Articles and their snippets:

Choosing thy neightbour:

social biases often result from prejudice or chauvinism, but can also result out of

legitimate concerns about, or threats from, another social group.

Social bias permeates all segments of Indian society
urbanisation and improved access to education may not reduce social bias.
Given the existence of a premise of a social bias based on religious/caste hierarchies, is it
too far fetched to extrapolate that apprehensions arising out of economic/social
disparities/competition will ultimately claw its way into the social mindset.
marginalised communities are apprehensive that traditionally dominant communities
will discriminate against them or hurt social solidarity
Even in the times of ascendant marginalised socieites, the bias is more or less prevalent.
self-identified middle class was also more likely to report that their family had
experienced social mobility within the last generation.
fundamental about the construction of middle class identity that lends itself to social bias
Affiliations arising out of historical stigmatization/economic contestation will fill up the
cleavages arising out of the erosion of traditional bias, to the point that the traditional
bias becomes a symbol to be abused by vested interest in lieu of economic/social
downgrading.

Being Middle Class

who in India actually belongs to the middle class, moniker, its size, composition, and
political and social behaviour?
But is the middle class anything more than simply a large group whose income makes it
neither rich nor poor? Are differences within the middle class, especially in income,
education and cultural and social capital, so wide as to render moot any ideological or
behavioural coherence to this group?
Contribution of Self-identification as middle class and the difference in objective realities
Difference of real income in rural and urban areas arising out of living costs also
contributes to self-perception
The middle class is more bullish in their assessments of the countrys overall progress
and Indias economic conditions as a whole.
Increasing perception of occupation as the staus-defining factor which is manifested by
the rise in the preference for the white-collar job(even at a lower renumeration) at the
expense of the blue collar job.
This self-identification to the middle class moniker also influences people in their
monetary expenses/consumption choices (Rise of the smart-phone, travel in a/c as a
social symbol), which arises out of a want to cast oneself in that middle class role ,
rather than need.

This bodes well for the economy, more consumerism.

Denial and ritualism in Indian science

Inability of Indian science to play the role expected of it in the countrys economic
transformation. Path breaking discoveries/innovations, to say the least, is a distant
dream.
Objective of spending in science and its grassroot affiliates: Reaping economic
benefits. Develop/inculcate scientific temper.

Make in India campaign: Good initiative, but lacks insight. It must be honed and
perceived and practised at the grassroots level. Provisions should be made for
alternative energy resources. Exploit innovation available locally. Clear interlinking
with investments in Science& Tech and its economic exploitation, in other words a
pathway to green/affordable industrialization must be carved.
The way ahead: Far harsher set of criteria for evaluating grants, proposals &
expenditure. Zombie projects should be killed off, through assessment & evaluation.
To counter the industry-science-govt. coordination failure, equal number of reps. from
each sector need to be invited. Reallocation of funds towards innovation related
activities in universities/fairs (MSME fair in Odisha correlation)/institutions.

Can India catch up with China?

China : India GDP- 1.18 in 1913 and 1.08 in 1950. India had a higher per capita
income. , have feared foreign domination, have considered the state as the driver of

growth and have suspected the private sectors initiatives. India was a democratic, China
was a monarchy. China was single minded in its puruit of resource mobilisation to
achieve its goals. India, was trying to achieve uinity in diversity and accommodating
various religions/races/languages
C had more successful resource mobilisation strategy, all round emphasis in heavy&light
industries, better agrarian mgmt. Growth rate (1965-80) 9.5%, twice of India.
Higher labour productivity and capital deepening. Each acc. to his work rather than each
acc. to his need policy, professionalism, efficient economic mgmt.
Industrial sector opened to foreign capital, large net inflow of FDI. Per capita income
quadrupled at 5400$, abject poverty eliminated, HDI index upto .719 from .420
India didnt seek foreign help in the industrial sector, relying on the private sector,
selective subsidies. Instead it borrowed to cushion loss making public enterprises.
In 2013, gross per capita-1550$, HDI improved to .586 from .380
In both, slight difference of growth in employment, but in China this translated into
faster growth of capital. This reflects greater ease to move out of agriculture nto higher
productivity sectors like the Industry. C>I in every sector except s/w services and
agricultural research.
In C, increasing old population, increasing wages in general, lower savings rate, increased
competition of other countries in low-skilled labor might deter China;s booming growth
India must increase labor participation, higher average education, reduce red tapism in
letting in foreign capital, cultivate a entrepreneurial culture and a scientific temper. The
problem in India is implementation, with a noisy political democracy and no coherent
approach to development agendas

Reforms in power distribution:

Widely viewed as fundamental to improving commercial performance and financial

viability of the power sector in India.
Improve commercial performance by unbundling state entities, improve T&D, create
more independent regulatory bodies, control pilferage.
Shortage of supply, poor T&D, pilferage, plaguing Indias power sector
Per capita power consumption- 800 units, among lowest levels in the world.
WB recommends freeing utilities and regulators from external interference, increase
accountability & competition
Loss in 2011- 25 bn$, concentrated among discoms and bundled entities.

MoP has invoked Electricity Act 2003 for a framework for more competitive,
transparent and commercially driven power sector and the need to distinguish
between urban distribution and rural distribution.
Facilitates establishment of participatory models of rural distribution (Rural
panchayats and elec. cooperatives)
43000 cr for rural electrification scheme, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana,
which will strengthen the power distribution infra in rural areas
5200 cr for strenghtening power distribution & transmission in 6 NE states.
32000 cr for do- in urban areas including a system of local mgmt. and energy
accoutning through widespread metering in distribution circles
Easy access to power will boost the productivity of the mfg. sector

Securities Laws (Amendment) Bill 2014:

By virtue of the bill, SEBI will be empowered to clampdown on fraudulent

investment schemes and to seek info from any entity related to investigation
Expedite trials, authority to seek call data records, impose penalty, conduct search and
seze operations, seek records from any person
Law in its current form authorizes SEBI to conduct search operations after being
permitted by the magistrate of that region. This dilutes the secrecy of the move