Followers

Friday, September 28, 2018

Winners of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology 2018 announced


Dr Aditi Sen De is the only female winner this year

On the occasion of its foundation day, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has put out the list of recipients of the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology for 2018.
Every year, several scientists below the age of 45 are selected from various institutions across the country and awarded for their outstanding scientific work in the last five years.
Here is the full list of winners this year in various categories
Category
Winner
Affiliation
Biological Sciences
Dr Ganesh NagarajuIISc Bengaluru
 Dr Thomas PucadyilIISER Pune
Chemical Sciences
Dr Rahul BanerjeeIISER Kolkata
 Dr Swadhin Kumar MandalIISER Kolkata
Earth, Atmosphere, Ocean and Planetary Sciences
Dr Madineni Venkat RatnamNational Atmospheric Research Laboratory, Tirupati
 Dr Parthasarathi ChakrabortyCSIR-NIO, Goa
Engineering Sciences
Dr Amit AgrawalIIT Bombay
 Dr Ashwin Anil GumasteIIT Bombay
Mathematical Sciences
Dr Amit KumarIIT Delhi
 Dr Nitin SaxenaIIT Kanpur
Medical Sciences
Dr Ganesan VenkatasubramanianNIMHANS, Bengaluru
Physical Sciences
Dr Aditi Sen DeHarish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad
 Dr Ambarish GhoshIISc Bengaluru


Truth about the last person

Gandhi reminded us and continues to do so that India is united in its poverty and deprivation, its structures of humiliation and violence. His legacy is this awareness.


I wish to begin this reflection with two images. One of a pair of sandals, now somewhat withered with age, and use, which lies in a glass cage in the Constitution Hill Museum in Johannesburg. These sandals reflect the attraction that its maker had for the minimalism of the Trappist aesthetics as also fondness for the material, leather. M K Gandhi, as a prisoner, made these in South Africa and gifted them to General Jan Christian Smuts. It tells many stories, but the story I wish to bring to attention is Gandhi the sandal-maker.

The other image is of Gandhi sitting cross-legged, peering with his left eye into a microscope raised with a fat volume. If the image is not cropped we see an open (note) book and a somewhat amused Pyarelal Nayyar by his side. Gandhi was examining leprosy germs.
These two images are reminders of what we have chosen to forget about Gandhi, of the various silences that surround the man. Among the many things we have chosen to forget about Gandhi is his lifelong work with leather and his desire to shod every feet with leather chappals. We would prefer Gandhi the spinner of fine, “pure” yarn. Leprosy, one of the oldest infectious diseases in human history has created for all cultures its “untouchables”. The leper and the leather worker are subject to the most enduring — albeit from different grounds — forms of exclusion and humiliation. They are Gandhi’s “last person”.
Silence was dear to Gandhi. He liked debate, even acrimony, but in that he wanted his silence. Each Monday he observed silence, and at times weary and unable to see his way in the darkness that surrounded him and us, he retreated into long periods of silence. Silence for him was not withdrawal from engagement. It was a mode of communion and of communication. His silence was both going inwards and reaching out.
Our silence, our amnesia about various aspects of Gandhi is a well-crafted manoeuvre. And in this the Indian State, since its inception, and Gandhi’s institutions after Gandhi, have been collaborators. The first of this has been to render Gandhi’s institutions into “anti-thought” establishments. Serious intellectual challenges posed to Gandhi’s thought and life practices are met either by a petrified silence or disdain arising out of certainty of the perfectness of the Master. This has created a deep and lasting inability to be morally innovative or ethically responsive. This is most deeply felt in the realm of political economy. In a world where the ethical in the economic, the normative in the market have been rendered illegitimate, Gandhi’s concern with the last person finds place only in a regime of subsidy, instead of in the creation of enabling institutional structures. The move away from Trusteeship to Philanthropy captures this predicament.
Gandhi’s lifelong quest was to create a possibility of collective non-violence, Ahimsa, not only as personal ethic but as political imperative, and as political economy that recognises the violence of poverty and deprivation. Gandhi like no other after him recognised the transformative potential of seva. Seva is derived from saha and eva meaning “together with”. Understood thus, seva is the epitome of fellowship, of a state of communion with self, other beings and the divine. It is an act of being with others, being that is non-acquisitive, being that seeks only to serve so that pain is alleviated, suffering made bearable, joy experienced and divine made immanent. In this sense, seva is the complete opposite of servitude and slavery, where both self and self-volition are denied. Violence is the perfect opposite of seva. Seva as service, as care, as non-acquisitive selflessness is a necessary condition for Ahimsa. Violence unto the others occurs when they are pushed outside the realm of care and of seva. Seva is no longer part of lokniti and much less of rajniti. And memorials by their very nature cannot perform seva. Bereft of seva our capacity to deal with violence that surrounds us is enfeebled.
Disobedience of what is repugnant to one’s conscience is imperative for any form of lokniti, rajniti and hence of citizenship. This right of disobedience is predicated upon it being “civil”, that is, non-violent and upon its relationship to conscience. This right requires fundamental obedience — for Gandhi, not to the state, not to the nation, and certainly not to law or courts — to truth and non-violence and a recognition of the right of others to be equally adherent to their conscience. (Let us recall Gandhi’s seven days of fasting in 1934 for an assault by his followers on Pandit Lalnath who opposed Gandhi’s work on eradication of untouchability.) That the state and its apparatus, the courts, will be unable and unwilling to recognise this, is writ in the very nature of conscience. The modern state and law do not recognise conscience as a category and hence to seek amelioration of conscientious objection from them is to constrict the realm of the conscience. Our reliance upon law to expand the realm of autonomous moral action is for this reason deeply flawed. So long as we are willing to undergo the punishment for our conscientious disobedience, we retain the right to disregard the injunctions of law. But this right is not absolute, it accrues to those who engage with fellow beings through seva, that is, constructive work.
Gandhi reminded us and continues to do so that India is united in its poverty and deprivation, its structures of humiliation and violence. His legacy is this awareness. To the extent we remain conscious of this, we become tuned to his silence and would have less need to create silences around him.
The writer has recently published an annotated critical edition of M K Gandhi’s autobiography
Source: Indian Express, 28/09/2018

Why a diverse workplace makes economic sense

Diversity is also critical for a better understanding of customers, better team performance, greater innovation and creativity and building their brand image.


Earlier this week, the Prime Minister’s Office held its first-ever meeting to discuss affirmative action in the private sector. According to a report in the Indian Express, questions were raised at the meeting over the sector’s commitment to providing jobs to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The timing of the meeting was crucial since it came on the heels of protests for job reservation and in opposition to what some saw as the dilution of the SC/ST Act.
This newspaper has long held the view that there should not be a quota raj in the private sector because the fuel that runs this engine is eligibility and merit. Having said that, there is another aspect to the argument that the private sector should also consider: It is in their enlightened self-interest to ensure diversity in workplaces, especially in a country that is so inherently unequal. Diversity is also critical for a better understanding of customers, better team performance, greater innovation and creativity, and better brand image.
And why only the diversity of workplaces? It also makes immense sense for companies to invest in communities around their office/project sites. According to a World Economic Forum report, for businesses to work efficiently and profitably, they must understand the complexities and dynamics surrounding them. Mitigating fragility and building resilience are not just a humanitarian imperative — instability and violence are bad for business as well. In India, we have seen several situations where local communities have protested against businesses because they have been not benefited in any way from them.
In fact, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement began as a response to advocacy for corporations to play a role in solving social problems due to their economic power and overarching presence in daily life. The Sustainable Development Goals, which replaced the Millennium Development Goals, puts a lot of onus on the private sector to play a more proactive role in improving the lives of people and benefit from such engagements.
Source: Hindustan Times, 27/09/2018

Relationship That Sails


We have problems in relationship between man and woman, or between man and man, woman and woman. Look at it very closely, observe it, not try to change it, try to direct it, say, it must not be this way, or it must be that way, or help me to get over it, but just to observe. You can’t change the line of that mountain, or the flight of the bird, or the flow of the water, swift, you just observe it, and see the beauty of it. But if you observe and say, that is not so beautiful as the mountain I saw yesterday, you are not observing, you are merely comparing. So, let’s observe very closely this question of relationship. Relationship is life. One cannot exist without relationship. So let’s look very closely: observe, not learn. Then you discover for yourself the beauty of relationship. So, if you observe, are we related to anybody at all? Or we are related to another through thought, through the image that thought has built about your husband and your wife, the image that you have about her or him. Obviously. So, our relationship is between the image you have about her and she has about you. And each one carries this image, and each one goes in his own direction: ambition, greed, envy, competition, seeking power, position. You know what is happening in relationship, each one moving in opposite directions, or perhaps parallel, and never meeting. Because this is the modern civilisation, this is what you are offering to the world. And, so, there is constant struggle, conflict, divorce, changing of so-called mates. You know what is happening

Source: Economic Times, 28/09/2018

Thursday, September 27, 2018

What is generality principle in political science?


This refers to the political belief that laws created by the state need to apply equally to all groups of people in order to avoid any form of discrimination. According to this principle, a law that applies to blacks, for example, must apply to whites as well. Proponents of the generality principle believe that this is essential to uphold fairness and justice in society. However, opponents of the principle believe that the principle would make sure that even bad laws apply to the entire population. This, they argue, would be far worse for the welfare of society as no group would then be able to escape from the destructive effects of poor laws.

Source: The Hindu, 27/09/2018

IISc Bengaluru tops India in global list of best institutes

The Times Higher Education’s (THE) world university rankings 2019, released on Wednesday, show Oxford continues to hold the first place, Cambridge second, and Stanford third. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology rose one place to number four.

No Indian institution figures in the top 250 of the Times Higher Education’s (THE) world university rankings 2019, though the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, has retained its position as the highest-ranked centre in the country, while the Indian Institute of Technology-Indore has risen to the highest position behind it.
The rankings, released on Wednesday, show Oxford continues to hold the first place, Cambridge second, and Stanford third. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology rose one place to number four.
There was some good news for India: number of Indian institutions in the rankings increased from 42 last year to 49, making it the fifth best-represented nation. India is the most-represented country in the table when those in the top 200 are excluded.
The India group in the ranking was again led by the Indian Institute of Science, which retained its position in the 251-300 band. But IIT-Indore became India’s second highest-ranked university – and a global top 400 institution – with its strong score for research volume and research impact.
It overtook the Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay, which slipped from the 351-400 band to the 401-500 band.
Pradeep Mathur, director of IIT-Indore, told THE: “Our efforts in making research the focus of the institute is now reflected in the form of citations and other impact metrics of research. We continue to make research the focus of all our programmes which is why you see even our undergraduate students are active participants of research projects and collaborations within India and internationally too.”
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (headquartered in Tamil Nadu) saw a rise, from the 801-1000 band to the 601-800 band this year, with a particular improvement in its citation impact (research influence) score.
However, while some institutions gained this year, the majority of India’s universities remained static or declined, struggling amid increased global competition, according to the global list.
Source: Hindustan Times, 26/09/2018

We need to mainstream the climate conversation

Instead of thinking only about vehicular emission, green cars, and carbon footprint, there needs to be a conversation happening around better and equitable management of water and waste and building resilience of our cities and villages

In an interview with The Guardian recently, one the world’s most eminent climate scientists Michael Mann said: “The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle…. We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change” . While it is reassuring for climate scientists to see their predictions coming true, Mr Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University added, “… as a citizen of planet Earth, it is very distressing to see that as it means we have not taken the necessary action.” The effects of this inaction are visible across the world. In India, in a span of two months, we have seen the severe impacts of extreme weather events: Higher-than-normal rains devastated southern India, and now it’s northern India that is facing the same challenge. In other parts of the world, Hurricane Florence flattened the Carolinas in the US and Super Typhoon Mangkhut did the same to parts of the Philippines.
While the science of attribution – looking at how much climate change increases the odds of any one particular event occurring – has advanced remarkably, it still takes time for scientists to determine the link between climate change and specific weather events. Yet there is ample evidence, as Mr Mann said, that shows that climate change is indeed the culprit behind such extremities. Since the world doesn’t have the luxury of time to wait for scientists to establish these linkages in each and every case, it is critical that the world’s -- and India’s -- priority be the reduction of the risks by making smart investments to ensure communities and expensive infrastructure are more climate-resilient.
One of the fundamental components of building this much-needed resilience is to mainstream the climate conversation, which unfortunately still remains an elite topic in India (though poorer sections will be hit much harder). So instead of only thinking about vehicular emission, green cars, and carbon footprint, there needs to be a conversation happening around better and equitable management of water and waste and building resilience of our cities and villages.
Source: Hindustan Times, 26/09/2018