Jun 29 2015 : The Times of India (Delhi)

LEARNING WITH THE TIMES - Why time will stop for a second on June 30





How is time measured?Our perception of time is based on the earth's revolu tion around the sun and its ro tation around its own axis.One complete cycle around the sun is a year, while a com plete rotation on its axis con stitutes a day. Based on these observations, a day has 24 hours while 365 days constitu te a year. The day is further divided into hours, minutes and seconds. Time measured by the earth's rotation relative to the sun is called solar time. For any given point, there could be two values of solar time -apparent and mean. Apparent time is measured by direct observation of the sun by a sundial. Mean solar time, however, is measured by as suming that relative to the earth, the sun is at the same position after every 24 hours.Most clocks and watches are based on mean solar time.
What is the most accurate measure of time?
Measurement of time based on the earth's rotation and revolution has its limitations and hence the unit of time de fined by the Interna tional System of Units is not based on astrono mical observation. The length of a second is de fined according to the vibrations of caesium atoms at various atom ic clocks. International Atomic Time is based on a system of about 270 atomic clocks. Signals from these clocks are transmitted to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures located in Sevres, France, which uses the signals to form the International Atomic Time.Seconds measured by atomic clocks are the most accurate.These clocks are predicted to be off by less than a second in 50 million years.
How is this discrepancy corrected?
Today , the international basis is the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). This system, introduced on January 1, 1960, is designed to accommo dition of an extra day compensates for the extra time of 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds that the earth takes over 365 days to complete one revolution around the sun. This permanent rule is typically considered in all computer programmes and hence there is no problem.The leap second, on the other hand, cannot be predicted as the time taken by the earth to rotate around its axis depends on many factors like dynamics of the earth's core, variation in the atmosphere and oceans, ground water, ice storage and so on and can change from year to year. The irregularity of the leap second could cause problems in many computing systems.Some major web-based services suffered because of the addition of a leap second three years ago.

World Bank sets up commission on poverty

In order to measure and monitor poverty in the best way possible, the World Bank in Washington announced the setting up of a commission on global poverty on June 22. The commission will come up with a report by April 2016.

According to a press release of the World Bank, the new commission, made up of 24 leading international economists, will be chaired by Anthony Atkinson, a leading authority on the measurement of poverty and inequality and the centennial professor at the London School of Economics.

The commission has been formed against the backdrop of the upcoming post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the foremost target of which is to eradicate extreme poverty everywhere.

In 2013, the World Bank group announced two goals that would guide its development work worldwide. The first goal was to reduce the number of “extremely poor people” of the world to below 3 per cent by 2030. Extremely poor people are characterised as those who survive on less than $1.25 a day.

The second goal was to boost “shared prosperity”. Shared prosperity is defined as promoting the growth of per capita real income of the poorest 40 per cent population in each country. 
 
Announcing the new advisory body, the World Bank’s chief economist, Kaushik Basu, said he expects the commission to also provide advice on how to adjust the measurement of extreme poverty as and when new Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) and other price and exchange rate data become available.

PPP calculations allow economists to compare different global exchange rates to assess household consumption and real income in US dollars, since nominal exchange rates do not accurately capture differences in costs of living across countries.

“We want to hold the yardstick constant for measuring extreme poverty till 2030, our target year for bringing extreme and chronic poverty to an end,” said Basu, who will travel to Europe this week for the commission’s inaugural meeting.

Indicators and data collated and made available by the World Bank shape opinion and policies globally.

Dissent and democracy

Date:Jun 25, 2015

Forty years after the Emergency was declared, India must revisit its legacy of dissent. Calling foreign-funded NGOs ‘foreign agents’ is disrespectful to citizens who are no less patriotic than those working in the industry or government, writes Chandra Bhushan

This is a bad season for NGOs. Two weeks ago, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a Bill allowing foreign NGOs to be banned on grounds of national security. Individuals working for banned organisations could face fines and jail terms, and bank accounts of such organisations could be frozen.

China's legislature, the National People's Congress, is currently debating a draft law to regulate foreign NGOs.

Though the new law claims to fill an important gap in China's legal code by formally listing requirements for registration of foreign NGOs, it also prohibits a broad range of ill-defined activities, including those that could undermine “ethnic harmony”, violate "Chinese society's moral customs" and incite resistance to state laws or regulations. These are so vaguely defined that they could prohibit NGOs from working in areas like environmental protection, health and cultural exchange. Interestingly, the proposed law puts the management of foreign NGOs under the jurisdiction of the national police ministry.

Closer home, Pakistan is putting a stricter regime in place for monitoring and scrutiny of foreign NGOs currently operating in the country. All foreign NGOs have been asked to re-register in the next three months. Pakistan has accused foreign NGOs—including some allegedly funded by India—for “anti-state activities”.

In India, we read every day about some government policy or the other to “regulate” foreign and foreign-funded NGOs.

So, why are governments worried about NGOs?

Let’s begin with Pakistan.

In 2012, an intelligence report linked Save the Children, an international NGO that works in 120 countries on children’s health and education, to Pakistani doctor Shakeel Afridi. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had allegedly used Afridi to carry out a fake vaccination programme as it searched for Osama bin Laden.

Save the Children was recently asked to leave Pakistan even though the group has denied any links with CIA or Afridi. Pakistan has now hardened its policies towards foreign-funded NGOs, accusing them of being covers for spying operations of countries like the US and India.

In Russia, it is a different story. Putin is clamping down on all kinds of dissent; unsanctioned mass demonstrations are being prohibited and huge fines are being imposed on participants. The Ukraine crisis and the sanctions imposed by the US and other Western countries have given Putin an opportunity to clamp down on any dissenting voices in the name of national security.

China, on its part, would rather have GONGOs than NGOs. GONGOs, or “government-organised non-governmental organisations”, are set up by the government and are generally believed to represent an indirect means of state control. They get funds from the state as well as from national and international donors. China wants to slowly push foreign and domestic NGOs out and replace them with GONGOs. China’s discomfort with NGOs is driven by fear that foreigners are secretly plotting to overthrow its one-party state.

What about us? Why is our own government fearful?

Governments in India—the current NDA one included—have always had uncomfortable relations with NGOs, especially with those working in areas like environment, human rights and minority and tribal rights. Many regressive policies on NGOs were actually initiated by the erstwhile UPA government and its home minister, P Chidambaram. Interestingly, Chidambaram, now again a lawyer, recently wrote a “lawyerly” article exhorting people to speak up for tolerance and dissent!

It was the UPA government which provided a new—and convoluted—definition of NGOs in the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010, and its Rules, 2011, and then in the Income Tax Act. As per the present definition, industry bodies such as CII and FICCI can be deemed NGOs, can receive foreign grants, and need not pay taxes. A bonafide NGO working for environment protection, on the other hand, might get rejected. It was also the UPA government that brought in vaguely-worded conditions in the FCRA, which provide the government with the tools to harass NGOs.

Most importantly, it was the UPA government that asked the Intelligence Bureau to prepare the report on NGOs. The report, now used by the NDA government, identified several foreign-funded NGOs for “negatively impacting economic development”. The present NDA government is continuing with the past policy, but with a new vigour.

The question is, can a few NGOs undermine Indian democracy and cause negative economic development? Are the Indian democracy and its institutions so weak that they cannot counter this “negative campaign”? Finally, is our country so intolerant that it cannot hear or bear dissent?

I believe the answer to all the above questions is negative.

We are a country that worships people who have expressed dissent against majoritarian viewpoints. Our heroes are dissenters—Buddha, Swami Vivekananda, B R Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi. A country with such a rich culture of opposing majoritarianism cannot be intolerant of different voices.  

I believe we are a democracy because we permit different viewpoints. I believe that our democracy will be strengthened and our nation will prosper if we give space for alternate points of view to flourish. I believe that our institutions are strong enough to accommodate and act upon different points of view.

The question we all need to ask is why NGOs opt for foreign funding. The answer is simple: because domestic funding is not available when it comes to many causes for the advancement of society. Will the Indian government and private foundations fund NGOs to fight against industrial pollution? The answer is no. Will some philanthropic foundation give money to an NGO to protest against the hazards of nuclear power plants or mindless building of dams in the upper reaches of the Ganga? The answer is a resounding no. What about protecting rights of minorities and tribals? Absolutely not!

The list is unending. Today, NGOs can either sustain themselves by becoming consultants to industry or governments, or close shop.

It is important to understand that NGOs protesting against hazards of nuclear power or industrial pollution or human rights violations are not anti-national. They do this because they believe these are bad for the nation. We, the majority, might not agree with them, but we cannot muzzle their voices.

Clamping down on NGOs that speak and advocate differently will only breed intolerance. Today, it is the foreign-funded NGO. Tomorrow, it will be domestically-funded cultural groups. The day after, it could be any group that has a dissenting voice. This is the thin edge of the wedge. Arbitrary actions against NGOs will make Indian democracy intolerant and feeble. Our founding fathers would have been dismayed by these developments.

We should not forget that our tallest leaders supported and established NGOs. All the institutions set up by Mahatma Gandhi are NGOs. Many of the Gandhian institutions receive foreign funds. Even the hyper-nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its associate institutions are NGOs. Many of them receive foreign funds too. Targeting foreign-funded NGOs by calling them “foreign agents” is disrespectful to a large number of citizens who are no less patriotic than those working in the industry or the government.

It is important to remember that FCRA was enacted during the Emergency in 1976 to counter the “foreign hand” in activities of the opposition parties. Many of those who were in opposition then are in power now. It is a pity that the tools they are using to silence their critics today are the same tools that were used against them 40 years ago.  

On the 40th anniversary of the Emergency, it is worth reminding ourselves that India is India because it is not Russia, China or Pakistan. Democracy and dissent go together.

A Suitable Secularism

It needs to be reinterpreted for a new time.

Written by Karan Singh | Published on:June 26, 2015 12:31 am

The classical concept of secularism we adopted after freedom is under immense pressure. There are three main reasons for this. First, the Western concept of secularism originated in Europe when the separation of church and state had become a major concern. India has never had an organised church, so this concept was not really relevant to us. The term “sarva dharma sambhava (respect for all religions)” is a far more meaningful formulation for us.

Second, our secularism was based on the erroneous assumption that religion is a purely private affair with which the state is not concerned. This may be true as far as individual prayer and spiritual practice are concerned, but quite clearly, the collective impact of religion on society and the state is far from personal. That millions of Indians should flock regularly to the kumbh melas and numerous other places of worship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or any other, is itself an indication that the state has necessarily to take cognisance of religion as a social force. When we add to this the conflicts within and between religious groups that create serious law and order problems, and the way religion is widely used for political purposes, it becomes quite clear that the myth that religion is a purely personal matter can no longer be sustained.

Third, the assumption that, as education increases and living standards improve, religion will steadily lose its hold over the minds of people has been repeatedly disproved. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that with increasing affluence, the interest in religion shows a marked upsurge. A survey of rural India will show that a place of worship is one of the first demands of a newly affluent area. The upsurge of Islam in the oil-rich countries of West Asia proves the case convincingly.

It is clear that we have to move to an entirely new concept of secularism. In the Indian context, secularism cannot mean an anti-religious attitude or even an attitude of indifference towards religion on the part of the state. What it should mean is that, while there is no state religion, all religions are given respect and freedom of activity, provided they do not impinge upon each other and that foreign funds are not allowed to be channelled through ostensibly religious organisations for political purposes. Any attempt to disturb communal relations
must be put down with a firm hand.

It is also essential that we overcome the religion-phobia in our educational system. At present, we are getting the worst of both worlds. We refuse to make a positive attitude of presenting our rich, multi-religious heritage to our students. And we leave religious education entirely in the hands of bodies that are seldom equipped to undertake the task, and usually offer narrow and obscurantist interpretations of the living truths that permeate religious traditions.

India is by far the richest area for multi-religious studies anywhere in the world, and should attract some of the best scholars. Hinduism itself, the religion of over four-fifths of Indians, is a vast treasure house of philosophy and mythology, sociology and worldly wisdom. Yet, in the last four decades, more work on Hinduism has been done by foreign scholars than by our own.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that the younger generation understands and appreciates not only its own religious traditions but also those of the other religions in the country. How many Muslims in India are able even remotely to appreciate the depth of feeling among Hindus for the sanctity of Lord Ram’s birthplace? Conversely, how many Hindus understand the emotional trauma of Muslims when they saw what they genuinely believed was a mosque being destroyed brick by brick?

No nation can continue to grow if its central concepts become fossilised and it loses the capacity for creative reinterpretation of its philosophical roots. The great secret of the Indian civilisation, which has survived so long despite massive incursions, holocausts and two centuries of colonialism, lies precisely in its capacity for such periodic reformulations.

What is needed is a deeper understanding of the importance of religion in the life of our people, and a new and dynamic interpretation of secularism.

The writer is a Congress Rajya Sabha MP

How do parrots talk?

Parrot brains are structured differently than the brains of songbirds and hummingbirds, which also exhibit vocal learning.

Scientists, including one of Indian-origin, have found key structural differences in the brains of parrots that may explain the birds’ unparalleled ability to imitate sounds and human speech.

These brain structures had gone unrecognised in studies published over the last 34 years, researchers said.

By examining gene expression patterns, the new study found that parrot brains are structured differently than the brains of songbirds and hummingbirds, which also exhibit vocal learning.

In addition to having defined centres in the brain that control vocal learning called “cores”, parrots have what the scientists call “shells” or outer rings, which are also involved in vocal learning.

The shells are relatively bigger in species of parrots that are well known for their ability to imitate human speech, the researchers found.

“This finding opens up a huge avenue of research in parrots, in trying to understand how parrots are processing the information necessary to copy novel sounds and what are the mechanisms that underlie imitation of human speech sounds,” said Mukta Chakraborty, a post-doctoral researcher in the lab of Erich Jarvis, an associate professor of neurobiology at Duke University and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator.

Parrots are one of the few animals considered “vocal learners”, meaning they can imitate sounds. Researchers have been trying to figure out why some bird species are better imitators than others.

Besides differences in the sizes of particular brain regions, however, no other potential explanations have surfaced.

Until now, the budgerigar (common pet parakeet) was the only species of parrot whose brain had been probed for the mechanisms of vocal learning.

The researchers from Denmark and the Netherlands donated precious brain tissue for the study.

They characterised the brains of eight parrot species besides the budgerigar, including conures, cockatiels, lovebirds, two species of Amazon parrots, a blue and gold macaw, a kea and an African Grey parrot.

The researchers looked for specific gene markers that are known to have specialised activity in the brains of humans and song-learning birds.

They compared the resulting gene expression patterns in all the parrot brains with neural tracing experiments in budgerigars.

Even the most ancient of the parrot species they studied, the Kea of New Zealand, has a shell structure — albeit rudimentary. This suggests that the populations of neurons in the shells probably arose at least 29 million years ago.

The scientists now want to find out whether the shells give parrots a greater ability to imitate human speech.

Keywords: Parrots' talk, vocal imitators, vocal learning, human speech imitation

Smart City: Planning Beyond Mere Slogans





Intelligent planning will be the smartest bit

We welcome the launch of the government's urban initiative. Whether this is a rebranded version of the previous government's urban renewal scheme named after Jawaharlal Nehru or not is a contest for political credit that is less important than the state support for India's urbanisation the schemes promise. As industry and services grow faster than agriculture, people move off the farm and into urban environments where industry and services grow. The process has been witnessed across the world and will be acted out in India as well. The point is to plan well ahead to manage and organise the process in a way that suits our requirements.The biggest challenge is releasing land for new urbanisation. If 25 crore people move from country to town over the next couple of decades, at Delhi's current average population density of over 12,000 people per sq km, India will need additional 20,000-odd sq km of land to be released for urbanisation. This calls for policy that will make stakeholders rather than victims out of those whose land is take up for building new towns or extending existing towns. The kind of town planning that is envisaged for new urbanisation will decide how energy-efficient, how inclusive, how secure, how healthy and how efficient future India would be. Mixed land use, high density , heavy reliance on efficient public transport, efficient connectivity with other towns are de rigueur. Civil servant-led authorities, rather than representative governments, run many new towns. This must change.
For a city to be viable, either in terms of offering the multiple, interdependent talents, skills and institutions that interact to produce new ideas and translate them into new businesses, jobs and incomes or in terms of generating revenue to finance governance and investment maintenance of infrastructure, it needs a minimum size.So does efficient disposalconversion into energy and biofertiliser of solid waste. Smartness lies in taking all these into account, not an overlay of free Wi-Fi and a smattering of e-governance.

Vedanta - Take a Back Seat

SADHU VISHWAMURTIDAS





Some people are compulsive exhibitionists. You find them almost anywhere; they do anything to get noticed. At a wedding, they want to be the bride and at a funeral, the corpse. Julius Caesar, who was an incorrigible egotist, was kidnapped when he was a child. He was held for a ransom of 11,000 gold pieces. Horrified, he exhorted his captors to raise the ransom amount to 2,50,000 gold pieces to preserve his prestige! There are very few people who don't like being the centre of attraction. A famous boxer once refused to fasten his seat belt aboard a plane. “Superman doesn't need a belt,“ he resisted. Tying his belt for him, the air hostess replied, “Superman doesn't need a plane eith er.“ The truly great are those who know their weaknesses and aren't afraid to admit them.They accept their limita tions because they know that when it comes to the basics, everyone's the same.Whether rich or poor, American or Indian, we all have the same emotions deep within us.So why not contribute to the good of the world and to leave one's mark, however small?
Even an ant doesn't go through this world without affecting its outcome in some way or other.To sustain their narcissistic beliefs, some can go to the extent of humiliating others under any banner or guise, be it religion, country or justice.
God-consciousness is the permanent cure for egomania.Ego usually translates into `he-go' or `she-go'. With Godconsciousness, it transforms into `I-go'. Explains Lord Swaminarayan, “When one realises the infinite greatness and glory of God, where is the room for self-pride?“