Monday 29 May 2017

World Bank and its Partner in saving Biodiversity

Multi-stakeholder partnerships are an important aspect of the World Bank’s environmental engagement as they pool expertise, access, and resources. These partnerships comprise public sector, private sector, multi-lateral and civil society actors to advance collective action on some of the world’s most pressing biodiversity challenges.
The Bank is the lead agency of the  Global Partnership on Wildlife Conservation and Crime Prevention for Sustainable Development, a US$131 million grant program by the Global Environment Facility (GEF)active in 19 countries.  The program focuses on designing and implementing national strategies to help countries secure their wildlife resources, habitats, and the benefits they derive from them while also reducing poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking
The International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) launched in 2010 brings together Interpol, the CITES SecretariatWorld Customs Union and UNODC with the World Bank to promote effective law enforcement nationally and internationally in support of sustainable development and equitable benefit-sharing for the proceeds from sustainable natural resource management. The ICCWC also provides training in investigative techniques to judges, lawyers, and customs and wildlife officials worldwide.
Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) is a World Bank–facilitated global partnership that promotes sustainable development by mainstreaming natural resources into a country’s development planning and system of national accounting. WAVES has been working extensively in Botswana, Colombia, Costa Rica, Madagascar, and the Philippines.
The Save Our Species Program combines the financial weight and technical expertise of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility, the authoritative science of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the resources and ingenuity of the private sector to ensure that funding goes to species conservation projects for the greatest impact.
Together with the GEF, the Smithsonian Institution, Save the Tiger Fund and the International Tiger Coalition, the World Bank was a founder of the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI) to save tigers and snow leopards from extinction.

Friday 26 May 2017

Achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020

In 2010, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 with the purpose of inspiring broad-based action in support of biodiversity over the decade by all countries. The Strategic Plan serves as a flexible framework for the establishment of national and regional targets and promotes the coherent and effective implementation of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of biodiversity; fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 comprises a vision for 2050, five strategic goals and twenty ambitious yet achievable targets, collectively known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
5 Goals of Aichi Biodiversity
  1. Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society

  2. Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

  3. To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity

  4. Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services

  5. Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building


All 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets are listed Below


Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society 




  1. By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably. 
  2. By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local develop ment and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems. 
  3. By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio economic conditions. 
  4. By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits. 


Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use 



  1. By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced. 
  2. By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that over fishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits. 
  3. By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity. 
  4. By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity. 
  5. By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment. 
  6. By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning. 


Strategic Goal C: Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity 



  1. By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes.
  2.  By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. 
  3. By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. 



Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services. 



  1. By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable. 
  2. By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification. 
  3. By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation. 


Strategic Goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building 



  1. By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan. 
  2. By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels. 
  3. By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied.
  4.  By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan 2011-2020 from all sources and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resources needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties. 

Sunday 21 May 2017

Indian Navy Submarines

1. Chakra Class


INS Chakra is an 8,140-tonne Akula class, nuclear-powered submarine..The submarine was commissioned on 04 April, 2012.


Name           Pennant No.           Date of Commission 

Chakra             S 71                     04 Apr 2012 

2. Sindhughosh Class

Sindhughosh class submarines are the Kilo class diesel-electric submarines. They are designated 877EKM, and were built under a contract between Rosvooruzhenie and the Ministry of Defence (India).

The submarines have a displacement of 3,000 tonnes, a maximum diving depth of 300 meters, top speed of 18 knots, and are able to operate solo for 45 days with a crew of 53.

Name                     Pennant No                        Date of Commission 


Sindhugosh           S 55                                      30 Apr 1986 

Sindhudhvaj          S 56                                      12 Jun 1987 

Sindhuraj              S 57                                       20 Oct 1987 

Sindhuvir             S 58                                        26 Aug 1988 

Sindhuratna         S 59                                        22 Dec 1988 

Sindhukesari       S 60                                         16 Feb 1989 

Sindhukirti          S 61                                          04 Jan 1990 
Sindhuvijay          S 62                                          08 Mar 1991 

Sindhushashtra     S 65                                         19 Jul 2000 



3. Shishumar Class



The Shishumar class vessels (Type 1500) are diesel-electric submarines..These submarines are developed by the German yard Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW).The first two of these vessels were built by HDW at Kiel, while the remainder have been built at Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) Mumbai. The ships were commissioned between 1986 and 1994. These submarines have a displacement of 1660 tons when surfaced, a speed of 22 knots (41 km/h), and a complement of 40 including eight officers. The submarines has the provision of an IKL-designed escape system.


Name                            Pennant No.              Date of Commissioning 

Shishumar                      S 44                         22 Sep 1986 

Shankush                        S 45                        20 Nov 1986 

Shalki                             S 46                        07 Feb 1992 

Shankul                           S 47                       28 May 1994 



NOTE:-All Submarines are prefixed with letters 'INS' when being referred to by their Indian Navy designated Names


Classification of Indian submarine 








Sunday 14 May 2017

Various Committee and Commission of Indian Polity from 1946-2014

This article give you insight about various commission and committee in Indian Polity and Governance . This article is based on Book Indian Polity by M laxmikant. The number of Committee and Commission may be more and very recent committees not added  so kindly take note on that.

1. Macaulay Committee


Macaulay Committee (the Committee on the Indian Civil Service) was appointed in 1854.

2. Drafting Committee (IMP)

Among all the committees of the Constituent Assembly, the most important committee was the
Drafting Committee set up on August 29, 1947. It was this committee that was entrusted with the task
of preparing a draft of the new Constitution. It consisted of seven members. They were:

1. Dr B R Ambedkar (Chairman)

2. N Gopalaswamy Ayyangar

3. Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar

4. Dr K M Munshi

5. Syed Mohammad Saadullah

6. N Madhava Rau (He replaced B L Mitter who resigned due to ill-health)

7. T T Krishnamachari (He replaced D P Khaitan who died in 1948)

The Drafting Committee, after taking into consideration the proposals of the various committees,prepared the first draft of the Constitution of India, which was published in February 1948. Thepeople of India were given eight months to discuss the draft and propose amendments. In the light of the public comments, criticisms and suggestions, the Drafting Committee prepared a second draft, which was published in October 1948. The Drafting Committee took less than six months to prepare its draft. In all it sat only for 141 days.

3. Dhar Commission and JVP Committee


Accordingly, in June 1948, the Government of India appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission under the chairmanship of S K Dhar to examine the feasibility of this. The commission submitted its report in December 1948 and recommended the reorganisation of states on the basis of administrative convenience rather than linguistic factor.

This created much resentment and led to the appointment of another Linguistic Provinces Committee by the Congress in December 1948 itself to examine the whole question afresh. It consisted of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya and hence, was popularly known as JVP Committee6. It submitted its report in April 1949 and formally rejected language as the basis for reorganisation of states.

4.Ram Nandan Committee

Ram Nandan Committee was appointed to identify the creamy layer among the OBCs. It submitted its report in 1993, which was accepted.

5.SWARAN SINGH COMMITTEE

In 1976, the Congress Party set up the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee to make recommendations
about fundamental duties, the need and necessity of which was felt during the operation of the internal emergency (1975–1977). The committee recommended the inclusion of a separate chapter on
fundamental duties in the Constitution. It stressed that the citizens should become conscious that in
addition to the enjoyment of rights, they also have certain duties to perform as well.

The Congress Government at Centre accepted these recommendations and enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1976. This amendment added a new part, namely, Part IVA to the Constitution.

This new part consists of only one Article, that is, Article 51A which for the first time specified a
code of ten fundamental duties of the citizens. The ruling Congress party declared the non-inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution as a historical mistake and claimed that what the framers of the Constitution failed to do was being done now.

6. VERMA COMMITTEE

The Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens (1999) identified the existence of legal provisions for the implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties. They are mentioned below:

1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (1971) prevents disrespect to the Constitution of India, the National Flag and the National Anthem.

2. The various criminal laws in force provide for punishments for encouraging enmity between different sections of people on grounds of language, race, place of birth, religion and so on.

3. The Protection of Civil Rights Act4 (1955) provides for punishments for offences related to caste and religion.

4. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) declares the imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration as punishable offences.

5. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 provides for the declaration of a communal organisation as an unlawful association.

6. The Representation of People Act (1951) provides for the disqualification of members of the Parliament or a state legislature for indulging in corrupt practice, that is, soliciting votes on
the ground of religion or promoting enmity between different sections of people on grounds of
caste, race, language, religion and so on.

7. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 prohibits trade in rare and endangered species.

8. The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 checks indiscriminate deforestation and diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.

7. Rajamannar Committee


In 1969, the Tamil Nadu Government (DMK) appointed a three-member committee under the
chairmanship of Dr P V Rajamannar to examine the entire question of Centre–state relations and to
suggest amendments to the Constitution so as to secure utmost autonomy to the states.25 The committee submitted its report to the Tamil Nadu Government in 1971.

The Committee identified the reasons for the prevailing unitary trends (tendencies of centralisation) in the country.

They include:

(i) certain provisions in the Constitution which confer special powers on the Centre;

(ii) one-party rule both at the Centre and in the states;

(iii) inadequacy of states’ fiscal resources and consequent dependence on the Centre for financial assistance; and

(iv) the institution of Central planning and the role of the Planning Commission.

The important recommendations of the committee are as follows:

 (i) An Inter-State Council should be set up immediately;

(ii) Finance Commission should be made a permanent body;

(iii) Planning Commission should be disbanded and its place should be taken by a statutory body;

(iv) Articles 356, 357 and 365 (dealing with President’s Rule) should be totally omitted;

(v) The provision that the state ministry holds office during the pleasure of the governor should be omitted;

(vi) Certain subjects of the Union List and the Concurrent List should be transferred to the State List; (vii) the residuary powers should be allocated to the states; and

(viii) All-India services (IAS, IPS and IFS) should be abolished. The Central government completely ignored the recommendations of the Rajamannar Committee.

8.Anandpur Sahib Resolution


In 1973, the Akali Dal adopted a resolution containing both political and religious demands in a
meeting held at Anandpur Sahib in Punjab. The resolution, generally known as Anandpur Sahib
Resolution, demanded that the Centre’s jurisdiction should be restricted only to defence, foreign
affairs, communications, and currency and the entire residuary powers should be vested in the states.
It stated that the Constitution should be made federal in the real sense and should ensure equal
authority and representation to all the states at the Centre.

9. West Bengal Memorandum

In 1977, the West Bengal Government (led by the Communists) published a memorandum on Centre– state relations and sent to the Central government. The memorandum inter alia suggested the
following:

(i) The word ‘union’ in the Constitution should be replaced by the word ‘federal’;

(ii) The jurisdiction of the Centre should be confined to defense, foreign affairs, currency, communications and economic co-ordination;

(iii) All other subjects including the residuary should be vested in the states;

(iv) Articles 356 and 357 (President’s Rule) and 360 (financial emergency) should be repealed;

(v) State’s consent should be made obligatory for formation of new states or reorganization of existing states;

 (vi) Of the total revenue raised by the Centre from all sources, 75 per cent should be allocated to the states; 

(vii) Rajya Sabha should have equal powers with that of the Lok Sabha; and

(viii) There should be only Central and state services and the all-India services should be abolished.
The Central government did not accept the demands made in the memorandum.


In 1983, the Central government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre–state relations
under the chairmanship of R S Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court.26 The commission was asked to examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Centre and states in all spheres and recommend appropriate changes and measures.

It was initially given one year to complete its work, but its term was extended four times. The final report was submitted in October 1987, and the summary was later officially released in January 1988. The Commission did not favour structural changes and regarded the existing constitutional arrangements and principles relating to the institutions basically sound. But, it emphasised on the need for changes in the functional or operational aspects. 

It observed that federalism is more a functional arrangement for co- operative action than a static institutional concept. It outrightly rejected the demand for curtailing the powers of the Centre and stated that a strong Centre is essential to safeguard the national unity and integrity which is being threatened by the fissiparious tendencies in the body politic. However, it did not equate strong Centre with centralisation of powers. It observed that overcentralisation leads to blood pressure at the centre and anemia at the pheriphery.

The Second commission on Centre-State Relations was set-up by the Government of India in April
2007 under the Chairmanship of Madan Mohan Punchhi, former Chief Justice of India.28

It wasrequired to look into the issues of Centre-State relations keeping in view the sea-changes that havetaken place in the polity and economy of India since the Sarkaria Commission had last looked at the issue of Centre-State relations over two decades ago.

12. Balwant Rai Mehta Committee


In January 1957, the Government of India appointed a committee to examine the working of the
Community Development Programme (1952) and the National Extension Service (1953) and to
suggest measures for their better working. The chairman of this committee was Balwant Rai G Mehta.

The committee submitted its report in November 1957 and recommended the establishment of the
scheme of ‘democratic decentralisation’, which ultimately came to be known as Panchayati Raj.

13.Ashok Mehta Committee


In December 1977, the Janata Government appointed a committee on panchayati raj institutions under the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta. It submitted its report in August 1978 and made 132
recommendations to revive and strengthen the declining panchayati raj system in the country.

14.G V K Rao Committee


The Committee on Administrative Arrangement for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation
Programmes under the chairmanship of G.V.K. Rao was appointed by the Planning Commission in
1985.                                                                                                                                                           The Committee came to conclusion that the developmental process was gradually bureaucratized and divorced from the Panchayati Raj. This phenomena of bureaucratization of development administration as against the democratization weakened the Panchayati Raj institutions
resulting in what is aptly called as ‘grass without roots’.

15.L M Singhvi Committee


In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi government appointed a committee on ‘Revitalisation of Panchayati Raj
Institutions for Democracy and Development’ under the chairmanship of L M Singhvi.

16. Hanumantha Rao Committee 


on district level planning, appointed by Planning Commission in September 1982, submits its report in May

17. Santhanam Committee


the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the main agency for preventing corruption in the
Central government. It was established in 1964 by an executive resolution of the Central
government. Its establishment was recommended by the Santhanam Committee on Prevention
of Corruption1 (1962–64).

18. COMMITTEES RELATED TO ELECTORAL REFORMS

the various committees and commissions which have examined our electoral system, election
machinery as well as election process and suggested reforms are mentioned here.

18. Tarkunde Committee was appointed in 1974 by Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP) during his “Total Revolution” movement. This unofficial committee submitted its report in 1975.

19. Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990)

20. Vohra Committee on the Nexus between Crime and Politics (1993)

21. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998)

22. Law Commission of India Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999)

23. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000-2002) 3. It was headed
by M.N. Venkatachaliah.

24. Election Commission of India Report on Proposed Electoral Reforms (2004).

25. Second Administrative Reforms Commission of India Report on Ethics in Governance (2007). It was headed by Veerappa Moily.

26. Tankha Committee was appointed in 2010 to look into the whole gamut of the election laws
and electoral reforms.


Based on the recommendations made by the above Committees and Commissions, various reforms have been introduced in our electoral system, election machinery and election process. These can bestudied under the following four heads.

• Electoral reforms before 1996

• Electoral reforms of 1996

• Electoral reforms after 1996

                              Saturday 6 May 2017

                              COMMITTEES RELATED TO ELECTORAL REFORMS



                              The various committees and commissions which have examined our electoral system, election machinery as well as election process and suggested reforms are mentioned here.




                              1. Tarkunde Committee was appointed in 1974 by Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP) during his “Total
                              Revolution” movement. This unofficial committee submitted its report in 1975.

                              2. Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990)

                              3 Vohra Committee on the Nexus between Crime and Politics (1993)

                              4. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998)

                              5. Law Commission of India Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999)

                              6. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000-2002) 3. It was headed
                              by M.N. Venkatachaliah.

                              7. Election Commission of India Report on Proposed Electoral Reforms (2004).

                              8. Second Administrative Reforms Commission of India Report on Ethics in Governance (2007).
                              It was headed by Veerappa Moily.

                              9. Tankha Committee was appointed in 2010 to look into the whole gamut of the election laws
                              and electoral reforms.

                              Based on the recommendations made by the above Committees and Commissions, various reforms have been introduced in our electoral system, election machinery and election process. These can be studied under the following four heads.

                              • Electoral reforms before 1996

                              • Electoral reforms of 1996

                              • Electoral reforms after 1996

                              Punchhi Commission ,Second commission on Centre-State Relations 2007

                              The Second commission on Centre-State Relations was set-up by the Government of India in April 2007 under the Chairmanship of Madan Mohan Punchhi, former Chief Justice of India.28 It was required to look into the issues of Centre-State relations keeping in view the sea-changes that have taken place in the polity and economy of India since the Sarkaria Commission had last looked at the issue of Centre-State relations over two decades ago.

                              The terms of reference of the Commission were as follows:


                              (i) The Commission was required to examine and review the working of the existing arrangements between the Union and States as per the Constitution of India, the healthy precedents being followed, various pronouncements of the Courts in regard to powers, functions and responsibilities in all spheres including legislative relations, administrative relations, role of governors, emergency provisions, financial relations, economic and social planning, Panchayati Raj institutions, sharing of resources including inter-state river water and recommend such changes or other measures as may be appropriate keeping in view the practical difficulties.


                              (ii) In examining and reviewing the working of the existing arrangements between the Union and States and making recommendations as to the changes and measures needed, the Commission was required to keep in view the social and economic developments that have taken place over the years, particularly over the last two decades and have due regard to the scheme and framework of the Constitution. Such recommendations were also needed to address the growing challenges of ensuring good governance for promoting the welfare of the people whilst strengthening the unity and integrity of the country, and of availing emerging opportunities for sustained and rapid economic growth for alleviating poverty and illiteracy in the early decades of the new millennium.


                              (iii) While examining and making its recommendations on the above, the Commission was required to have particular regard, but not limit its mandate to the following:-


                              (a) The role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre vis-à-vis States during major and prolonged outbreaks of communal violence, caste violence or any other social conflict leading to prolonged and escalated violence.

                              (b) The role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre vis-à-vis States in the planning and implementation of the mega projects like the inter-linking of rivers, that would normally take 15–20 years for completion and hinge vitally on the support of the States.


                              (c) The role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre vis-à-vis States in promoting effective devolution of powers and autonomy to Panchayati Raj Institutions and Local Bodies including the Autonomous Bodies under the sixth Schedule of the Constitution within a specified period of time.


                              (d) The role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre vis-à-vis States in promoting the concept and practice of independent planning and budgeting at the District level.


                              (e) The role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre vis-à-vis States in linking Central assistance of various kinds with the performance of the States.


                              (f) The role, responsibility and jurisdiction of the Centre in adopting approaches and policies based on positive discrimination in favour of backward States.


                              (g) The impact of the recommendations made by the 8th to 12th Finance Commissions on the fiscal relations between the Centre and the States, especially the greater dependence of the States on devolution of funds from the Centre.


                              (h) The need and relevance of separate taxes on the production and on the sales of goods and services subsequent to the introduction of Value Added Tax regime.


                              (i) The need for freeing inter-State trade in order to establish a unified and integrated domestic market as also in the context of the reluctance of State Governments to adopt the relevant Sarkaria Commission’s recommendation in chapter XVIII of its report.


                              (j) The need for setting up a Central Law Enforcement Agency empowered to take up suo moto investigation of crimes having inter-State and/or international ramifications with serious implications on national security.


                              (k) The feasibility of a supporting legislation under Article 355 for the purpose of suo moto deployment of Central forces in the States if and when the situation so demands.


                              The Commission submitted its report to the government in April 2010. In finalising the 1,456 page
                              report, in seven volumes, the Commission took extensive help from the Sarkaria Commission report,
                              the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) report and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission report. However, in a number of areas, the Commission report differed from the Sarkaria Commission recommendations. After examining at length the issues raised in its Terms of Reference and the related aspects in all their hues and shades, the Commission came to the conclusion that ‘cooperative federalism’ will be the key for sustaining India’s unity, integrity and social and economic development in future. The principles of cooperative federalism thus may have to act as a practical guide for Indian polity and governance.

                              In all, the Commission made over 310 recommendations, touching upon several significant areas in the working of Centre-state relations. The important recommendations are mentioned below:

                              1. To facilitate effective implementation of the laws on List III subjects, it is necessary that some broad agreement is reached between the Union and states before introducing legislation in Parliament on matters in the Concurrent List.

                              2. The Union should be extremely restrained in asserting Parliamentary supremacy in matters assigned to the states. Greater flexibility to states in relation to subjects in the State List and “transferred items” in the Concurrent List is the key for better Centre-state relations.

                              3. The Union should occupy only that many of subjects in concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction which are absolutely necessary to achieve uniformity of policy in demonstrable national interest.

                              4. There should be a continuing auditing role for the Inter-state Council in the management of matters in concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.

                              5. The period of six months prescribed in Article 201 for State Legislature to act when the bill is returned by the President can be made applicable for the President also to decide on assenting or withholding assent to a state bill reserved for consideration of the President.

                              6. Parliament should make a law on the subject of Entry 14 of List I (treaty making and implementing it through Parliamentary legislation) to streamline the procedures involved. The exercise of the power obviously cannot be absolute or unchartered in view of the federal structure of legislative and executive powers.

                              7. Financial obligations and its implications on state finances arising out of treaties and agreements should be a permanent term of reference to the Finance Commissions constituted from time to time.


                              8. While selecting Governors, the Central Government should adopt the following strict guidelines as recommended in the Sarkaria Commission report and follow its mandate in letter and spirit :

                              (i) He should be eminent in some walk of life

                              (ii) He should be a person from outside the state

                              (iii) He should be a detached figure and not too intimately connected with the local politics of the states

                              (iv) He should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past

                              9. Governors should be given a fixed tenure of five years and their removal should not be at the sweet will of the Government at the Centre.

                              10. The procedure laid down for impeachment of President, mutatis mutandis can be made applicable for impeachment of Governors as well.

                              11. Article 163 does not give the Governor a general discretionary power to act against or without the advice of his Council of Ministers. In fact, the area for the exercise of discretion is limited and even in this limited area, his choice of action should not be arbitrary or fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, activated by good faith and tempered by caution.

                              12. In respect of bills passed by the Legislative Assembly of a state, the Governor should take the decision within six months whether to grant assent or to reserve it for consideration of the President.

                              13. On the question of Governor’s role in appointment of Chief Minister in the case of an hung assembly, it is necessary to lay down certain clear guidelines to be followed as Constitutional conventions. These guidelines may be as follows:

                              (i) The party or combination of parties which commands the widest support in the Legislative Assembly should be called upon to form the Government.

                              (ii) If there is a pre-poll alliance or coalition, it should be treated as one political party and if such coalition obtains a majority, the leader of such coalition shall be called by the Governor to form the Government.

                              (iii) In case no party or pre-poll coalition has a clear majority, the Governor should select the Chief Minister in the order of preference indicated here.

                              (a) The group of parties which had pre-poll alliance commanding the largest number
                              (b) The largest single party staking a claim to form the government with the support of others
                              (c) A post-electoral coalition with all partners joining the government
                              (d) A post-electoral alliance with some parties joining the government and the remaining including independents supporting the government from outside


                              14. On the question of dismissal of a Chief Minister, the Governor should invariably insist on the Chief Minister proving his majority on the floor of the House for which he should prescribe a time limit.


                              15. The Governor should have the right to sanction for prosecution of a state minister against the advice of the Council of Ministers, if the Cabinet decision appears to the Governor to be motivated by bias in the face of overwhelming material.


                              16. The convention of Governors acting as Chancellors of Universities and holding other statutory positions should be done away with. His role should be confined to the Constitutional provisions only.

                              17. When an external aggression or internal disturbance paralyses the state administration creating a situation of a potential break down of the Constitutional machinery of the state, all alternative courses available to the Union for discharging its paramount responsibility under Article 355 should be exhausted to contain the situation and the exercise of the power under Article 356 should be limited strictly to rectifying a “failure of the Constitutional machinery in the state”.


                              18. On the question of invoking Article 356 in case of failure of Constitutional machinery in states, suitable amendments are required to incorporate the guidelines set forth in the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai V. Union of India (1994) . This would remove possible misgivings in this regard on the part of states and help in smoothening Centre-state relations.


                              19. Given the strict parameters now set for invoking the emergency provisions under Articles 352 and 356 to be used only as a measure of “last resort”, and the duty of the Union to protect states under Article 355, it is necessary to provide a Constitutional or legal framework to deal with situations which require Central intervention but do not warrant invoking the extreme steps under Articles 352 and 356. Providing the framework for “localised emergency” would ensure that the state government can continue to function and the Assembly would not have to be dissolved while providing a mechanism to let the Central Government respond to the issue specifically and locally. The imposition of local emergency is fully justified under the mandate of Article 355 read with Entry 2A of List I and Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.

                              20. Suitable amendments to Article 263 are required to make the Inter-State Council a credible, powerful and fair mechanism for management of inter-state and Centre-state differences.

                              21. The Zonal Councils should meet at least twice a year with an agenda proposed by states concerned to maximise co-ordination and promote harmonisation of policies and action having inter-state ramification. The Secretariat of a strengthened Inter-State Council can function as the Secretariat of the Zonal Councils as well.

                              22. The Empowered Committee of Finance Ministers of States proved to be a successful experiment in inter-state co-ordination on fiscal matters. There is need to institutionalise similar models in other sectors as well. A forum of Chief Ministers, Chaired by one of the Chief Minister by rotation can be similarly thought about particularly to co-ordinate policies of sectors like energy, food, education, environment and health.

                              23. New all-India services in sectors like health, education, engineering and judiciary should be created.

                              24. Factors inhibiting the composition and functioning of the Second Chamber as a representative forum of states should be removed or modified even if it requires amendment of the Constitutional provisions. In fact, Rajya Sabha offers immense potential to negotiate acceptable solutions to the friction points which emerge between Centre and states in fiscal, legislative and administrative relations.

                              25. A balance of power between states inter se is desirable and this is possible by equality of representation in the Rajya Sabha. This requires amendment of the relevant provisions to give equality of seats to states in the Rajya Sabha, irrespective of their population size.

                              26. The scope of devolution of powers to local bodies to act as institutions of self-government should be constitutionally defined through appropriate amendments.

                              27. All future Central legislations involving states’ involvement should provide for cost sharing as in the case of the RTE Act. Existing Central legislations where the states are entrusted with the responsibility of implementation should be suitably amended providing for sharing of costs by the Central Government.

                              28. The royalty rates on major minerals should be revised at least every three years without any delay. States should be properly compensated for any delay in the revision of royalty beyond three years.

                              29. The current ceiling on profession tax should be completely done away with by a Constitutional amendment.

                              30. The scope for raising more revenue from the taxes mentioned in article 268 should be examined afresh. This issue may be either referred to the next Finance Commission or an expert committee be appointed to look into the matter.

                              31. To bring greater accountability, all fiscal legislations should provide for an annual assessment by an independent body and the reports of these bodies should be laid in both Houses of Parliament/state legislature.

                              32. Considerations specified in the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Finance Commission should be even handed as between the Centre and the states. There should be an effective mechanism to involve the states in the finalisation of the ToR of the Finance Commissions.

                              33. The Central Government should review all the existing cesses and surcharges with a view to bringing down their share in the gross tax revenue.

                              34. Because of the close linkages between the plan and non-plan expenditure, an expert committee may be appointed to look into the issue of distinction between the plan and non-plan expenditure.

                              35. There should be much better coordination between the Finance Commission and the Planning Commission. The synchronisation of the periods covered by the Finance Commission and the Five-Year Plan will considerably improve such coordination.

                              36. The Finance Commission division in the Ministry of Finance should be converted into a full fledged department, serving as the permanent secretariat for the Finance Commissions.

                              37. The Planning Commission has a crucial role in the current situation. But its role should be that of coordination rather that of micro managing sectoral plans of the Central ministries and the states.

                              38. Steps should be taken for the setting up of an Inter-State Trade and Commerce Commission under Article 307 read with Entry 42 of List-I. This Commission should be vested with both advisory and executive roles with decision making powers. As a Constitutional body, the decisions of the Commission should be final and binding on all states as well as the Union of India. Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Commission may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.

                              Sarkaria Commission on Centre–state relations under the chairmanship of R S Sarkaria

                              Sarkaria Commission

                              In 1983, the Central government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre–state relations
                              under the chairmanship of R S Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court.26 The commission was asked to examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Centre and states in all spheres and recommend appropriate changes and measures.

                              It was initially given one year to complete its work, but its term was extended four times. The final report was submitted in October 1987, and the summary was later officially released in January 1988. The Commission did not favour structural changes and regarded the existing constitutional arrangements and principles relating to the institutions basically sound. But, it emphasised on the need for changes in the functional or operational aspects.

                              It observed that federalism is more a functional arrangement for co- operative action than a static institutional concept. It outrightly rejected the demand for curtailing the powers of the Centre and stated that a strong Centre is essential to safeguard the national unity and integrity which is being threatened by the fissiparious tendencies in the body politic. However, it did not equate strong Centre with centralisation of powers. It observed that overcentralisation leads to blood pressure at the centre and anemia at the pheriphery.

                              The Commission made 247 recommendations to improve Centre–state relations. The important recommendations are mentioned below:

                              1. A permanent Inter-State Council called the Inter-Governmental Council should be set up under Article 263.

                              2. Article 356 (President’s Rule) should be used very sparingly, in extreme cases as a last resort when all the available alternatives fail.

                              3. The institution of All-India Services should be further strengthened and some more such services should be created.

                              4. The residuary powers of taxation should continue to remain with the Parliament, while the other residuary powers should be placed in the Concurrent List.

                              5. When the president withholds his assent to the state bills, the reasons should be communicated to the state government.

                              6. The National Development Council (NDC) should be renamed and reconstituted as the National Economic and Development Council (NEDC).

                              7. The zonal councils should be constituted afresh and reactivated to promote the spirit of federalism.

                              8. The Centre should have powers to deploy its armed forces, even without the consent of states. However, it is desirable that the states should be consulted.

                              9. The Centre should consult the states before making a law on a subject of the Concurrent List.

                              10. The procedure of consulting the chief minister in the appointment of the state governor should be prescribed in the Constitution itself.

                              11. The net proceeds of the corporation tax may be made permissibly shareable with the states.

                              12. The governor cannot dismiss the council of ministers so long as it commands a majority in the assembly.

                              13. The governor’s term of five years in a state should not be disturbed except for some extremely compelling reasons.

                              14. No commission of enquiry should be set up against a state minister unless a demand is made by the Parliament.

                              15. The surcharge on income tax should not be levied by the Centre except for a specific purpose and for a strictly limited period.

                              16. The present division of functions between the Finance Commission and the Planning Commission is reasonable and should continue.

                              17. Steps should be taken to uniformly implement the three language formula in its true spirit.

                              18. No autonomy for radio and television but decentralisation in their operations.

                              19. No change in the role of Rajya Sabha and Centre’s power to reorganise the states.

                              20. The commissioner for linguistic minorities should be activated.

                              Till December 2011, the Central government has implemented 180 (out of 247) recommendations of
                              the Sarkaria Commission.27 The most important is the establishment of the Inter-State Council in
                              1990.

                              Thursday 4 May 2017

                              Joint Exercises between India and other Countries


                              1. India and USA

                              1.1. "Yudh Abhyas" Joint military army exercise between US and India

                                        As part of the ongoing Indo-US defence cooperation, a joint military training exercise, ‘Yudh Abhyas 2016’ is set to be conducted in Uttarakhand from September 14 to 27, a military official said on Monday. The exercise in Chaubattia was being conducted by the headquarter Central Command.








                              “It is a series of one of the longest running joint military training and a major ongoing bilateral defence cooperation endeavours between India and the US. It is the 12th edition of the joint military exercise hosted alternately by the two countries” the official said.

                              1.2  “Red Flag” aerial combat exercise US and India

                                    The Air Forces of India and the U.S. concluded their four-week “Red Flag” aerial combat exercises at Alaska in the U.S. on Saturday. The two forces simulated realistic aerial combat scenarios in a networked environment.

                              The Indian Air Force (IAF) flew 10 aircraft: four Su-30MKIs, four Jaguars and two IL-78 aerial refuelling tankers. A team of over 170 personnel was part of the exercises held from April 28 to May 13.

                              1.3 Malabar joint naval exercise with USA, India , Japan

                              In consonance with India’s ‘Act East Policy’ and growing relations among India, US and Japan, IN ships Satpura, Sahyadri, Shakti and Kirch are participating in the 20th edition of Ex MALABAR-16 with the USN and Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF). IN and USN have regularly conducted the annual bilateral exercise named ‘MALABAR’ since 1992. Since 2007, MALABAR has been held alternatively off India and in the Western Pacific. The 19th edition of the exercise, Ex MALABAR-15, was conducted off Chennai and included participation by the JMSDF.

                              The 20th edition of the exercise, Ex MALABAR-16, is being conducted from 14 to 17 June 16 with the harbour phase at Sasebo from 10 to 13 June 16 and the sea phase in the Pacific Ocean from 14 to 17 June 16. The primary aim of this exercise is to increase interoperability amongst the three navies and develop common understanding of procedures for Maritime Security Operations. The scope of MALABAR-16 includes professional interactions in harbour and a diverse range of activities at sea, including complex surface, sub-surface and air operations.

                              2.India and Japan

                              2.1 Sahyog-Kaijin

                              Ships and aircraft of the Indian Coast Guard and the Japan Coast Guard came together to train for the 15th edition of ‘Sahyog-Kaijin’ joint exercise in the Bay of Bengal off the Chennai coast .

                              This is the second time in three months a ship from the Japanese military forces is participating in a military exercise along with India. In October last year, Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force’s ship FS Fuyuzuk participated in exercise ‘Malabar’ with ships and aircraft of the Indian and the United States navies.

                              List of all Military exercise of India with Other Countries.



                              INDIA
                              ARMY
                              NAVY
                              AIR FORCE

                              1.
                              USA
                              YUDH ABHYAS
                              MALABAR (JAPAN+INDIA+US)
                              RED FLAG
                              2.
                              JAPAN

                              1. Sahyog-Kaijin

                              2.MALABAR (JAPAN+INDIA+US)

                              3.
                              RUSSIA
                              INDRA


                              4.
                              CHINA
                              HAND IN HAND


                              5.
                              FRANCE
                              SHAKTI
                              VARUNA
                              GARUDA
                              6.
                              UK
                              AJEYA WORRIOR
                              KONKAN
                              INDRADANUSH OR RAINBOW
                              7.
                              BANGLADESH
                              SAMPRITI


                              8.
                              NEPAL
                              SURYA KIRAN


                              10
                              THAILAND
                              MAITREE


                              11
                              INDONESIA
                              GARUDA SHAKTI
                              CORPAT

                              12
                              SRILANKA
                              MITRA SHAKTI
                              SLINEX

                              13
                              UAE


                              DESERT EAGLE
                              14
                              AUSTRALIA

                              Ausindex

                              15
                              Singapore
                              Bold Kurukshetra
                              SIMBEX

                              16
                              Seychelles
                              LAMITYE


                              17
                              Mongolia
                              NomadicElephant


                              18
                              Kazakhstan
                              Prabal Dostyk


                              19
                              Oman
                              AL NAGA
                              Naseem Al Bahr
                              Eastern Bridge
                              20
                              Kyrgyzstan
                              Khanjar


                              21
                              Maldives
                              Ekuverin


                              22
                              South Africa, Brazil

                              IBSAMAR

                              23
                              ASEAN +
                              Force 18




                              KOMODO (Navy) – India, Indonesia, USA, China, Russia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines and Laos

                              Milan (Navy) – India, Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Thailand.

                              Note- in case of any error and if you know any exercise we have not added you can contact us for same.