Followers

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

U.N. acclaim for Indian anti-hunger activist

The young leaders were selected by the U.N. from more than 18,000 nominations from 186 countries.

Troubled to see the amount of food being wasted in the big, fat Indian weddings, management graduate Ankit Kawatra came up with the solution to redistribute it among the hungry.
Mr. Kawatra, who left his corporate job to start ‘Feeding India’, is among the 17 people selected for the inaugural class of U.N. Young Leaders for Sustainable Development Goals for his initiative.
The young leaders were selected by the U.N. from more than 18,000 nominations from 186 countries.
“I worked in a global business advisory firm for two years. One day, I went to a celebrity wedding where there were around 10,000 people invited for the wedding and more than 35 cuisines were laid for them. I decided to stay back to see what happened with the food. To my shock and despair, heaps of leftover food was thrown straight into the bin which could have fed 5,000 people just that single night,” Kawatra said.
This led him to establish his own NGO Feeding India, which now claims to have fed 1 million meals with a network of 2,000 volunteers across 28 cities of India.
Redistribution of food
They work towards solving hunger and malnutrition in India by redistributing excess food from weddings, corporate, canteens, banquets and households.
As part of the initiative, Mr. Kawatra has undertaken several projects in the past two years. These include ‘The Magic Truck’, a 24X7 refrigerated vehicle moving around the city collecting and donating excess food.
“We have adopted many donation centres, self-run schools and shelter homes for children, elderly and specially-abled. We provide them with nutritious and well balanced meals,” Mr. Kawatra said. — PTI
Source: The Hindu, 26-09-2016

Will the Paris Pact succeed like the Montreal Protocol?

Small countries, especially island nations with low greenhouse gas emissions, have been more prompt with ratification of the Paris Agreement

On September 21, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is organising in New York a ratification ceremony for the Paris climate agreement, inviting countries that haven’t endorsed it till now to do so. The buzz among climate treaty watchers and international diplomats is that this rush to push the agreement through is with an eye on the approaching U.S. elections, as a Donald Trump victory could upset the apple cart for global climate action. Though the U.S. and China, the two top global greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, ratified the treaty at the recently concluded G20 summit, implementation is possible only once the agreement is ready to enter into force. And that won’t happen until 55 countries, accounting for 55 per cent of the global GHG emissions, ratify it.
The Montreal precedent

Back in 1987, on September 16, when 197 member nations of the UN signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, little would they have anticipated that in three decades the purpose for which they were signing the pact would begin to bear fruit: the ozone layer, which at that time was discovered to have a big hole in it due to ozone-depleting chemicals being widely used, is now beginning to show signs of healing. Researchers believe that the size of the ozone hole has shrunk by around 4 million sq km since 2000 and is not as deep as it used to be, thanks to the collective efforts of nations to cut the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other dangerous gases.
The Montreal Protocol offers a model of a successful environmental treaty that brought nations together to act swiftly on protecting the ozone layer. Next month, nations that are party to the protocol will get together in Kigali, Rwanda, to discuss the phasing down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as the next step towards addressing ozone depletion, also necessary to curb global warming. According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an HFC phase-down could prevent warming of up to 0.1°C by 2050 and warming of up to 0.5°C by 2100, offering one of the most cost-effective climate mitigation strategies available to the world today.
Replicating success

The more pertinent question is whether the Paris Agreement could succeed similarly in plugging greenhouse gas emissions, though it has a much bigger goal to chase. The Montreal Protocol had to address the use of ozone-depleting substances in select industries where they were widely used whereas the Paris Agreement has to address the challenge of reducing dependence on fossil fuels that continue to be the world's primary source of energy, a tall order.
The experience of implementing the Montreal Protocol offers several lessons which can lead the climate treaty to success. For starters, unlike climate change, the science behind ozone depletion was contested at the time when the protocol was signed. It was only eight years after the Montreal Protocol came into being that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Paul J. Crutzen, Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland brought global validation for their work on the formation and decomposition of ozone in the atmosphere. But that did not stop the countries that were party to the protocol from taking necessary action. However, despite the scientific evidence in support of global warming and climate change, signatories to the Paris treaty have much scepticism to overcome before meeting its goal of keeping global warming levels less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
Mr. Trump, the U.S. Republican presidential nominee, has dismissed climate change as a hoax, vowing to remove his country from the Paris climate accord, while commentators have referred to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s proposed action plans on climate change as inadequate. The experience with the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997 shows that if the U.S. wants, it can topple international efforts to fight climate change — though the then President, Bill Clinton, had signed the protocol in 1997, the U.S. Senate did not approve it, and eventually other major GHG emitters abandoned it as well.
Besides political will, there is the question of funding as well. Industrialised countries had committed in Cancun in 2010 to provide funds rising to $100 billion per year by 2020 for a Green Climate Fund (GCF) to help developing countries invest in green energy and prepare for extreme weather events. However, the GCF has so far raised only $10 billion, and allocated money to only about eight projects since it was first set up.
With the latest addition of Micronesia, 28 countries responsible for over 40 per cent of GHG emissions have ratified the Paris Agreement. But a closer look at the list of countries shows that small countries, especially island nations, with low GHG emissions and high risk of climate catastrophe, have been more prompt. The UNFCCC is confident that more top emitters, including the EU, would soon join the treaty. But the truth is, even after ratification, the pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement would be insufficient to keep global warming levels below the danger threshold, as per the UN’s own estimates.
The latest report from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies shows that August 2016 was the hottest month on the planet, about 0.16°C warmer than the previous 2014 record. So even as we celebrate the relative success of the Montreal Protocol in fixing the ozone layer today, the real lesson that the experience offers the world is that a stitch in time saves nine.
vidya.v@thehindu.co.in
Source: The Hindu, 23-09-2016

Preventing death in custody

While the liberty of a person in custody can be curtailed according to ‘procedures established by law’, it cannot be stretched to extinguish life.

Seven weeks after a 25-year-old inmate allegedly hanged himself in the Puzhal Central Prison in Chennai, P. Ramkumar, the sole accused in the murder of Infosys techie Swathi, also allegedly committed suicide in the same prison by “pulling and biting into a live electric wire”.
The Puzhal prison complex was inaugurated in 2006 by the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, with the promise of making it a model for reform. It has become notorious, however, for being a den of drugs and a place where mobile phones are frequently seized.
The Puzhal prison isn’t alone.
From 1995 to 2014, 999 suicides were reported inside Indian prisons. Tamil Nadu alone has seen 141 of them. The State houses less than 4 per cent of the country’s prisoners, yet it accounts for 14 per cent of suicides inside prisons. With such a poor track record, the State machinery should at least deliberate possible solutions.
Is Tamil Nadu the bad apple or is the entire orchard rotten? Data show that in the last 20 years, three inmates on average have been found dead daily in Indian prisons. In 2014, there were five deaths every day, so 35 deaths in a typical week. Two of these deaths were suicides. In the same period, the death rate inside prisons rose by 42 per cent. Ninety per cent of these deaths were recorded as ‘natural’, but what constitutes ‘natural’ in a custodial set-up is questionable.
Violation of rights

The numbers show that the prison department is ill-equipped to protect the health and safety of inmates. Little public scrutiny in jails provides the possibility of violation of basic rights. It is only when violations result in deaths that questions are raised, and even then only cursorily.
This perfunctory attention to prisons helps overlook the fact that deaths are the consequence of the everyday reality of prison life. Inmates live in despair of little or no contact with the outside world, are denied the basic desires to eat or wear clothes of their choice, to forge relationships. They wait for basic medical needs, their movements are restricted, and they are frustrated as they know nothing about their cases. As they are not taken to court often, they miss the chance of meeting a judge, their lawyers, and families. There is also lack of a mechanism to hear their complaints.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. As an undercover operation in Uttar Pradesh’s Kasna Jail showed recently, abuse takes place in prisons. Extortions, corruption, and torture are common.
The only way to thwart what goes on in these institutions is to make them accountable. Prison monitors are mandated to regularly visit jails, listen to prisoners’ grievances, identify areas of concern, and seek resolution. These visitors include magistrates and judges, State human rights institutions, and non-official visitors drawn from society.
However, an upcoming Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative study (CHRI), ‘Looking into the haze — a study on prison monitoring in India’, shows that not even 1 per cent of Indian jails are monitored. In Tamil Nadu, according to recent media reports, most prisons await appointment of non-official visitors. As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) figures for 2014, just 500 inspections were made across the 136 jails in Tamil Nadu, perhaps by the official visitors. This means that there were less than four inspections per jail in an entire year.
Surveillance

The Supreme Court last year ordered the Centre and the States to install CCTV cameras in all the prisons in the country. CCTV cameras serve two purposes: they bring on record incidents that could otherwise be suppressed, and play a preventive role in violation of rights, as the fear of facing consequences for the same would increase under vigilance.
However, Ramkumar’s death remains a mystery despite the Puzhal prison installing CCTV cameras. This is because the alleged suicide occurred near a water pot in the dispensary block where no cameras were placed. So, while the court’s order was a step in the right direction, it fell short by not formulating guidelines for implementation.
Suicide is a critical problem in prison complexes — in the last 20 years, the suicide rate (suicides per lakh population) in prisons is recorded at 15.4. A person is 1.5 times more likely to kill himself or herself inside jail than outside it. In Tamil Nadu prisons, the suicide rate is higher than 40.
Providing counselling to inmates is crucial for them to deal with the ordeal they undergo in custody. But are prisons prepared for this? Tamil Nadu prisons have only sanctioned 105 correctional staff. Less than half the positions are filled. Out of the 13 psychologists sanctioned, only eight have been hired. With around 16,000 prisoners, this translates to one psychologist for every 2,000 inmates.
After Ramkumar’s death, the DG (Prisons) announced that a magisterial inquiry will be ordered. But does that mean anything? The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has expressed concern in the past about post-mortem reports “appearing to be doctored due to influence”. There is no information in the public domain about the details of these reports, whether the magistrate visited the death scene, what evidence was gathered, the time taken for the inquiry, the outcome, and whether prison officials were charged or found guilty.
Saving lives

The prison department is mandated to report all cases of custodial death to the NHRC within 24 hours of their occurrence. But the prison department data collated by the NCRB and the NHRC data don’t match. Also, almost half of the unnatural deaths in prisons are reported as ‘others’ by the NCRB. It is important that these ‘others’ be demystified.
While the liberty of a person inside custody can be curtailed according to “procedures established by law”, it cannot be stretched to extinguish life itself. The NHRC has repeatedly issued guidelines to prevent and respond to custodial deaths. It is time for the State governments to start taking these guidelines seriously. If the state works to promote communication between the inmate and his family and lawyer, increase conjugal visits, ensure adequate trained prison staff, and open up the prison to civil society, we might be able to save some lives. If not, we know who is responsible for the next suicide inside our jails.
Raja Bagga is Project Officer, Prison Reforms Programme, CHRI.
Source: The Hindu, 27-09-2016

Here’s why India is ratifying the Paris climate treaty

After four years of talks, representatives from 195 countries created history in Paris in December 2015 by agreeing to a comprehensive climate change deal that will commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions besides giving a boost to clean energy business.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on Sunday India would ratify the Paris Agreement on October 2, Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. To date, 60 countries have ratified the deal including major economies such as China, Brazil, Argentina and others. Last week, the European Union announced that it would collectively ratify the deal before November.
Why did India delay ratification of the deal
New Delhi linked its membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an elite club of countries dealing with trade in nuclear technologies and fissile materials, to ratifying the Paris climate agreement.
This stand became a difficult proposition to sell to other governments because the country’s emission reduction commitments under Paris Agreement do not require a major increase of nuclear power in the country’s future energy mix.
Goal: The long-term goal is to limit global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius over pre-Industrial Revolution levels, and to try for 1.5 degree if possible.
Impact: Will push out fossil fuels from economies.
Peak: The world will aim for climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions to peak “as soon as possible”, probably in second half of the century.
Impact: Will provide affordable green technologies to developing countries.
Climate action: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to be reviewed again in 2023 and then once every five years to reflect highest possible ambition as per the individual capabilities of countries.
Impact: Introduces ‘name and shame’ regime for nations that don’t have an ambitious climate plan.
Emission reduction: Developed countries to take economy-wise absolute emission reduction (no target) and developing countries to enhance their mitigation efforts.
Source: Times of India, 27-09-2016
Solving The Complex Problems Of Life


Without truly understanding the ways of our mind ­ how it works and operates one cannot justly resolve the complex problems of living. This wise understanding one learns by observing the book of life and not by reading books, scriptures or quoting therefrom. If one's centre is complex, then even basic issues will be seen in a complicated way.If your centre is pure, even complex situations of life can be easily understood and handled. If your centre is not smitten by greed and not lost in addictive pleasure modes, then the world becomes a delightful field to explore and live. But if your centre is bullied by greed, then, you do not see the world, but the world will be polluted by your greed.
Why is one's centre complicated?
No one has thought of this deeply . Are you just lost in fulfilling the illusion created by a greedy centre? Do we have the time to think or is our time lost in fulfilling what we have thought or assumed to have thought?
Why have human beings become complicated? Somewhere along the line, we have stopped looking at ourselves, is it not? We have assumed that we have looked at ourselves just because we have concluded on what we want. What we have thought is the extension of what we want and what we want is a product of some hypnotic state we are in.
To observe your centre involves your being free to observe without likes or dislikes. If you are caught in what you like and dislike, then your thinking gets muddled up with likes and dislikes and hence the observations gets polluted. To be free from likes and dislikes and from wants and then see, involves a different quality of observation. Like how a scientist should be free when he observes and not get lost in what he wants through his observation.
How can one be free from likes and dislikes?
These questions arise because we have already programmed and loaded ourselves with the conclusion that it is natural to live with likes and dislikes. Look at this deeply. I want this or don't want this, or i like this or don't like this is a movement of thought. Without thought, no likes and dislikes can emerge.
The mistake one makes is ikes and dislikes as one's core seeing likes and dislikes as one's core centre. One gets defined by thought, which means one gets defined by the content of one's thought. If one's thought has likes or dislikes as its content, then one gets identified with it and hence the movement of thought is the movement of oneself. This is the error in one's living.
Thought, with its likes and dislikes resides in an inner space and this space is beyond thought. In sleep, there are no thoughts, but still, you exist. So one's centre is not thoughts.The centre is pure, empty, space.Understanding this is easy, but it may appear to be extremely difficult. This is because one is heavily programmed with what one knows and does not know. Also, one does not allow true knowing to take place. Learn to discover this truth.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents

Vol. 51, Issue No. 39, 24 Sep, 2016

Editorials

50 Years of EPW

Strategic Affairs

Commentary

Book Reviews

Perspectives

Special Articles

Notes

Current Statistics

Postscript

Appointments/Programmes/Announcements

Letters

India to host 1st BRICS Young Scientists Conclave 

New Delhi: The Department of Science & Technology (DST), Government of India, under the BRICS framework, is hosting a five day event where a group of about 50 young scientists/ researchers from BRICS countries are meeting in Bengaluru from 26-30th September, 2016. It would be organized and coordinated by the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bengaluru. 
 
The meet would provide a platform for engaging, connecting and networking among young scientists to hold discussions and find solutions to some of the common challenges and problems being faced in BRICS countries. The participants are drawn from science, engineering and allied disciplines. The focus of the Conclave would be on three thematic topics – Computational Intelligence, Energy Solutions and Affordable Healthcare.
 
This BRICS Young Scientists Conclave assumes importance as it is taking place during India’s chairmanship of BRICS in 2016 under a focal theme of ‘Building, Responsive, Inclusive and Collective Solutions’. The event shall be inaugurated by Prof K. Kasturirangan, former Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and former Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). 
 
The BRICS Young Scientist Forum (BRICS-YSF), under which the BRICS Young Scientists Conclave is being organised, was initiated at the 2nd BRICS Science, Technology and Innovation Ministerial Meeting at Brasilia in March, 2015. The respective Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Ministries of BRICS countries are the lead coordinating organisations for this Forum on co-investment and co-ownership principles.
 
The Conclave aims at building a BRICS Innovation Corps – who individually or collectively have specialized capability to work on their novel scientific ideas and technological solutions which transform and accelerate change through better quality of life and higher incomes for citizen of this region. It will pave way for creation of strong generation of S&T leadership that can accelerate change collectively.
 
Some of the lead speakers in the Conclave, among others from India and abroad, include Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Dr. Ashutosh Sharma, Secretary, DST, Dr. K. VijayRaghavan, Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Member, NITI Ayog, and Dr. Baldev Raj, Director, NIAS.  Besides, the above the Conclave is hosting more than 20 distinguished persons from BRICS nations with extraordinary achievements through scientific research, innovation and techno-entrepreneurship.
 
Some of the topics to be covered by the Conclave include Interdisciplinary Science for Society and Humanity, A Scientific Identity for BRICS, Traditional Science and Indigenous Knowledge and Science, Technology and Social Equity. A session on ‘Talent Hunt’ is also being organised under which about 15 ideas shall be presented on 3 identified themes of the Conclave.    
 
Two reports will be released during the Conclave.  The first report titled “BRICS Science and Technology Enterprise Partnership” is prepared by a group of eminent scholars.  It envisions sustained critical efforts for achieving Science & Technology Research leadership and product driven enterprise mode partnership. It offers new ways for BRICS cohesion and connecting to the world.
 
The second report titled “Hampi: Splendours of a World Heritage Site” projects the historical significance of the heritage site as well as depicts the Intellectual movements to technological Innovations to the Conclave participants. The Conclave also offers a unique opportunity of witnessing India’s scientific, engineering, architectural, philosophical and cultural tradition, as provided through a field visit to Hampi, an UNESCO World Heritage Site.
 
Source: Indiaeducationdiary, 25-09-2016