As reported by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas- Kisan Seva Kendras (KSKs) are rural retail outlets of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) where all customers who come for refueling are serviced. As per market requirement, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Kisan Seva Kendras (IOCL KSKs) also provide allied facilities like Micro ATM, Convenience Store, Fertilizers/Pesticides, farm equipments etc. depending upon the buying habits and preference of the local rural customers.

The number of such Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) Kisan Seva Kendras (rural retail outlets) operating in the country as on 01.10.2019 is 8044. Further, IOCL has advertised 13827 number of KSK locations during the last advertisement issued in Nov/Dec’ 2018.

The number of staff deployed at retail outlets depends on various factors like type of market (urban/rural/Metro), nature of clientele (2/3W/Car/Commercial vehicles), number of dispensing units installed, the Retail Outlets (RO) working hours, number of shifts etc. Moreover, the deployment of manpower at retail outlets is being done by the dealers.

The Government has taken a number of steps to reduce the distribution logistic cost in farming. The Government has implemented the policy for reimbursement of freight subsidy for distribution of subsidized fertilizers through coastal shipping or/and inland waterways.

In order to make timely availability of certified/quality seeds at affordable price to the farmers of hilly/remote areas of North-Eastern States including Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand and hilly areas of West Bengal, Transport Subsidy on Movement of Seeds is provided under Sub-Mission on Seeds & Planting Material (SMSP).

As per Union Budget Announcement, 2018-19, Government has announced for development and upgradation of existing rural haats into Gramin Agricultural Markets (GrAMs). This will provide farmers facility to make direct sale to consumers and bulk purchasers which will reduce the logistic cost.

The Governmentis providing support to farmers for development of agricultural marketing infrastructure in the country through the scheme of “Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure (AMI)”, which is a sub-scheme of Integrated Scheme for Agricultural Marketing (ISAM). Under AMI Scheme, Refrigerated Van as a transport vehicle is eligible for subsidy assistance for Integrated Value Chain (IVC) projects.

Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH) provides assistance for development of post harvest management and marketing infrastructure such as cold storage facilities, ripening chamber, pack houses, reefer vehicles to farmers to improve marketability of their produce.

Further, in order to develop the infrastructure in farming sector including that of distribution logistics, the Government is implementing Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana-Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied Sector Rejuvenation (RKVY-RAFTAAR) Scheme.

Government has introduced National Agriculture Market (e-NAM) scheme wherein trading of agriculture and horticulture commodities is carried out by transparent price discovery method for produce of farmers through competitive online bidding system. A logistic module has been provided on e-NAM platform to provide efficient logistic facility for inter-mandi and inter-state trade on e-NAM platform.

The Government has formulated and released model Agricultural Produce and Livestock Contract Farming & Services (Promotion & Facilitation) Act, 2018 which will facilitate reduction in supply chain for optimizing logistics.

The details of procurement of rice and wheat of last three years is as under:

As on 01.11.2019, against total stocks of 604.82 LMT, the total storage capacity available with Food Corporation of India (FCI), Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) and the State Agencies (both owned and hired capacity), was 758.80 LMT comprising 623.23 LMT in covered godowns and 135.57 LMT in Cover and Plinth (CAP) storage.

However, depending on requirement in specific areas and for modernization of the storage facilities, the Government implements the following schemes for construction of godowns and silos for storage of Central Pool Stocks in the country:

Private Entrepreneurs Guarantee (PEG) Scheme: Under this Scheme, storage capacity is created by private parties, CWC and State Government Agencies for guaranteed hiring by FCI. A capacity of 149.89 LMT has been sanctioned/created as on 31.10.2019 (including 0.88 LMT in Andhra Pradesh).

Central Sector Scheme (erstwhile Plan Scheme): This scheme is implemented predominantly in the North Eastern States. Government of India releases funds to FCI and also to the State Governments for construction of godowns. As on 31.10.2019, a total capacity of 2,33,600 MT has been completed by FCI and State Governments.

Construction of Steel Silos: In addition to conventional godowns, Government of India has also approved an action plan for construction of steel silos in the country for a capacity of 100 LMT in Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode for modernizing storage infrastructure and improving shelf life of stored foodgrains. Till date, location for silos with capacity of 82.75 LMT (82.50 LMT wheat and 0.25 LMT Rice) have been approved

The powerful Upper House of Parliament is in its 250th session. Now all states must have a second chamber too.

The ongoing session of the Rajya Sabha is its 250th assembly. The House is celebrating this milestone in its functioning in multiple ways. A commemorative coin, a stamp and a book containing essays on the role and importance of Rajya Sabha have been launched. On the first day of the session, the House held a special discussion on the ‘role of the Rajya Sabha in Indian polity and the way forward’. The discussion saw introductory remarks made by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Venkaiah Naidu who stressed on the importance of the second chamber in our parliamentary system. He also recapped the contribution of Rajya Sabha in key constitutional and social legislation since 1952, a theme which was echoed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, former prime minister Manmohan Singh and MPs from across the political spectrum.

During the framing of our Constitution, two broad arguments were advanced for having a second chamber at the national level. First, a second house would act as a checking mechanism on hasty legislative actions initiated by a popularly elected house. The second argument was that debate in Parliament would be enriched by contributions of individuals who either did not want to contest or could not win a general election. However, the opinion in the Constituent Assembly was divided on the question of having a second chamber in states.

Some members were opposed to the idea. Prof KT Shah, a member of constituent assembly from Bihar, was one such member. He said that a second chamber’s “involve considerable outlay from the public exchequer on account of the salaries and allowances of Members and incidental charges. They only aid party bosses to distribute more patronage, and only help in obstructing or delaying the necessary legislation which the people have given their votes for.”

The solution that the framers of the Constitution arrived at was to mandate a second chamber, the Rajya Sabha, at the national level. For the state level, they left the decision to the state legislature to decide whether it wanted a second chamber, the legislative council. Currently, seven states have Legislative Councils. These are Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. (The Jammu and Kashmir legislative council was recently abolished after the region was made into a Union Territory.)

The Constitution specifies that for a state to have a legislative council, its legislature should pass a resolution, with a special majority, to this effect. Thereafter a Bill is passed in Parliament for the creation of the legislative council. This then results in the creation of a legislative council in the state. A council in a state can also be abolished by following the same process. The last Bill for creation of a council was passed in 2007, for the creation of a legislative council in (undivided) Andhra Pradesh.

The Constitution also specifies the limits with respect to the membership of the legislative council. The maximum number of members in a legislative council is capped to one-third of the members in the legislative assembly. The minimum number of members is set at forty. Members of the legislative assembly elect a third of the members of the council. Another third is elected by electorates consisting of members of municipalities, district boards and other local authorities in the state.

Teachers in the state elect a twelfth of the members in the council and another twelfth are elected by an electorate comprised of registered graduates in the state. The state governor nominates the remaining members, based on their contributions in literature, science, art, the cooperative movement, and social service.

But legislative councils cannot be equated with the Rajya Sabha, which is the much more powerful second chamber. For one, it is a co-equal to Lok Sabha and has substantial powers to shape non-financial legislation at the national level. Legislative Councils, on the other hand, have limited powers. Any amendment made by them to a legislation can be overridden by the legislative assembly. Members of legislative councils, unlike their counterparts in the assembly, cannot vote in the election of the President or of members of Rajya Sabha.

However, having or not having a legislative council in states is a political issue. Tamil Nadu is one such example. The creation of a legislative council in the state has been a contentious issue for the last three decades. Tamil Nadu had a bicameral legislature till 1985. In 1986 the state’s legislative assembly, with AIADMK in the majority, passed a resolution for abolishing the legislative council. Since then, DMK has made attempts to establish the legislative council when it comes to power and AIADMK has ensured that DMK’s efforts are thwarted when it is the ruling party in the state. The last DMK attempt was in 2010, which was negated by the AIADMK in 2012.

While political parties in Tamil Nadu disagree upon the need of a legislative council, the situation is different in other states. In the 2018 Madhya Pradesh State elections, the Congress party in its election manifesto had promised the creation of a legislative council when it came to power. In 2010, MLAs of the Assam legislative assembly unanimously passed a resolution for the creation of the legislative council. In 2012 there was unanimity in Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha for the creation of a legislative council. The Bills for creating these legislative councils are currently pending in Rajya Sabha.

The parliamentary committee which examined the Rajasthan Bill made important recommendations with respect to legislative councils. The committee observed that “there is a need to evolve a national policy conscientious with regard to creation/abolition of Legislative Council particularly in regard to the fact that the status of Second Chamber cannot be of temporary in nature depending on the mood of the Government of the day nor can be abolished once created, only at the whims and fancy of a newly elected Government in the State.”

There are serious gaps in legislative scrutiny currently done by legislative assemblies. This lack of scrutiny makes for a strong case for a Rajya Sabha like second chamber in states. However, in addition to a national policy on legislative councils, a larger debate needs to take place on the law-making powers of legislative councils. Currently, they can only delay legislation but not make any changes to it. However, the need of the hour is a second chamber which can play a similar role in states as the Rajya Sabha does at the national level.

Chakshu Roy heads legislative and civic engagement initiatives at PRS Legislative Research. The views are personal.

They can serve as the intellectual compass for governance. MPs must take them more seriously

The chairman of the Rajya Sabha (RS), Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, has been concerned about the functioning of parliamentary committees. Last week, he shared information about the attendance of Members of Parliament (MPs) in eight parliamentary committees. These committees, dealing with subjects such as commerce, home, law and justice, human resource development, science and technology, are under the administrative control of the Rajya Sabha. Eighty MPs from the Upper House are part of these committees.

According to data shared by the chairman, only 18 out of the 80 RS MPs attended all the meetings of their committees. This number looks dismal when you consider that eight out of the 18 are chairmen of these committees. The attendance of Lok Sabha (LS) MPs in these committees was equally poor. Out of the 168 LS MPs on these committees, only 18 attended all the meetings. The chairman also stressed that the absence of MPs has a larger impact, as each member of a committee represents 25 of his parliamentary colleagues in these meetings. The issue of MPs attending parliamentary meetings is critically important because of the central role committees play in our parliamentary system.

The governance of the country has increasingly become specialised and complex. However, MPs elected to Parliament are generalists. They are often called upon to legislate on subject areas for which they may not have academic grounding, formal training or depth. In the absence of dedicated research staff, they are neither effective in their role as lawmakers nor in questioning the functioning of the government. And while Parliament is the highest law-making institution, it is also a forum for politics. A speech on the floor of the House is more about communicating to the electorate than getting into the complex details required for running a country. These challenges, coupled with a limited number of sitting days, makes the floor of Parliament an ineffective place for finding governance solutions for the country.

It’s a challenge that was recognised by many legislatures long ago. Woodrow Wilson, before he became the 28th president of the United States, wrote in 1885: “...it is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.” This was a fact that was recognised and institutionalised in our parliamentary system in the early 90s. Parliamentary committees do not suffer from any of the infirmities of the debate that happens on the floor of Parliament. Meetings of the committees are independent of Parliament’s calendar of sitting days. They are held behind closed doors, so that MPs can focus on the issue at hand, rather than worry about political positioning.

Since time on the floor of the house is allocated on the basis of party strength, many MPs only get a couple of minutes to make their point. This is not the case with committee meetings, where MPs can contribute extensively to the discussions of the committee. With these advantages, one would assume that MPs would be diligent in attending and participating in committee meetings. However, that’s not the case. Between 2009 and 2014, only half the MPs attended the meetings of the 16 committees administered by the LS. The situation in the last five years of the LS has not been very different either.

The lackadaisical attitude of our MPs is perhaps linked to the impression created and importance given to parliamentary committees. Repeated requests to either send or not send or send bills to a joint committee, instead of an already established specialised committee, creates an impression that the committee process is political and not focused on technical scrutiny. Not referring a bill to a committee sends the message that the bills piloted by the government are perfect, and they are so urgently needed that they do not require the contribution of a committee of MPs. But these impressions can be corrected. The two presiding officers could discourage requests from ministers for not referring their bills to committees. Or the rules of procedure of Parliament could be amended to automatically send all substantive legislation for timely scrutiny by a committee.

MPs have a one-year tenure on parliamentary committees. This short tenure could be suggestive of the non-serious nature of committees. Venkaiah Naidu had recently suggested that MPs should have longer tenure in committees so that they could build up their expertise in subject areas. Very often, MPs experience a knowledge gap when dealing with specialised subjects. In 2005, speaker Somnath Chatterjee was inclined towards associating external experts with parliamentary committees to support the committees in analysing legislations and policies. However, the idea did not resonate with political leaders, and was shelved. But the need for expert support for MPs has been recognised by the RS chairman on multiple occasions. Naidu has suggested that there is a need to reflect on the infrastructure support that MPs require for contributing effectively to parliamentary functioning.

Parliamentary committees are the brain of Parliament. They give the institution the ability to identify pressing and prospective issues, suggest solutions, and highlight gaps in implementation. Supporting and encouraging MPs to engage in Parliamentary committees will ensure that the Parliament becomes the intellectual compass for good governance in the country. Chakshu Roy is the head of Legislative and Civic Engagement, PRS Legislative Research

The Minister of Home Affairs introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 today in Lok Sabha. It is scheduled to be taken up for discussion and passing by the House later today. The Bill amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, and seeks to make foreign illegal migrants of certain religious communities coming from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan eligible for Indian citizenship. In this blog, we look at the criteria for determining citizenship in India, discuss how the Bill proposes to change the criteria, and highlight other key changes proposed by the Bill.

How is citizenship acquired in India? In India, citizenship is regulated by the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Act specifies that citizenship may be acquired in India through five methods – by birth in India, by descent, through registration, by naturalisation (extended residence in India), and by incorporation of territory into India. [1]

Can illegal migrants acquire citizenship? An illegal migrant is prohibited from acquiring Indian citizenship. An illegal immigrant is a foreigner who either enters India illegally, i.e., without valid travel documents, like a visa and passport, or enters India legally, but stays beyond the time period permitted in their travel documents. An illegal migrant can be prosecuted in India, and deported or imprisoned.

In September 2015 and July 2016, the central government exempted certain groups of illegal migrants from being imprisoned or deported. [2] These are illegal migrants who came into India from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan on or before December 31, 2014, and belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian religious communities.

How does the Bill seek to change the criteria for determining citizenship? The Bill proposes that the specified class of illegal migrants from the three countries will not be treated as illegal migrants, making them eligible for citizenship. On acquiring citizenship, such migrants shall be deemed to be Indian citizens from the date of their entry into India and all legal proceedings regarding their status as illegal migrants or their citizenship will be closed.

The Act allows a person to apply for citizenship by naturalisation, if the person meets certain qualifications. One of the qualifications is that the person must have resided in India or been in central government service for the last 12 months and at least 11 years of the preceding 14 years. For the specified class of illegal migrants, the number of years of residency has been relaxed from 11 years to five years.

Are the provisions of the Bill applicable across the country? The Bill clarifies that the proposed amendments on citizenship to the specified class of illegal migrants will not apply to certain areas. These are: (i) the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, and (ii) the states regulated by the “Inner Line” permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations 1873. These Sixth Schedule tribal areas include Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma District (in Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District. Further, the Inner Line Permit regulates visit of all persons, including Indian citizens, to Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.

Is the differentiation among the specified class of illegal migrants and all other illegal migrants reasonable? The Bill makes only certain illegal migrants eligible for citizenship. These are persons belonging to the six specified religious communities, from the three specified countries, who entered India on or before December 31, 2014, and do not reside in the Sixth Schedule areas or in the states regulated by the Inner Line Permit states. This implies that all other illegal migrants will not be able to claim the benefit of citizenship conferred by the Bill, and may continue to be prosecuted as illegal migrants. Any provision which distinguishes between two groups may violate the standard of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, unless one can show a reasonable rationale for doing so. [3] The Bill provides differential treatment to illegal migrants on the basis of (a) their country of origin, (b) religion, (c) date of entry into India, and (d) place of residence in India. The question is whether these factors serve a reasonable purpose to justify the differential treatment. We examine this below.

The Bill classifies migrants based on their country of origin to include only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. While the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SoR) in the Bill reasons that millions of citizens of undivided India were living in Pakistan and Bangladesh, no reason has been provided to explain the inclusion of Afghanistan. The SoR also states that these countries have a state religion, which has resulted in religious persecution of minority groups. However, there are other countries which may fit this qualification. For instance, two of India’s neighboring countries, Sri Lanka (Buddhist state religion) [4] and Myanmar (primacy to Buddhism) [5], have had a history of persecution of Tamil Eelams (a linguistic minority in Sri Lanka), and the Rohingya Muslims, respectively. [6], [7], [8]

Further, there are other religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan (considered non-Muslims in that country) [9], and atheists in Bangladesh [10] who have faced religious persecution and may have illegally migrated to India. Given that the objective of the Bill is to provide citizenship to migrants escaping from religious persecution, it is not clear why illegal migrants belonging to other neighbouring countries, or belonging to religious minorities from these three specified countries, have been excluded from the Bill.

The Bill also creates further differentiation between the specified class of illegal migrants based on when they entered India (before or after December 31, 2014), and where they live in India (provisions not applicable to Sixth Schedule and Inner Line Permit areas). However, the reasons provided to explain the distinction is unclear. Note that certain restrictions apply to persons (both citizens and foreigners) in the Sixth Schedule areas and in the states regulated by the Inner Line Permit. Once an illegal migrant residing in these areas acquires citizenship, he would be subject to the same restrictions in these areas, as are applicable to other Indian citizens. Therefore, it is unclear why the Bill excludes illegal migrants residing in these areas.

How does the Bill change the regulations for Overseas Citizens of India? The Bill also amends the provisions on registration of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI). OCI cardholders are foreigners who are persons of Indian origin. For example, they may have been former Indian citizens, or children of current Indian citizens. An OCI enjoys benefits such as the right to travel to India without a visa, or to work and study here. At present, the government may cancel a person’s OCI registration on various grounds specified in the Act. In case of a cancellation, an OCI residing in India may be required to leave the country. The Bill adds another ground for cancelling OCI registration — violation of any law notified by the central government. However, the Bill does not provide any guidance on the nature of laws which the central government may notify. The Supreme Court has noted that this guidance is necessary to set limits on the authority’s powers and to avoid any arbitrariness in exercise of powers. [11] Therefore, the powers given to the government under the Bill may go beyond the permissible limits of valid delegation.

Note: The blog has been updated to remove the following issue: “Second, the Bill delegates the power to notify laws and not offences. This may result in the cancellation of OCI for minor violations. For instance, the government may want to cancel the registration of an OCI who is found guilty of sedition, under the Indian Penal Code, 1861. However, since the government cannot notify one offence, it will need to notify the entire Indian Penal Code, which would include minor offences such as rash and negligent driving.”

The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha recently and is scheduled to be passed in this Winter Session. The Bill amends the Arms Act, 1959 which deals with the regulation of arms in India. The Act defines arms to include firearms, swords, and anti-aircraft missiles. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill noted that law enforcement agencies have indicated a growing connection between the possession of illegal firearms and criminal activities. In this context, the Bill seeks to reduce the number of firearms allowed per person, and increases punishments for certain offences under the Act. The Bill also introduces new categories of offences. In this post, we explain key provisions of the Bill.

How many firearms are allowed per person? The Arms Act, 1959 allows a person to have three licenced firearms. The Bill proposes to reduce this to one firearm per person. This would also include any firearms that may have been given as inheritance or as an heirloom. Excess firearms must be deposited at the nearest police station or licensed arms dealer within one year of the passing of the Bill. The Bill also extends the duration of a licence from three years to five years.

Note that in 2017, 63,219 firearms were seized from across India under the Arms Act, 1959. Out of these, only 3,525 (5.5%) were licenced firearms. Further, 36,292 cases involving firearms were registered under the Act in 2017, of which only 419 (1.1%) cases involved licenced firearms. [1] This trend persisted even at the level of specific crimes, where only 8.5% of the murders committed using firearms involved licenced firearms. [2]

What changes are being made to existing offences? Presently, the Act bans manufacture, sale, use, transfer, conversion, testing or proofing of firearms without license. The Bill additionally prohibits obtaining or procuring un-licensed firearms, and the conversion of one category of firearms to another without a license. The latter includes any modifications done to enhance the performance of a firearm.

The Bill also proposes increased punishments for several existing offences. For example, the Act specifies the punishment for: (i) dealing in un-licensed firearms, including their manufacture, procurement, sale, transfer, conversion, (ii) the shortening or conversion of a firearm without a licence, and (iii) import or export of banned firearms. The punishment for these offences currently is between three years and seven years, along with a fine. The Bill increases the minimum punishment to seven years and the maximum to life imprisonment.

The Act also punishes dealing in prohibited firearms (such as automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles) without a license, with imprisonment between seven years and life imprisonment, along with fine. The Bill increases the minimum punishment from seven years to 10 years. Additionally, the punishment for cases in which the usage of prohibited arms results in the death of a person has been revised. The punishment has been updated from the existing punishment of death penalty to allow for death penalty or life imprisonment, along with a fine.

Are there any new offences being introduced? The Bill adds certain news offences. For example, forcefully taking a firearm from police or armed forces has been made a crime under the Bill. The punishment for doing so is imprisonment between 10 years and life imprisonment, along with a fine. Additionally, the Bill punishes the negligent use of firearms, such as celebratory gunfire during weddings or religious ceremonies which endanger human life or personal safety of others. The proposed punishment in this case is imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both.

The Bill also adds a definition of ‘illicit trafficking’. It is defined to include the trade, acquisition, sale of firearms or ammunitions into or out of India where the firearms are either not marked as per the Act or violate the provisions of the Act. The Bill makes illicit trafficking punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine.

Does the Bill address issues of organised crime? The Bill also introduces a definition of ‘organised crime’. ‘Organised crime’ has been defined as continued unlawful activity by a person, either as a member of a syndicate or on its behalf, by using unlawful means, such as violence or coercion, to gain economic or other benefits. An organised crime syndicate refers to two or more persons committing organised crime.

The Bill introduces harsher punishments for members of an organised crime syndicate. For example, for the possession of an unlicensed firearm, the minimum term for an individual would be seven years, extendable to life imprisonment and liable to a fine. However, the possession of unlicensed firearms by a member of a syndicate will be punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine. This increased punishment also applies to non-members contravening provisions of the Act on behalf of a syndicate.

What is India Skills Report? It is a joint initiative by PeopleStrong, a Global Talent Assessment Company, in collaboration with Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) along with partners like UNDP, AICTE, and AIU.

The report also consists of an in-depth study of employability amongst the fresh candidates joining the workforce.

Key findings: About 46.21 per cent students were found employable or ready to take up jobs in 2019, compared with 33 per cent in 2014, and 47.38 per cent in 2018. Female employability witnessed an upward trend at 47 per cent this year from 38 per cent in 2017 and 46 per cent in 2018. Most employable candidates as per the courses were MBA Students at 54 per cent as against 40 per cent in the last two years. A decline in employability was seen in BTech, Engineering. MCA graduates, Technical & Computer-related courses.

Performance of states: Top three states in terms of employability: Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Top two employable cities: Mumbai and Hyderabad. States that registered a dip in ranking were West Bengal and Haryana, which could not make it to the top ten list.

Way ahead for India: Availability of employable talent has improved over the past six years. Prime Minister Modi’s vision of India becoming a $5 trillion economy requires increasing the per-capita income of Indians which can happen only when people get employment, which consequently demands the skills and useful talent.

To achieve that, along with the universities and colleges in India, various emerging start-ups are already using innovative technologies to facilitate skill up-gradation, job creation, internships and workforce management on their platforms.

It is a Rs.6000 crore World Bank approved Central Sector Scheme of the Ministry of Jal Shakti.

The funding pattern is 50:50 between Government of India and World Bank. Aims to improve ground water management in priority areas in the country through community participation.

Priority areas: The priority areas identified under the scheme fall in the states of Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

These States represent about 25% of the total number of over-exploited, critical and semi-critical blocks in terms of ground water in India. They also cover two major types of groundwater systems found in India – alluvial and hard rock aquifers- and have varying degrees of institutional readiness and experience in groundwater management.

Implementation of the scheme: Funds under the scheme will be provided to the states for strengthening the institutions responsible for ground water governance, as well as for encouraging community involvement for improving ground water management to foster behavioural changes that promote conservation and efficient use of water. The scheme will also facilitate convergence of ongoing Government schemes in the states by incentivizing their focussed implementation in identified priority areas.

Expected outcomes: The implementation of the scheme is expected to have several positive outcomes like better understanding of the ground water regime, focused and integrated community based approach for addressing issues related to ground water depletion, sustainable ground water management through convergence of on-going and new schemes, adoption of efficient water use practices to reduce ground water use for irrigation and augmentation of ground water resources in targeted areas.

Status of groundwater in India: Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) is regulating ground water development in States/UTs. As per the assessment of dynamic ground water resources of country carried out jointly by CGWB and State Ground Water Departments, out of the total 6584 numbers of assessment units (Block/ Taluks/ Mandals/ watershed/ Firkka), 1034 units have been categorized as ‘Over-exploited’. This may be due to increase in population, rapid urbanization & industrialization and other related factors.

This will be the first financial investment by the US military into commercial-scale Rare Earths production since the Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb during World War II.

What necessitated this? The decision comes after China threatened to stop exporting Rare Earth materials to the US amid the ongoing trade war between the countries. At present, China refines approximately 80%-90% of the world’s Rare Earths, thereby having substantial control over their supply.

What are REMs? The rare earths minerals (REM) are a set of seventeen metallic elements. These include the fifteen lanthanides on the periodic table in addition to scandium and yttrium that show similar physical and chemical properties to the lanthanides.

The REMs have unique catalytic, metallurgical, nuclear, electrical, magnetic and luminescent properties. While named ‘rare earth’, they are in fact not that rare and are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust. Strategic importance of REMs: They have distinctive electrical, metallurgical, catalytic, nuclear, magnetic and luminescent properties.

Its usage range from daily use (e.g., lighter flints, glass polishing mediums, car alternators) to high-end technology (lasers, magnets, batteries, fibre-optic telecommunication cables). Even futuristic technologies need these REMs (For example high-temperature superconductivity, safe storage and transport of hydrogen for a post-hydrocarbon economy, environmental global warming and energy efficiency issues).

Due to their unique magnetic, luminescent, and electrochemical properties, they help in technologies perform with reduced weight, reduced emissions, and energy consumption; therefore give them greater efficiency, performance, miniaturization, speed, durability, and thermal stability.

Designed by the German environmental and development organisation Germanwatch e.V. Published in cooperation with the NewClimate Institute and Climate Action Network International and with financial support from Barthel Foundation. Objective: To enhance transparency in international climate politics. First published in 2005 and an updated version is presented at the UN Climate Change Conference annually.

In 2017, the underlying methodology of the CCPI was revised and adapted to the new climate policy framework of the Paris Agreement from 2015. The CCPI was extended in order to include the measurement of a country’s progress towards the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the country’s 2030 targets.

The national performances are assessed based on 14 indicators in the following four categories: GHG Emissions (weighting 40%). Renewable Energy (weighting 20%). Energy Use (weighting 20%). Climate Policy (weighting 20%). Components_of_the_CCPI

India’s performance: India, at rank 9, joins the top ten countries. Despite high ratings for the performance of its climate policy, the government is yet to draw up a roadmap to reduce subsidies on fossil fuels in a phased manner. In short, more stringent laws and amendments should be made to achieve climate change targets.

Performance of other countries: USA for the first time replaces Saudi Arabia as worst performing country. Sweden is ranked first, Denmark climbs up significantly in the ranking. Eight EU countries rated “high” – Poland and Bulgaria “very low”. China, the largest global emitter, once again slightly improves its ranking to 30th place (“medium”).

While only two G20 countries, the UK (7th) and India (9th), are ranked in the “high” category, eight G20 countries are remaining in the worst category of the index (“very low”).

It is the world’s most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species. How are species categorised? It uses a set of quantitative criteria to evaluate the extinction risk of thousands of species.

The IUCN Red List Categories: The IUCN Red List Categories define the extinction risk of species assessed. Nine categories extend from NE (Not Evaluated) to EX (Extinct). Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU) species are considered to be threatened with extinction.

The IUCN system uses a set of five quantitative criteria to assess the extinction risk of a given species. In general, these criteria consider: The rate of population decline. The geographic range. Whether the species already possesses a small population size. Whether the species is very small or lives in a restricted area. Whether the results of a quantitative analysis indicate a high probability of extinction in the wild.

Utility of the red list: It brings into focus the ongoing decline of Earth’s biodiversity and the influence humans have on life on the planet. It provides a globally accepted standard with which to measure the conservation status of species over time.

Scientists can analyze the percentage of species in a given category and how these percentages change over time; they can also analyze the threats and conservation measures that underpin the observed trends.

Background: The exercise was limited to surface water and did not cover groundwater contamination.

Key findings: Samples from two-thirds of the water quality stations spanning India’s major rivers are contaminated by one or more heavy metals, exceeding safe limits set by the Bureau of Indian Standards.

Ironemerged as the most common contaminant. Arsenic and zinc are the two toxic metals whose concentration is always found within the limits.

Other major contaminants found in the samples were lead, nickel, chromium, cadmium and copper. The contamination of water sites depends on the season- varied presence of contaminants is found in different seasons.

Metals found in Non-Monsoon Period: Lead, cadmium, nickel, chromium and copper. Monsoon Period:Iron, lead, chromium and copper exceeded ‘tolerance limits’ in this period most of the time.

The main sources of heavy metal pollution are mining, milling, plating and surface finishing industries that discharge a variety of toxic metals into the environment.

The population growth and rise in agricultural and industrial activities are also responsible for contamination of surface water.

What’s the concern? The presence of metals in drinking water to some extent is unavoidable and certain metals, in trace amounts, are required for good health. However, when present above safe limits, they are associated with a range of disorders.

Long-term exposure to the heavy metals may result in physical, muscular, and neurological degenerative processes that mimic Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis.

Metals with relatively high densities, atomic weights, or atomic numbers.

A density of more than 5 g/cm3 is sometimes quoted as a commonly used criterion.

It is a joint military exercise between the ground forces of the UAE and the United States. The latest edition is being held in UAE.

What is it? NFRA is a body proposed in Companies Act 2013 for the establishment and enforcement of accounting and auditing standards and oversight of the work of auditors.

Functions: It would be an overarching watchdog for auditing profession and once set up, the current powers of the ICAI to act against erring chartered accountants will be vested with the new regulator. The NFRA will have powers to debar an erring auditor or auditing firm for up to ten years besides slapping heavy penalties.

Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the NFRA will extend to all listed companies as well as large unlisted public companies. Besides, the government can refer other entities for investigation by the NFRA where public interest would be involved.

Composition: The regulator will have 15 members, including a chairperson and three full-time members. Besides, there would be a secretary.

Context: International technology company IBM is planning to develop this high-resolution weather forecast model that will also rely on user-generated data to improve the accuracy of forecasts available in India.

IBM GRAF, as the forecast system is called, can generate forecasts at a resolution of 3 kilometres.