“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
William Arthur Ward
“निराशावादी व्यक्ति पवन के बारे में शिकायत करता है; आशावादी इसका रुख बदलने की आशा करता है; लेकिन यथार्थवादी पाल को अनुकूल बनाता है।”
विलियम आर्थर वार्ड
Israel has come up as one of the most popular study destinations for Indian students, especially for science and medical aspirants, with world-class educational resources and rich history.
The Bloomberg Innovation Index 2020 ranked Israel as the number one for research and development intensity for three years in a row, and that has also contributed to Israel being one of the top choices for Indian students.
Israel has, in recent years, seen some of the best-known professors and top-ranked universities in the world. The country is now aiming at expanding these resources for international students as well, and is promoting opportunities for interested candidates to utilise them and pursue higher studies in Israel. In one such bid, the country is offering scholarships to meritorious Indian students, according to a spokesperson of the education department. Here are the top three scholarships offered by Israel’s education department for Indian students:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Scholarships
Offered by the government of Israel, these scholarships are available to Indian students applying for M.A., PhD. Post Doctorate or research studies. The scholarship is available for one academic year (October to June) for a maximum of eight months for applicants who hold a BA or BSc degree—or a higher one—and has a good record of academic achievements.
Excellence Fellowship Programme for International Postdoctoral Researchers
Offered by the Council for Higher Education in Israel and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, this scholarship programme is open for outstanding international postdoctoral researchers. The programme entails a maximum of 20 fellowships to incoming post-doctorates conducting research in one of Israel’s universities. The fellowships are allocated in Sciences, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), the Humanities, and the Social Sciences. The fellowships are awarded for two years and students are offered 160,000 NIS (~$47,000) annually. It is open to international candidates who have received a PhD from a recognised higher education institution outside of Israel less than four years from the time of application, or who will receive a PhD from a recognised higher education institution outside of Israel before the commencement of this fellowship.
PhD. Funded by the Planning and Budgeting Committee (PBC), this one-year doctoral programme allows international PhD students of all fields to do research in one of Israel’s top universities as part of their doctoral studies while receiving a generous scholarship. Interested candidates must apply directly to the relevant Israeli university. The annual scholarship is 80,000 NIS for up to one year. International students enrolled in a doctoral degree programme at an accredited institution of higher education overseas, who have completed their first year of doctoral studies can apply for this programme.
In addition to these, several Israeli universities also offer their own scholarships to Indian students, separately for those enrolling in both summer as well as full-time programmes. Interested candidates can contact the university directly at the time of admission.
More information about scholarships and study programmes in Israel can be found on the official website — studyisrael.org.il.Sandwich Fellowship Programme
Written by Deeksha Teri
Source: Indian Express, 10/03/22
On Tuesday (March 29), the chief ministers of Assam and Meghalaya signed a pact in the presence of Union Home Minister Amit Shah to resolve part of their five-decade-old boundary dispute. Over the years, the 884-km border between the two states has witnessed frequent flare-ups.
What is the root of the conflict?
During British rule, undivided Assam included present-day Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Mizoram. Meghalaya was carved out in 1972, its boundaries demarcated as per the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act of 1969, but has held a different interpretation of the border since.
In 2011, the Meghalaya government had identified 12 areas of difference with Assam, spread over approximately 2,700 sq km.
Some of these disputes stem from recommendations made by a 1951 committee headed by then Assam chief minister Gopinath Bordoloi. For example, a 2008 research paper from the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses refers to the Bordoloi Committee’s recommendation that Blocks I and II of Jaintia Hills (Meghalaya) be transferred to the Mikir Hill (Karbi Anglong) district of Assam,, besides some areas from Meghalaya’s Garo Hills to Goalpara district of Assam. The 1969 Act is based on these recommendations, which Meghalaya rejects, claiming that these areas originally belong to the Khasi–Jaintia Hills. On the other hand, Assam says Meghalaya does not have the requisite documents to prove these areas historically belonged to Meghalaya.
A number of attempts had been made in the past to resolve the boundary dispute. In 1985, under then Assam chief minister Hiteswar Saikia and Meghalaya chief minister Captain W A Sangma, an official committee to resolve the issue was constituted under the former Chief Justice of India Y V Chandrachud. However, a solution was not found.
Meghalaya was carved out of Assam in 1972, and has held a different interpretation of the border since. The resolution at six of the 12 areas under dispute is significant, but the remaining points of friction are more complex and may prove to be a bigger challenge.
What is the current pact?
Since July last year, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his Meghalaya counterpart Conrad Sangma have been in talks to solve the long-standing dispute.
Both state governments identified six out of 12 disputed areas for resolution in the first phase: 3 areas contested between West Khasi Hills district in Meghalaya and Kamrup in Assam, 2 between RiBhoi in Meghalaya and Kamrup-Metro, and 1 between East Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya and Cachar in Assam.
After a series of meetings and visits by teams to the disputed areas, both sides submitted reports based on five mutually agreed principles: historical perspective, ethnicity of local population, contiguity with boundary, peoples’ will and administrative convenience.
A final set of recommendations were made jointly: out of 36.79 sq km of disputed area taken up for settlement in the first phase, Assam would get full control of 18.46 sq km and Meghalaya of 18.33 sq km. The MoU signed on Tuesday was based on these recommendations.
So, who gets what?
From the 2011 claims made by Meghalaya government, an area of roughly 36.79 sq km was taken up for resolution in the first phase.
According to presentations by both states, the area has been roughly divided into equal parts, and a total of 30 sq km is being recommended to be within Meghalaya.
What are the next steps?
The next step will involve delineation and demarcation of the boundary by Survey of India in the presence of representatives of both governments. It will then be put up in Parliament for approval. The process may take a few months.
Officials said six areas taken for study did not have large differences and were easier to resolve, and were hence taken up in the first phase. “The remaining six areas are more complex and may take longer to resolve,” said an Assam government official.
Is there any opposition?
Former Meghalaya CM Mukul Sangma, who is now part of the Trinamool Congress that is the principal opposition party in Meghalaya, criticised the government’s approach. “This is a piecemeal resolution. They have taken up only 36 sq km for resolution. The larger, more complex areas (such as Langpih, Block I and II) are yet to be resolved and it will not be so easy,” he said. “The reality on ground zero is different – as far as I know, many people have not accepted the settlement and the agreement is almost like an imposition,” he said.
In Assam, too, Opposition leaders criticised the state government for rushing through the issues, and not consulting stakeholders. In January, Leader of Opposition Debabrata Saikia of the Congress had alleged that CM Sarma had gone ahead and submitted a proposal to the Union Home Minister “without even a discussion in the State Assembly.” “This is irresponsible and unconstitutional,” said Saikia, asking that the recommendations be rescinded and demanding a special session in the Assembly.
Written by Tora Agarwala ,
Source: Indian Exprss, 1/04/22
The footprint of the Covid-19 pandemic across the sectors of the economy has instilled a new reckoning for resilience and sustainability on the economic, social and environmental (ESG) front. The necessity of good ESG practices in business, for instance, is being increasingly felt, while there has been widespread recognition of the benefits of cleaner air and water. Encouraging signals on sustainable development are observed across stakeholders including academia, policymakers and the industrial and consumer segments that put scientific research into practice. Climate change has become a top concern for discussion across the scientific committee.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest report on climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation last month, which suggests that adaptation to climate impacts in the near to medium term can help communities and ecosystems become resilient against the threats from current and future levels of warming. At the risk of oversimplification, the message seems to be that while a single extreme weather event can erode decades of economic progress for affected communities, the severity of climate impacts can be mediated by adequate preparedness. Ecosystem-based adaptation, for instance, is recommended for taking care of communities and social well-being, while restoring forests, lands and marine ecosystems. The report details the variability in projected climate impacts and the vulnerabilities that can be expected across regions the world over due to differences in the range of warming, geographical location, demographics and the unique biophysical, social and cultural contexts. It is also logical and well-established that the need for climate action on the adaptation front will be a differentiated one, and that cost-effective adaptation depends on a host of enablers on which global partnerships need to deliver. Enablers include international cooperation, inclusive technology, financial flows, knowledge sharing and capacity building, with institutions and innovations to support policy development and on-ground implementation.
The IPCC report presents the latest findings on various aspects of climate science based on an assessment of the available peer-reviewed literature by expert authors on the subject matter. The expansive reports are based on the work of some of the best scientific minds. Expectedly, the reports are designed to be comprehensive and to come up with robust recommendations. In this spirit, it would be fair to mention a few words on the need to highlight the gaps in the literature, acknowledge the uncertainties in climate science and uncover the most effective ways to articulate recommendations that lead to action.
The IPCC has been consistently drawing attention to the lack of adequate science from and on developing countries. These countries have in turn been asking for the inclusion of what is broadly termed as “grey literature” or non-peer-reviewed literature (such as reports and working papers in the public space) in the IPCC process, wherein authors assess available literature to arrive at their recommendations for policymakers. Such “grey” resources are very often supported by respected donor organisations and governments and can be valuable sources of information in contexts where the resources for research and publishing are limited. Sometimes, the priority for national and local governments in developing countries is to allocate available resources and efforts for quicker policy response or urgent implementation. Good science encompasses the formal and the informal, theory and empiricism, the traditional along with the modern. It relies on evolution through acknowledging the gaps and unknowns, the negatives and positives of past knowledge. The understanding of adaptation finance, adaptation costing, and mapping of climate impacts and adaptation needs of communities in geographically remote locations, for instance, could improve with suitable sourcing of information.
Sustainable development, inclusive of climate resilience, calls for an ensemble approach — one that places contextually appropriate emphasis on tackling climate change impacts and development needs in a world with growing challenges. Emerging evidence indicates that developing countries that were well on target towards achieving or even out-performing SDG1 poverty targets may have to work harder to reach their projected pre–Covid levels of achievement. The pathway to be adopted is one of an integrated risk assessment approach, where solutions are interventions that impact the immediate, near and medium-term outcomes for developing economies. Striking the right balance is at any time a choice driven as much by enablers (capabilities, lifestyles and values, financial flows, technical know-how) as by constraints (warming levels, poverty, inequality, lack of health and education).
The pandemic highlighted the need for balance in nature-people relationships, even as it tested the ability of the developing world to be self-reliant in a situation where countries across the world acted to protect their own people and economies. While the SDGs (particularly for poverty alleviation, good health and well-being, jobs) became an anchor for defining recovery in the developing world, it was also evident that a well-prepared society is one that is well equipped to take care of its own. Pursuing the report’s call for climate-resilient development pathways requires follow-up action. Trust and confidence building, that developing countries will see improvements in the enablers for climate action and investments in efforts for overcoming constraints, define the path to success.
Written by Purnamita Dasgupta
The writer is Chair Professor in Environmental Economics, at the Institute of Economic Growth
Source: Indian Express, 1/04/22
The Assam and Meghalaya governments have made an impressive beginning towards resolving a border dispute that has festered for 50 years now. The chief ministers of the two states have signed an agreement to settle six of the 12 contested spots on the 884-km border they share. True, the six other points of contestation are expected to involve longer and more complex negotiations. But that only highlights the pragmatism in not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The pact is a result of sustained talks and follow-up action between the two governments since last year, with the prodding of the Centre. It also suggests that both Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and Meghalaya CM Conrad Sangma, whose NPP is also an NDA partner in the state, have staked political capital in disentangling this knot. That’s a striking — and refreshing — contrast from the situation in last July, when violence on the Assam-Mizoram border led to the death of six police personnel and descended into unseemly grandstanding by two CMs, both unwilling to yield an inch.
The many border disputes in the region are a function of history. While colonial Assam was a large lumbering landmass, administered to serve British revenue interests, several states were carved out from it after independence — as smaller tribes and local communities remained apprehensive about their interests going unrepresented in a vast political unit. Indeed, the map-making of the colonial-era ended up drawing random, arbitrary lines, leading to fault lines between communities that have only widened over time. Unfortunately, they also left a mark on the political boundaries that were drawn post-1947. As a result, nearly every state in the region has a disputed border with Assam. Land is a fraught issue in the Northeast, and often pits state against state in bitter disputes — the demand for a Greater Nagalim, for instance. Smaller states, especially, have remained anxious about not ceding territory. The contentions over the demarcation of Assam’s border with Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are more numerous and more intractable. While Assam has initiated conversations with them, they remain at a very preliminary stage.
The gains made in Assam-Meghalaya, therefore, are significant. They offer a roadmap to the other states, have the potential of bringing down the temperature, and denting the Northeast’s image of a region of innumerable conflicts. That can only work to the region’s advantage in inviting investment and pushing for an infrastructure boost. For both Sarma and Sangma, however, the test will be to sell the agreement to their respective domestic constituencies, and ensure that the residents on the border villages are not alienated in the process. While this is a good beginning, neither the Centre nor the leaders of the region must underestimate the task that lies ahead.
Source: Indian Express, 31/03/22
