.
4. The act specifies that no vendor can be evicted without a 7 day notice by the local authority. Also the vendor will be entitled to a separate vending location. This provision has however been observed only in its breach with vendors being evicted at will based on the whims and fancies of police and local authorities.
While the intentions and the provisions of the law are good, it has not had a material impact on the lives of the vendors themselves. Enacting good laws is not the solution to any problem. It is only the first step. What is more important is how it is implemented. Now that the first step has been taken, the government must ensure that its implementation is in step with the spirit of the law to ensure that the objectives behind its enactment are met.

Govt scheme for 24x7 power still in nascent stage

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government's ambitious plan to provide 24x7 power to households by 2019 was announced well before the Union government could even prepare a detailed blueprint or tot up an estimate of the costs involved.

More than six months after the NDA government announced it would electrify entire India by 2019, plans for only three geographies are ready - Delhi, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh.

The scale of the challenge the government has set itself to achieve in four years is nothing short of astonishing. It will have to provide an electricity connection to roughly 80 million households that are still not connected to the grid (2011 Census). Then it will have to ensure the connections actually buzz with uninterrupted power that reaches 246.7 million households.The government can take some solace from the fact that substantial connections provided between 2011-14 will lower the targets to be met in four years.

LIGHTING UP THE NATION

INVESTMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS Rs 1.27 LAKH-CRORE to be invested by Coal India to raise output to 1 billion tonnes by 2019-20 Rs 10 LAKH-CRORE push for renewable energy Rs 1 LAKH-CRORE for transmission and distribution systems PROMISE OF 24X7 POWER BY 2019 Plans for only three geographies have been drawn up — Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi Nine states’ plans expected to be ready in three months, remaining by December

To put this in perspective, between 2001 and 2011, an additional 61.6 million households got access to electricity. The government will have to more than double the rate of electrification to cover the remaining by 2019.

This is not just a logistical challenge. It has large fiscal implications. Andhra Pradesh, for example, has to provide connections to only 1.6 million additional households in four years - it is already 92 per cent electrified. It requires an investment of Rs 54,332 crore to connect these households and provide 24x7 power to all. By contrast, Rajasthan, which has to provide connection to an additional 3 million households, requires approximately Rs 78,500 crore. Costs for just these two states add up to Rs 1.33 lakh crore. But Rajasthan envisages adding more renewable power than the state will need (9,615 Mw) at an additional cost of Rs 67,000 crore.

The government's promise is to provide reliable supply to all consumers, except agriculture, which according to the two states' plans, will get 6.5 to nine hours of power a day by 2019.

Then there are states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The connections previous governments added in the entire country in five years will have to be added in just these two states in four years. Put together, 36 million houses in these two states were without power, according to the 2011 Census.

To map out reaching the national target, sources in the power ministry say, CRISIL, Mecon and Deloitte have been hired as consultants to draft the remaining 26 states' plans. In three months, these consultants will finalise three states' plans each. The officials insist that the remaining states will be ready by December, leaving the government with about three-and-a-half years to fulfil the promise before the general elections in 2019. The total investment required by all states, along with the additional central funding and private investment needs, would give an indication of the cumulative costs of achieving the 24x7 target. That will take at least another six months to be put together.

The power ministry did not reply to a detailed questionnaire from Business Standard, which included queries on the total cost calculations and estimations, if any, done so far to achieve the 24x7 electricity supply target.

Over the past few months, the government had announced some estimates of how much the grand scheme would cost and what it would entail.

Coal India (CIL) would have to increase its production to one billion tonnes annually from 494 million tonnes in 2014-15 - requiring a 15 per cent annual rate of growth. Last year, CIL ramped up production by about 6.9 per cent, though in the previous five years the average annual growth has been only 3.5 per cent. CIL would need to more than double the growth it achieved last year to achieve the target set by the government. For this, Coal Minister Piyush Goyal had estimated investments of Rs 1.27 lakh crore.

Goyal has also suggested that an investment of Rs 10 lakh crore would be required in the renewable energy sector to ramp up solar power from to 100 GW by 2022 and wind to 60 GW - at a growth rate that no country has achieved so far. At the beginning of 2014, India had installed 2,631.93 Mw of solar power projects and 21,136.40 Mw of wind power.

To upgrade the transmission and distribution systems, he has said Rs 1 lakh crore is needed over four years. In contrast, the Central Electricity Authority had prepared a 20-year plan to ensure a country-wide transmission network as the backbone of the 24x7 power supply system. This, the authority assessed, would cost Rs 2.6 lakh crore. Goyal and the government have assured funds should not be a problem.

Considering the power sector is one of the most indebted today, the government has its task cut out. The total debt burden on the power sector is pegged at Rs 4.70 lakh crore, according to Business Standard's analysis. Accumulated losses of the distributors - state electricity boards - are Rs 3 lakh crore, according to the government.

These macro numbers will eventually have to be reconciled with the state-specific plans still being fleshed out.

In a three-part series, Business Standard looks at how the government is gearing up to meet its promise of power for all. The second part will look at the two plans that are ready and available publicly - those of Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan - and how generation of power will have to be dramatically ramped up in four years

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-scheme-for-24x7-power-still-in-nascent-stage-115061700019_1.html

Synthetic biology

Synthetic biology, as the name suggests utilizes chemistry and molecular biology to redesign or reconstruct biological parts, create new devices and systems, and most important of them all create new targeted organisms for specific purpose.
The various applications of this novel field are:
Human application in medicine
a) novel drugs and antibiotics, vaccines: to tackle antibiotic resistant micro-organisms, increase efficacy, decrease side effects.
For example: Hybridoma technology for rituximab (anti CD 20) for Rheumatoid
arthritis, Hepatitis B vaccine. (rDNA technology)
b) ligand targeted delivery systems: to treat certain cancerous tumors
c) Role in genetic and degenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinsonism, etc. For example, three parent gamete fusion to remove mitochondrial diseases, stem cell therapy for pancreatic islet cells (diabetes mellitus)
Food security: pesticide resistant varieties (Bt cotton), high yielding varieties, protein or mineral enriched cereals, single cell protein, delay in rotting with better
quality and colour. These can enable to meet demands of rapid growing
population and decreasing farmland and environmental risk concerns.
However, just like another face of coin, this technology possesses certain risks with ethical issues. For Ex.
1) toxicity and allergens: allergenic properties of donor can be transferred to recipient.
2) affecting genetic diversity and ecological balance: being exotic species can wipe out native species, leading loss to significant genetic pool and new risks of novel viruses and bacteria due to horizontal gene transfer.
3) These transgenic genes can jump over to cause new diseases or unknown cancerous conditions.
4) Most important of all Bioterrorism/ biological weapons, as earlier done by using anthrax and botulism toxin.

Land Bill: NGOs, farmer organisations hit out at govt

Related News

• Land Bill: NGOs, farmer organisations hit out at govt
• Medha Patkar resigns from AAP's primary membership
• Anna Hazare to protest against land ordinance
• Hazare slams Modi govt on Land acquisition ordinance
• Can't give any advice to AAP leaders, says Hazare

The government was on Monday under attack from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and farmer organisations over the contentious land acquisition Bill, with activist Medha Patkar leading the protest against changes brought in the 2013 land law of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).

Several organisations, including National Alliance for Farmers Movement (NAFM), All India Coordination Committee of Farmers, Bhartiya Kisan Union (A) and Shetkari Sangathan, made their representation before the Joint Committee of Parliament going into the issue on the fourth day of consultations.

Citing the “experiences” from Narmada Valley Projects, in particular Sardar Sarovar Project of Gujarat, Patkar made a strong pitch for not only retaining the ‘social impact assessment’ and ‘consent’ clauses of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, but even “expanding” their ambit, sources said.

ALSO READ: Farmers' leaders meet Jaitley on land bill

Maintaining that SIA and Consent are crucial and these cannot be excluded for any category of projects, Patkar, who represented the National Alliance of People's Movements, said every project initiated and proposed either by a state agency or from within a community, whether governmental project or a private plan, must pass through these two criteria.

"Narmada experience shows how without the two preconditions the project like Sardar Sarovar was pushed without a full or good plan and people's sanction, inevitably leading to controversies that continue to affect the project till date," she said.

The NAPM demanded mandatory 'free prior informed consent' of gram/basti or ward sabha, following the spirit of Article 243 of the Constitution for any kind of land acquisition developed by government corporation, private corporation or through PPP mode.

It also said that scope of seeking consent from land owners should be expanded to include public purpose projects implemented and developed by the government and not only be limited to the private projects and PPP projects.

Flagging the threat to multi-crop irrigated in particular and cultivable lands in general, the organisation demanded that there should not be any acquisition of agricultural land, single or multi-cropped land by the government for infrastructure projects and in case of emergency situation, a similar amount of compensatory land must be developed elsewhere.

The NAFM made nine suggestions to the panel including land for land, house for house and employment for employment arrangements in rehabilitation of those affected by the land acquisition. It demanded that the suggestions should be incorporated in the new land bill of NDA.


http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ngos-farmer-organisations-hit-out-at-govt-on-land-bill-115061500948_1.html

ये डिग्रियां कौन दिखाते हैं? | Priya Darshan

किस्सा मशहूर है कि जाने-माने शायर अकबर इलाहाबादी के घर एक सज्जन पहुंचे और उन्होंने अपना विज़िटिंग कार्ड भीतर भिजवाया जिस पर उनके छपे हुए नाम के नीचे कलम से ‘बीए पास’ लिखा हुआ था। अकबर इलाहाबादी ने बाहर एक रुक्का भिजवाया, जिस पर यह शेर लिखा था, ‘शेख़ जी घर से न निकले और ये फ़रमा दिया / आप बीए पास हैं तो बंदा बीवी पास है।‘ अकबर के लिहाज से इस शेर का एक संदर्भ यह भी था कि वे पश्चिमी आधुनिकता की पूरी परियोजना को ख़ारिज करते थे जिसमें उनके स्कूल-कॉलेजों वाली शिक्षा भी शामिल थी।
बहरहाल, अकबर के परहेज और गांधी की आलोचना के बावजूद वह पश्चिमी शिक्षा पद्धति हमारे जीवन पर कुछ इस तरह हावी है कि हम उसके बाहर देख और सोच नहीं सकते। इसका एक दिलचस्प पहलू यह है कि पढ़ाई-लिखाई में डिग्रियां जैसे-जैसे बेमानी हुई जा रही हैं, सार्वजनिक जीवन में उनकी अपरिहार्यता जैसे और बढ़ती जा रही है। अगर ऐसा न होता तो दिल्ली की दो सरकारों के दो मंत्री डिग्री विवाद से न घिरे होते। क्या इत्तिफाक है कि एक तरफ केंद्र की मोदी सरकार की मानव संसाधन मंत्री स्मृति ईरानी की डिग्री अलग-अलग चुनावों के दौरान दिए गए उनके अपने हलफ़नामों की वजह से सवालों में घिरी है तो दिल्ली की केजरीवाल सरकार के कानून मंत्री जितेंद्र तोमर की कानून की डिग्री ही फ़र्जी बताई जा रही है।
यह बात कुछ हैरान करती है कि इन दो मंत्रियों ने अपनी डिग्रियों को लेकर कुछ गलत या अंतर्विरोधी सूचनाएं क्यों दीं? अगर इन दोनों के पास ये दो डिग्रियां न होतीं तो भी ये मानव संसाधन मंत्री या कानून मंत्री होने की अर्हता रखते थे। यही नहीं, इनकी डिग्रियों से इनकी कार्यकुशलता का भी कोई वास्ता नहीं है। स्मृति ईरानी अगर बीए या एमए पास नहीं हैं और जितेंद्र तोमर के पास अगर कानून की डिग्री नहीं है तो इससे न उनका सामाजिक सम्मान घटता है न उनकी राजनीतिक हैसियत में कमी आती है। फिर वह कौन सी चीज़ है जो डिग्रियों को इनके लिए इतना ज़रूरी बनाती है? क्या अपने भीतर का कोई खोखलापन, क्या आत्मविश्वास की कोई कमी- जिसकी वजह से इन्हें लगता है कि डिग्रियों की ओट लेकर ये छुप जाएंगे या कुछ और मज़बूत दिखने लगेंगे?
ध्यान से देखें तो भारतीय समाज में डिग्रियों का यह आतंक आधी सदी से पुराना नहीं है। समाज में बहुत सारे लोग ऐसे थे जो परंपरा से या स्वाध्याय से इतना कुछ पढ़-लिख लेते थे कि वे कई पढ़े-लिखे लोगों को पढ़ाते थे। वैसे तब की डिग्रियां भी इतनी बेमानी नहीं थीं। उन दिनों के मैट्रिक पास लोग भी अपने ज्ञान के बुनियादी अनुशासन में बहुत ठोस हुआ करते थे।
लेकिन आज स्वाध्याय की वह परंपरा भी क्षतिग्रस्त है और डिग्रियां बांटने वाले संस्थानों की विश्वसनीयता भी। कहने को भारत सूचना क्रांति के केंद्र में है और आइआइटीज़ की संख्या बढ़ती जा रही है, लेकिन पचास बरस में हम सीवी रमन या सत्येंद्रनाथ बोस के पाये का एक भी वैज्ञानिक पैदा नहीं कर पाए। हम बस सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी के बाज़ार में, कवि वीरेन डंगवाल के शब्दों में ‘बिल गेट्स का दक्ष किंतु निर्जीव हाथ’ बन कर खुश हैं। दूसरे अनुशासनों की दशा और गंभीर है। हिंदी साहित्य में पीएचडी लगभग मज़ाक का विषय हो चुकी है।
इसके बावजूद जितेंद्र तोमर या स्मृति ईरानी के भीतर ख़ुद को विशेष डिग्रीवाला बताने की चाह क्यों है? क्योंकि क्षऱण डिग्रियों का ही नहीं, ज्ञान की पूरी परंपरा का हुआ है। शिक्षा अब ज्ञानवान या बेहतर इंसान बनने की कोशिश या प्रक्रिया का नाम नहीं है, वह बेहतर- यानी अच्छे पैसे वाली- नौकरियां दिलाने का जरिया है- इसके लिए विज्ञान भी रटा जा सकता है और इतिहास भी- और दोनों को नौकरी पाकर भूला जा सकता है। भले ही पढ़ाई आपने देश के सबसे भारी-भरकम संस्थानों से की हो।
पिछले दिनों बिहार के एक विद्यालय में दूसरी-तीसरी मंज़िल पर खिड़की के सहारे लटक कर अपनों को इम्तिहानों में नकल करा रहे लोगों की तस्वीर बिल्कुल अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर वायरल हो गई थी, लेकिन खिड़की के दूसरी तरफ की असलियत किसी ने देखने-जानने की जहमत नहीं मोल ली थी। हमारे यहां पैसेवाले अगर ट्यूशन के सहारे, कोचिंग के सहारे, गाइडबुक के रट्टामार तरीकों के सहारे इम्तिहान पास करते हैं तो गरीब लट्ठमार ढंग से- फर्क बस इतना है।
लेकिन जब आपके पास ज्ञान की ठोस परंपरा न हो, अपनी अर्जित शिक्षा का आत्मविश्वास न हो तो आपको डिग्रियां दिखाना जरूरी लगने लगता है। क्योंकि यह किसी और चीज़ से नहीं, सिर्फ़ आपकी डिग्री से साबित हो सकता है कि आप पढ़े-लिखे हैं। बुरा हो इस देश की लोकतांत्रिक प्रक्रियाओं का कि लोगों का यह घपला भी पकड़ में आ जाता है।

Source: https://www.facebook.com/priya.darshan.58/posts/10206374305572332

Ethics in Governance

Ethics in Governance means implementing Gandhian, Socialism and Intelligent thinking in Governance where Constitution is silent. In simple words, bringing welfare, justice and equality toward lesser able and lesser aware people through governance.
Right to Information 2005 is an act that not only provides “Right to Know” to applicant (public) but also make government or government funded authority more accountable.
Ethics in Governance includes:
--1. Transparency.
--2. Time bound delivery
--3. Equal and Affordable access of Government facilities to everyone
RTI brings Transparency through letting applicant know his queries about progress, status, reasons and any related information about task authority is undertaking. Time bound reply rule brings more accountability to keep records intact about any and every information. Hence Transparency and timebound delivery enhanced.
Without RTI, it is hard to find the information about our rights and entitlement any government agency owes us. Especially for poor and lesser educated person. Now with RTI he can access information with nominal fees of 10 rupees and even with e-portal irrespective of his location and physical accessiblity.

MERS

Geneva: Disease trackers are accustomed to hunting deadly new pathogens in Africa’s jungles and Asia’s megacities. The sand dunes of the Middle East? Not so much. But that’s the birthplace of the latest previously unknown virus to spread globally: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, or MERS-CoV. Exactly where the virus comes from remains a mystery, but camels are thought to be the source of many human infections. It’s most dangerous for people with underlying health conditions and is often lethal.

The Situation

Three years after MERS emerged in Saudi Arabia, the first major outbreak of the disease outside the kingdom, in South Korea in May 2015, reignited concerns of a global health emergency akin to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2003. Also for the first time, the disease was exported to a third country when an infected South Korean man went to China after ignoring instructions not to travel. Globally, the virus has sickened more than 1,200 people and killed more than 440, the vast majority in Saudi Arabia. MERS was first identified in the desert kingdom in 2012, when a 60-year-old Saudi man died with severe pneumonia and kidney failure, though a subsequent analysis found two earlier cases in Jordan. The virus appeared to be on the wane until April 2014, when the case count exploded. Contact with camels during the spring, when females wean their young, may have contributed to the surge in new cases, which was amplified by poor infection control in hospitals. Despite concerns that the annual pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca and Medina in mid-October would spread MERS, not a single case was attributable to the pilgrimage, according to the World Health Organization. The virus does not appear to pass easily from person to person. While cases have been reported in the US, Europe, Asia and Africa, all have been in people who live in or travelled to the Middle East, or who were exposed to someone who did.

The background

MERS-CoV belongs to the same family of pathogens as the SARS virus, which killed about 800 people worldwide after first appearing in China in 2003. MERS-CoV turned up in three-quarters of samples taken from camels across Saudi Arabia, according to a study published in early 2014. Camel herders and people who visited a camel farm or consumed unpasteurized camel milk have been among those infected. The virus has also been found in bats, suggesting that they may be a natural reservoir. MERS causes fever, cough and shortness of breath, leading in severe cases to respiratory failure, organ failure and death. People with weakened immune systems are more at risk. There’s no vaccine and no specific treatment. Despite the spread of the virus to South Korea and China, there’s no evidence that it has mutated into a more transmissible form, according to the WHO. Most of the cases in which people passed along the disease involve family members or health-care workers who were exposed.

The argument

The World Health Organization has declared global public health emergencies only three times. In 2009 for the H1N1 influenza (swine flu) pandemic, in May 2014 when it announced that polio had rebounded after almost being eradicated, and in August 2014 when Ebola ravaged west Africa. The WHO’s emergency committee has met to discuss MERS eight times since July 2013 and each time decided against labeling it an emergency, in large part because of its limited transmission between humans. Rather than suggest travel bans or other global measures that could raise anxieties, the agency said health-care workers should take standard infection-control measures, such as washing their hands between patients, and wear protective equipment when treating those with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Amid criticism that South Korea missed opportunities to contain MERS early, WHO convened a team of specialists to study the country’s response and recommend measures for ending the epidemic.

What’s good for companies is good for NGOs too

Nations are lobbied by outsiders all the time. It is a strong nation that knows when to concede; it is a weak nation that feels frightened when it is lobbied; and it is a foolishly stubborn nation whose government believes it knows everything and does not need external advice.

India’s annoyance with foreign funding of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or its allergy to their campaigns and advocacy are not marks of its strengths, but of its weakness. Just as governments till 1991 were myopically nationalist in keeping foreign capital out, the government now is churlishly nationalist in its attempts to restrict the activities of NGOs.

If companies investing in India have the right to raise capital abroad, so should civil society organizations. This is not only because resources are insufficient, but also because philanthropists in India have their own priorities. Typically, these revolve around assisting the poor by providing healthcare, education and, in many cases, building places of worship. All those activities are voluntary, and often dictated by the philanthropists’ personal preferences.

It is indeed the government’s responsibility to provide whatever welfare it chooses to provide in a non-discriminatory manner, and yet often a government is unable and sometimes unwilling to do so. In such contexts, it falls on other entities, such as NGOs, to step in. This is particularly so in instances where an NGO is assisting a community or region that may be politically controversial. (Think of an NGO providing medical relief in Maoist-held areas of central India.) The government is clearly not going to be active there, and few corporations would want to associate themselves with a cause so controversial.

It is hard for Greenpeace or Human Rights Watch to raise funding entirely from domestic sources—not because Indians don’t care for the environment or human rights, but because the advocacy of those organizations clashes with the policies and priorities of the government, and Indian companies are wary of aligning with such organizations. (Some such NGOs may have internal policies prohibiting them from seeking corporate funding.)

At the same time, even if they deny it, NGOs are businesses—they employ people, provide services or advocate ideas, or help manufacture goods. Indeed, they lobby, they amplify voices—Indian voices—already vocal in India, to advance specific positions.

It is naive to think companies, which have foreign capital invested in them, don’t do such lobbying. Companies routinely lobby for tax exemptions, to override community vetoes so that they can expand their operations, to get subsidized power or access to infrastructure, or to reduce protection of workers’ rights. They lobby for higher tariff on imports or for tax holidays. Each of those demands is in the companies’ own self-interest, and each such demand benefits only a few—shareholders, contractors, associates and staff. There is nothing wrong with any of that, provided no force is used, no bribes are given or taken, no laws are violated and there is transparency.

The same logic ought to apply to NGOs. When a company wants a community to be displaced so that it can begin mining, its shareholders and workers will gain, but someone else—a community—may bear the pain, which needs to be compensated. Indian—and indeed international—experience shows that more often than not such communities are treated unfairly, and NGOs represent such disempowered communities. That’s another way of looking at what John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist, called countervailing power.

The argument that NGOs represent foreign or anti-national interests assumes that those opposing the NGOs represent Indian interests. But how could you consider as anti-national an NGO funded by a foreign development agency and challenging a foreign pharmaceutical company which might insist on keeping life-saving drugs out of the reach of the poor, or fighting to protect India’s forests against a foreign oil company?

A former Indian senior executive argued how countries such as the US and the UK would not allow lobbying by a foreign NGO when their national security issues are involved. It is a misreading of the American and British political scene. Non-American NGOs like Federatione Internationale de Droits de l’Homme and the International Committee of the Red Cross have criticized the US over its policies and actions to combat terror, including the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and neither is restricted from raising funds or operating in the US.

By restricting NGOs’ ability to raise funds, by micromanaging their operations, by seeking to prevent their representatives from travelling to speak at meetings abroad (the latest incident involves barring a Greenpeace International staff member from Australia from entering India despite him possessing a valid visa), or by calling them unpatriotic when they give voice to India’s dispossessed, India’s democracy comes across as immature and underconfident.

Salil Tripathi is contributing editor at Mint and based in London. He is also a senior advisor at the Institute for Human Rights and Business, and has been on the board of English PEN, which campaigns for freedom of expression worldwide. 

 

www.livemint.com/Opinion/3m6EyCcehT7ksaeeYq47IO/Whats-good-for-companies-is-good-for-NGOs-too.html 

Cameron under pressure on EU talks

As Prime Minister David Cameron prepares to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union at a summit later this month, more than 50 Conservative party members of Parliament have said that they will vote to leave the EU if the Prime Minister does not achieve the autonomy from the EU they seek.

In his election campaign, Mr. Cameron had promised far-reaching treaty change with the EU and an ‘in-out’ referendum on its membership of the European body to be held before 2017.

Greater autonomy

Mr. Cameron must now make good on his pledge of renegotiating the terms of Britain’s EU membership in the direction of greater autonomy for Parliament and the loosening of European regulations on the British economy and legal system.

If he does not get the concessions he seeks, Mr. Cameron will have to decide on whether his government will throw its weight behind Brexit in the run up to the referendum.

Key electoral promises made by the Conservative Party hang on the successful outcome of Mr. Cameron’s negotiations with Brussels. These include pledges to cut EU immigration into Britain, to replace the Human Rights Act with a tougher Bill of Rights, and regulation on businesses.

Mr. Cameron is expected to face tough opposition during the negotiations from leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz among others who want the U.K. to remain in the EU but are willing to grant no special status.

‘Out’ sentiment

Indeed, the ‘out’ sentiment on Europe is gaining traction within the Conservative party. Conservatives for Britain, a newly set up pressure group of Tory eurosceptics headed by the MP Steve Baker, claims that it will monitor the progress of talks and see if it is line with the party’s election pledges.

Writing in The Telegraph on Sunday, Mr. Baker said the renegotiation must include “an end to ‘ever closer union’, reduced regulation for small businesses and start-ups, domestic control over social and employment law, protection for the City, exemption from eurozone intervention, fast-track trade deals, a reduced EU budget, greater transparency, migration controls for member states and the right for Britain to veto EU laws.

Mr. Baker makes it clear that the MPs will seek an ‘out’ option in the referendum if these criteria are not met.

“We wish David Cameron every success but, unless senior EU officials awake to the possibility that one of the EU’s largest members is serious about a fundamental change in our relationship, our recommendation to British voters seems likely to be exit,” Mr. Baker.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/cameron-under-pressure-on-eu-talks/article7292626.ece