Author: mkukrishna

Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024

Click here to see the email that was sent  

Click here to see the pdf of the comments  

09 Feb 2025

To

Secretary,

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,

New Delhi- 110 003

e-mail: sohsmd-mef@gov.in

Sub: AIPSN Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024

            Ref: Yr. Gazette Notification dt 9.12.2024

Please find below the comments from All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) on the Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024.

The comments are regarding  Segregation at household level, Segregation after Collection at Waste Collector/Processing Facilities, Waste pickers, Waste to Energy (WtE) Plants, Sanitary/Operational Landfills & Existing Dumpsites, Over-centralization, Monitoring in public domain and Penalties.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this document.

The comments received and the action taken should be put  in the public domain in the interests of transparency.

Yours sincerely

Asha Mishra

General Secretary, AIPSN

AIPSN Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024 (hereafter SWM 2024)

1) Segregation at household level     At the very outset, SWM 2024 sets itself for failure by imposing an onerous responsibility on the household waste generator, namely to segregate and hand over 4 (four) segregated waste streams to the waste collector viz. wet waste, dry (recyclable waste), sanitary waste and “special” or bio-medical or other hazardous waste, and also requires the householder to separately store and dispose of horticultural/garden waste and construction and demolition waste (CDW)! Even now, India is struggling to ensure that households (HH) even segregate into 2 streams (wet and dry waste). One understands that technically, garden waste is different from kitchen/ food waste but again to expect HH to segregate these is too much. 2 Streams from HH are adequate, and the rest should be left to the Segregation/Pre-processing/ Waste Processing facilities as further defined in the Draft Rules.

2)  Segregation after Collection at Waste Collector/Processing Facilities is the achilles’ heel of SWM systems. Improper segregation causes multiple problems at Dumpyards, Waste to Energy (WtE) plants etc. This is not emphasized enough in the Rules. Payments to Waste pre-processing Contractors (the system most Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are following these days) should be linked to the extent of Segregation achieved, not total quantity of Solid Waste handled as provided for.

3) Waste pickers can play a significant role in proper segregation, and have not been adequately emphasized in the Draft SWM2024. Peculiarly, their role has been stressed in Rural Areas, where even the role of CSOs in organizing them has been mentioned, but not in Urban Areas! New clauses should be inserted calling upon ULBs to actively involve Waste Pickers organised in SHGs or other collectives, hopefully with CSO assistance, and incentivize them through payments for segregation achieved and share from sale of recyclables to recycling units as provided for in the Rules.

4) Waste to Energy (WtE) Plants               There is huge confusion in the Rules regarding WtE or other methods of processing dry/recyclable waste. Chapter II.9.1 says that non-recyclable waste with high Calorific Value shall only be used to produce Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) or given to a facility producing RDF, but various other parts of the Draft SWM Rules 2024 appear to suggest that WtE Plants would be directly using such wastes. Simultaneously, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) is encouraged (Chapter VII(2)(xii) to “drive” setting up of “adequate numbers” of WtE plants by 2028, contradicting other parts of the Rules underplaying WtE and speaking only of RDF. This appears to be a thinly disguised attempt at making WtE plants using the Incineration method a mainstay of the SWM system. Although the Draft Rules specify standards for emissions from WtE Plants, which are close to EU standards, experience from Delhi so far clearly testifies to highly inefficient, non-conforming and polluting WtEs, often if not mostly using unsegregated solid waste. Without going into details, Incineration-based WtE Systems have been a total disaster in India and should be avoided altogether, or strictly defined and monitored as regards process, technology, temperature, emissions etc.

5) Sanitary/Operational Landfills & Existing Dumpsites                   A similar situation obtains regarding Sanitary/ Operational Landfills (Chapter III.1) and Existing Dumpsites (Chapter III.2). Both these very different systems are spoken of in different places of the Draft SWM2024 with various different specifications, technologies and standards. Chapter III.1.(4) states that “only non-recyclable and non-energy recoverable dry wastes and inerts shall be disposed of” in Sanitary/Operational Landfills,” while Schedule I governing Specifications for Sanitary Landfills say Landfill gas including collection and utilization “should be considered,” (Schedule I(F)(i) to (iii), incidentally without specifying methane emission limits, clearly implying that Landfills can also be used for wet/bio-degradable wastes! Further, the Draft Rules in III.1(5) and.1(6) provide for charging fees for dumping unsegregated solid wastes “till the time” proper Sanitary Landfills are built and made operational, without specifying any outer time limit!  This is not acceptable. Especially so, since provisions for Existing Dumpsites speak only of Mapping by 2026 (III.2(a)) and talk of bio-mining and bio-remediation only “as practicable.” If the current provisions in the Draft SWM2024 remain, it suggests that unsanitary Dumpyards will likely continue well into the future. Some time may be given to Local Bodies to shift completely away from Dumpyards, but Sanitary Landfills should be unambiguously defined in the Rules.

6) Over-centralization                     The Draft SWM2024 calls for vast amounts of information including monitoring details to be uploaded into a Centralized portal. This is an unnecessary over-burdening of a single Portal and an unnecessary degree of over-centralization. It is suggested that all Information be uploaded in State portals and then also compiled into a single National-level portal. This will make State Governments more partners of SWM processes than they appear to be at present.

7) Monitoring in public domain and Penalties             Most of the penalties and fines seem aimed at the first rung of the waste-management chain namely the household, who can be penalized even by the Waste Collector (!), or contracted (private) facility operators for simple or obvious infractions. For example, the Draft speaks of heavy penalties for anyone burning horticultural or garden wastes (IV(7)). However, there is no mention of monitoring of performance of Local Bodies (LB) or their licensed operators and penalties for failures to adequately or properly collect, segregate, handle, treat etc. For example, if a LB continues to run Dumpsites with unsegregated waste, or a WtE Operator does not ensure conformity to air pollution standards, what will be the penalties? There is also no provision for making public the data from Monitoring of pollution levels of air, ground, water bodies or sub-soil water. Without provisions for these, and without strict timelines for the Rules, the Draft SWM Rules 2024 will remain a paper tiger with a set of pious expectations.

 For Contact:

Asha Mishra                                                    D. Raghunandan

General Secretary, AIPSN                              Convenor, Environment Desk, AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012                                       Mobile 9810098621

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                                      Email: raghunandan.d@gmail.com

by

Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025 

Click to see the email sent to UGC

Click to see the pdf of the points in the feedback

The feedback  was accompanied by  a cover letter  signed by the General Secretary on AIPSN letter head .

The text of the letter and feedback is given below

02 Feb 2025

To

Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar

Chairman, UGC

cm.ugc@nic.in

draft-regulations@ugc.gov.in

Sub: Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025

                        Ref: UGC Secretary  Lr No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025

Based on the request in your above referred letter from the UGC site, please find attached the feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025

 Do acknowledge the receipt of this document.

 Look forward to having all the inputs received made available publicly.

 There are 11 points of concern that AIPSN has raised in the 2 pages below. Importantly AIPSN demands the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC Regulations-2025 which goes against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate.

Yours sincerely

Asha Mishra

General Secretary, AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012

cc:  Secretary, UGC Email: secy.ugc@nic.in

02 Feb 2025

All India People’s Science Network

Feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025

                      UGC Secretary Lr.  No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025

Points of serious concern:

  1. Non-Academicians as Vice-Chancellors: The regulations (10.1.i) permit the appointment of non-academicians as Vice-Chancellors, which has sparked fears about the privatization of universities and the marginalization of disadvantaged students especially if business persons or others with vested interests are made Vice-Chancellors. The draft regulations have far-reaching implications for the higher education sector in India. The appointment of non-academicians as Vice-Chancellors may lead to the privatization of universities, undermining their social responsibility to provide access to education for marginalized students.

 

  1. Chancellor’s Nominee as Chairperson: The draft regulations (10.1.iv.a) propose that the Chancellor’s nominee will be the chairperson of the search-cum-selection committee for appointing vice chancellors. The Chancellor being the Governor for State Universities, this move raises concerns about potential political interference in academic appointments and is against the autonomy of the public funded State run Universities. It is a back door move that deprived the State of control over the University it has created for the welfare of students in that region.
  2. A nominee of UGC: This (10.1.iv. b.) also helps the union government’s indirect control over selection of candidate. UGC which was an independent body established under an act has now almost become the wing of the Union Govt. to implement New Education Policy which was not accepted by many state governments.
  3. Against the Statutes of each state university: 10.1.v refers that the conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the respective University in conformity with these Regulations. If so, how UGC can lay down conditions to constitute a selection committee when the statutes are made by the State Government. Hence the selection of Vice-Chancellor should be based on existing rules and regulations of each and every university as the conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the respective University in conformity with these Regulations. The Search Committee should be constituted as per the rules and regulations of each and every university.

 

  1. Appointment of Asst.Professors: Provision for recruitment of Academic Staff in University and College have been separately mentioned implying that cadre selection and service conditions for University and College will be different but with the same academic qualifications. It will dismantle the parity among the staff with the same qualifications. It’s against the spirit of equality. 3.3 states that if the discipline/subject chosen in the 4-year undergraduate programme (NCrF level 6) or postgraduate programme (NCrF level 6.5/7) is different from the chosen discipline/subject in NET/SET, the discipline/subject in which a candidate qualified NET/SET shall be considered eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in that discipline/subject. This guideline will not help to get qualified people for the subject concerned and instead help institutions to fill the vacancy with candidates of their choice.
  2. Recruitment and Promotion (3.8): The candidate for appointment and promotion need to have any four of the nine notable contributions may deprive the candidates from appointment and promotions as these opportunities are inaccessible to all unlike educational opportunities. These opportunities may be given to all after recruitment.
  3. The withdrawal of the cap on contract appointments (8.0) in teaching positions will lead to HEIs becoming teaching shops with contractual labor especially in the context of governments reducing and withdrawing from financial support of State Universities. The sanctioned post must be filled by permanent faculty.
  4. Violation of UGC regulations(11.0)These regulations are based on NEP-2020 which is not accepted by some States and in the  context of these regulations and the imposition of NEP  it will provide a handle for the Union Government controlled UGC to threaten and coerce HEIs to start following NEP.
  5. Privatization and Commercialization: The regulations’ emphasis on industry partnerships and entrepreneurship has raised concerns about the increasing privatization and commercialization of higher education, which may lead to a decrease in funding for social sciences, humanities, and other non-lucrative fields. This will also reduce access to education for marginalized students.
  6. Though the draft regulations are open for public feedback, it seems more like a ritual given the time frame and the history of earlier invitation of comments which are never made available in a transparent manner. The comments received and the response to the comments should be made available in the website.

We demand the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC regulations-January 2025 which go against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate

 For Contact:

Asha Mishra                                                    P.Rajamanickam

General Secretary, AIPSN                              Convenor, Higher Education Desk AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012                                       Mobile 9698025569

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                                      Email: rajamanickamponniah@gmail.com

by

18th All India Peoples Science Congress 27 Dec to 30 Dec @ Kolkata

Click here to see a You Tube video showing glimpses of the 18 AIPSC 

QR code for 18AIPSC photos

QR code for 18AIPSC photos Click here for the URL

QRcode for 18AIPSC presentations

QRcode for 18AIPSC presentations                            Click here for the URL

 

Click here for the Abstract book of the 18 AIPSC 

Click here to see the Kolkata Declaration booklet released at 18 AIPSC

Click here for the theme paper of 18AIPSC

Click here to see the program brochure 

Click here for quick schedule view

 

 


 

 

 

 

by

AIPSN Condolence Resolution at the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu

 

 

Click the link to download pdf AIPSN-PB-Condolence

6 Nov 2024

AIPSN Condolence Resolution

at the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu

With the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu, on 4th November 2024 at Kolkata, at the fairly young age of 60 years, the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), People’s Science Movement (PSM) and the larger democratic movement has suffered a heavy loss, losing a colleague whom people from many walks of life would turn to on various political, organizational, administrative and personal issues.

Hailing from a family with a long active background in left and democratic politics, Parthiba Basu joined the PSM in the late 1980’s, when he was a doctoral scholar at the newly established Central University, Pondicherry. For several years Parthiba was an active member of the Pondicherry Science Forum (PSF) and maintained links with the PSMs in South India, particularly with those of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. For the last thirty years, he was a leading member of the Pashchim Banga Vigyan Mancha (PBVM).

As an academic and researcher, Dr. Parthiba Basu contributed to wide areas of ecological sciences, with intensive fieldwork followed by modeling, for which had gained recognition amongst his peers, in national and international levels. Notably,he was awarded the Boyscast, Smithsonian and Darwin fellowships. He and his group focused on problems of pollination, which has a deep bearing on food production and food security. He was a core member of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations’ Pollination Action Team, where he articulated steps to mitigate pollination loss globally. Under Professor Parthiba Basu’s guidance about twenty researchers have completed their doctorate degrees and some more will submit their theses soon.

Dr. Parthiba Basu had several research collaborations at the national and international levels. He considered agroecology to be a field that combined science, transformative practice and social movement. In the last decade or so, he had trained about 100 resource persons in the field of agroecology, who continue to be active in this field giving important inputs in different branches of the field and to different communities and groups.

For the PSMs, he utilized this practical experience to impart training to PSM activists by intensive training in agroecology workshops. He was the convener of the AIPSN’s agriculture desk, since the 17th Congress at Bhopal, held in 2022.

Professor Parthiba Basu had a long career in teaching, at the college and university levels, establishing a living bond with students, teachers and administration. He served both as secretary and president of Calcutta University teachers’ association and was an active critic of NEP 2020. He fought for the democratic environment and autonomy in higher education. While activating his organization through different mass actions, he always kept the movement’s focus on challenging the ideology of neoliberalism and facing the social threats that this ideology has unleashed upon people’s lives.

This challenge has intensified in the last few decades in India, more so, with the rise of communal, obscurantist, fascistic forces and corporate communalism. In such a scenario, Parthib articulated how PSM ideology, livelihood issues and agroecology itself can be built to counter this. In this, he emphasized “self-reliance for life and livelihood.”

His contributions to the PBVM encompassed many areas. Parthiba enriched the AIPSN as a whole, for which he was elected to the Executive Committee of the AIPSN in its 17th Congress in Bhopal in 2022.

Deeply interested in culture and politics, Parthiba Basu was deeply conversant with Bengali literature and was associated with many publications and publishers. While busy with several commitments, he also enjoyed his holidays, with long drives to different parts of the country.

The AIPSN, while mourning Parthiba’s passing, will celebrate his contributions to the movement and surge ahead.

The AIPSN conveys heartfelt deepest condolences to his family, friends, and comrades in the PSM and the PBVM. He was very eager to witness a very successful AIPSC 18, to be held in his own city, Kolkata. He will not be there with us at the congress. But its success will owe a great deal to the team, of which Parthiba, till the end of his life, remained a very important and inspiring member.

 

 

by

National Scientific Temper Day 2024: Advocating Scientific Integrity and Unhindered Rational Inquiry

Click here for the press release of this statement 

Click here for the statement 

 

19  Aug 2024

National Scientific Temper Day 2024

Advocating Scientific Integrity and Unhindered Rational Inquiry

 

The 7th National Scientific Temper Day (NSTD 24) will be observed across the nation on August 20, 2024, to honour Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, a notable proponent of science and rational thought, who was tragically killed on this day in 2013 by anti-science extremists. His assassination was followed by the murders of others equally vocal and of similar thinking – Govind Pansare, M.M. Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh – who were also murdered. In 2018, the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), in collaboration with the Maharashtra Andhshraddha Nirmulan Samiti (MANS), established National Scientific Temper Day (NSTD) as an annual event to commemorate these individuals and to promote a scientific mindset.

Upholding Constitutional Values:

Since its establishment, NSTD has received considerable support from a variety of groups and individuals throughout India, with events occurring in numerous regions. This year’s emphasis is on the Kolkata 2024 Declaration on Scientific Temper, which underscores the urgent need for a renewed commitment to evidence-based reasoning and critical analysis in India. This is especially crucial in light of emerging socio-political movements that challenge scientific inquiry and the generation of universal knowledge. The Kolkata Declaration highlights three primary areas for focus: the role of government, the responsibilities of scientific and educational institutions, and the necessity to combat the erosion of academic freedom and the proliferation of pseudo-science. It calls upon scientists, intellectuals, and advocates promoting evidence-based thinking and upholding constitutional values, thereby fostering a scientific perspective.

NSTD also includes the “Ask Why?” campaign, which aims to advance scientific temper and promote Article 51A (h) of the Indian Constitution. This initiative seeks to reinforce the constitutional right to scientific inquiry and to enhance investment in employment; people centred development, education for all, science, technology, humanities, and the arts.

Interplay of Politics and Education:

Concerns are mounting regarding the influence of Hindutva-related initiatives within research institutions and universities, reflecting a significant political agenda that deserves condemnation. A contentious aspect of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2021 was the introduction of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into educational curricula at all levels. The policy proposed integrating IKS content into existing subjects and introducing specialized IKS courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

It is essential to recognize that the foundations of modern knowledge are rooted in various ancient and modern cultures, including India, which also encompass oral traditions from marginalized groups such as tribal communities and unwritten knowledge related to agriculture, livestock, and local practices.

The implementation of IKS into educational curricula has been fraught with contention at the school and UG/PG levels. The NCERT’s recent introduction of new textbooks for Class VI, particularly in social science, gives an inaccurate and biased sanskritised representation of Indian knowledge traditions. Scholars and Ayurveda experts have noted that the NCERT Class XI textbook’s portrayal of Ayurveda includes exaggerations and inflated claims of Ayurveda as being codified 4000 years ago. In reality evidence points to around 6th century BCE.

At the higher education level, guidelines issued by UGC for incorporating IKS are unrealistic. Moreover, due to lack of faculty who understand that IKS even in earlier times has been evidence based, many HEIs are implementing courses that misrepresent, simplify and distort its rich history. Thus, the introduction of IKS has opened the door for individuals with naive or pseudoscientific views on Indian science and mathematics to gain influence. For instance, the director of IIT Mandi has faced widespread criticism for making outrageous claims that have circulated on social media, yet he represents only a small part of a much larger issue.

Haunting the System:

This year, IIT Mandi has introduced controversial topics such as “reincarnation” and “out-of-body experiences” into its IKS curriculum for B.Tech students, eliciting mixed reactions. Similarly, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has established an entire unit within the faculty of Ayurveda dedicated to Bhoot Vidya. This six-month certificate course aims to educate doctors holding BAMS and MBBS degrees in psychotherapy, treatment of psychosomatic conditions, and paranormal activities as part of their Ayurvedic practice.

It is essential not to entirely dismiss Ayurveda and other ancient or folk medicines as irrational, as they were based on empirical practices of their times. India has a long legacy of Ayurvedic medicine grounded in experience and trial and error formulations. However, these need to undergo rigorous randomised clinical trials, which are considered the gold standard in contemporary evidence-based medicine. It has been shown that it is possible to evaluate ancient practices using modern scientific methods while maintaining their cultural significance. There is a need for rigorous research and evidence-based approaches to ensure their credibility and relevance in contemporary health practices. Consequently, AIPSN continues to emphasize the necessity of adhering to evidence-based medicine, where healing and wellness are founded on published and verified evidence.

These regressive IKS-related incursions into research institutions and universities have become commonplace, creating a persistent challenge for rational thinkers to issue statements in response. Nevertheless, in this ongoing struggle, AIPSN cannot remain silent simply because the government is a repeat offender.

Academic Freedom:  

In a separate development, South Asian University recently raised concerns regarding a PhD student’s research proposal on Kashmir, which was labelled as ‘anti-national’ by university authorities. The university’s actions led to the resignation of the student’s supervisor, Professor Sasanka Perera, raising alarms about the diminishing space for unbiased research in society.

The situation at South Asian University pertains to academic freedom and the international character of the institution, rather than being an Indian institution where the directives of the government, however misguided, may be viewed as “legitimate.” If this is how South Asian University is to be operated, it may be more prudent to relocate it outside of India, shut it down, or place it under the oversight of a completely independent body comprising South Asian representatives.

Importance of NSTD 2024:

The issues related to IKS outlined here exemplify a broader agenda that necessitates critique. Similarly, the coercive influence exerted at institutions like South Asian University poses a significant threat to academic freedom and demands vigilant oversight.

These developments highlight the critical importance of NSTD 2024, which is anchored in the Kolkata Declaration on Scientific Temper, serving as a vital advocate for scientific integrity and unhindered rational inquiry in India.

 

Contact:

General Secretary AIPSN – Asha Mishra 9425302012  gsaipsn@gmail.com @gsaipsn

Arunabha Misra, Convenor, Scientific Temper Desk,  AIPSN 9831105979

 

 

by

AIPSN deplores harassment of organisations that criticise the government

click here to get pdf of statement

25 July 2024

AIPSN deplores harassment of  organisations that criticise the government

 

On July 10, 2024 the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) revoked the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration of the parent entity (CACIM) of the non-profit Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), an organization that critically examines the role of financial institutions in development, human rights, and environmental issues. Earlier in January, the MHA had also cancelled the FCRA registration of the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), a leading public policy research institution in New Delhi. These are only a very few cases from the hundreds of NGOs whose FCRA registrations have been cancelled in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner. An unmistakable common thread is that many of these organizations are known for their stout defence of civil rights, government accountability, democratic norms and people’s interests, and have often been critical of government policies and actions. In several cases of FCRA cancellation, reasons given by the government include positions taken against certain development projects or support for people’s struggles against specific industrial projects perceived by locals as being against tribal rights or destructive of the environment. If there are indeed any actual procedural or other “violations” of the regulations by any of these Organizations, they should be afforded the opportunity to take corrective action, institute measures to avoid repetition, and resume operations. But the government’s misuse of FCRA provisions and cancellation of permissions smacks of vindictiveness, intolerance towards criticism and manipulation of regulatory institutions and mechanisms. The government has clearly weaponized FCRA to silence dissenting civil society voices and intimidate others. AIPSN calls upon the government to stop harassing organisations that criticise  actions and policies of the government.

AIPSN has earlier noted similar trends of selectively targeting journalists, online news outlets, cultural personalities, academics and public intellectuals, and even stand-up comics and Youtubers, who have been active in raising public awareness on a variety of civic, governance and policy issues. These trends have serious implications for democracy in India, freedom of expression, and for pluralism. As a network of people-centred science movements, AIPSN is acutely aware that science and a scientific temper cannot thrive if critical thinking and pluralism are suppressed in all spheres.

AIPSN is aware that there are differing opinions in India as to the role of foreign financial assistance to civil society organizations. AIPSN itself does not receive foreign funds nor is it registered under FCRA. Yet AIPSN works with many progressive civil society organizations who do receive such funding, and recognizes their positive contributions to perspectives on development, environment, civic rights and governance. AIPSN will steadfastly defend the right of these Organizations to conduct their activities in accordance with regulatory frameworks in the country. AIPSN recognizes the need for some regulation of fund flows to civil society organizations as exist for commercial activities too. However, the FCRA as it currently operates is totally non-transparent, allows for arbitrary decisions, and gives a dominant role to the bureaucracy and its political masters, with poor oversight and even less accountability. FCRA as it stands requires thorough re-examination, institutional mechanisms for independent oversight and provisions for quasi-judicial appeals and arbitration, beside full recourse to the justice system.

It is indeed ironic that even while this vindictive and partisan crackdown on civil society recipients of foreign developmental funds is underway, several NGOs, so-called “socio-cultural” organizations and even political parties with close ties to the ruling establishment have been quietly receiving foreign funds without scrutiny, exposing the hypocrisy of the on-going onslaught on NGOs receiving foreign assistance. Why is there no level playing field? This is yet another reason for an independent regulatory mechanism, oversight and quasi-judicial review processes.

 

Contact: Asha Mishra, General Secretary 9425302012 gsaipsn@gmail.com

by

Statement on NEET

click here for the pdf AIPSN-NEETStatementJuly4LrHd

4 July 2024

AIPSN Statement on NEET

NEET-2024 (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-2024) has been under severe attack from all quarters, from public, educational to political. This year it was greatly exposed by its rigging, leaking and corruption and the future of 24 lakh students appeared for NEET is at stake. Over the years since its inception, it was opposed by Tamil Nadu Govt. as it was against the state’s autonomy, social justice, educational quality and healthcare system.

NEET was introduced in 2010 by the then Medical Council of India (MCI).  NEET replaced AIPMT (All India Pre Medical Test) and other state-level examinations. NEET was initially proposed to take place from 2012 onwards. Following the announcement from the Medical Council of India that it would introduce the NEET-UG exam in 2012, several states, including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, strongly opposed the change, stating that there was a huge variation in the syllabus proposed by the MCI and their state syllabi. The CBSE and MCI deferred NEET by a year.

But the test was later announced by the Government of India and was held for the first time on 5 May 2013 across India for students seeking admission for both undergraduate and postgraduate medicine.

The Supreme Court of India quashed the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions into all medical and dental colleges on 18 July 2013. The apex court ruled that the Medical Council of India cannot conduct a unified examination.

The Medical Council of India has moved a Review Application before the Supreme Court against the Order dt. 18.07.2013 and the Bench consisting of 5 judges and presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave who dissented in the main case has allowed the Review Application and recalled its Order dt. 18.07.2013 vide the Order of this Court dated 11.04.2016.

Subsequent to this, Sankalp Charitable Trust moved a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court seeking a Mandamus directing the Union of India to conduct NEET for admission to M.B.B.S. Course throughout the country for academic session 2016 – 2017. This case was heard by a three-member bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. The Respondent submitted that it is proposed to conduct NEET in pursuance of the Notification dated 21.12.2010. Based on this submission, Orders were passed on 28.04.2016 permitting the Union to Conduct NEET.

The reasons for conducting the NEET placed before all:

1) Admissions should be transparent.

2) Admissions should be based on merit.

3) There should be no mandatory donations.

4) Students should not have to take multiple entrance exams for the same course.

But what actually happened over the years:

  1. Lakhs and lakhs of rupees have been spent by the aspirants to get coaching to appear before NEET. This is not possible for the poor and underprivileged who got admission earlier by their school marks. Nearly 20 students committed suicide in Tamil Nadu alone, though they got good marks at school level and not good score for admission through NEET.
  2. Though admission was said to be merit based, students with a low score may get admission to private medical colleges as the poor who got eligible score marks for private colleges could not get admission because of high fees, though there were said to be no capitation fees.
  3. It is pity that many students attempted NEET two to three times.
  4. From the beginning, it was alleged that the NEET exam had no transparency and there were malpractices, and 2024-NEET proved that there was a question paper leak (supposed to be benefited by 40000 students), rigging and corruption to the tune of 30-40 lakhs per student who attempted malpractices.

AIPSN views the following as our concerns:

  1. Since the NEET is the tool and gate way for entering medical education, students start preparing from 6th std onwards, omitting the regular school subjects and not worried about +2 marks and found that even failed students in +2 get more NEET marks due to several years coaching for NEET which is not at all worthy for pursuing medical examination. It is pity that Dr.Radhakrishnan committee recommends 12 years of study is a must and enough for any higher education which is taken as “take it for granted’.
  2. NEET exams being conducted on a different pattern, which indirectly compels students to go to coaching, where they have to pay a hefty sum which is many, many times higher than the application fee for so-called independent entrance examinations as fees and students who do not undergo coaching for NEET will suffer in exams and thus, there is no level playing field in centralised exams.
  3. NEET was earlier conducted by CBSE and now it is conducted by NTA as per National Education Policy-2020. NTA is not an academic body to conduct entrance exams for Hr.education. NTA behaves like an employment recruitment agency.
  4. Because of the nature of NTA, many foretold that it would lead to a scam and it happened in 2024 on a bigger scale. It is alleged that NTA itself indulged in scam by allowing grace marks for delayed exam which was not at all mentioned in the rules of examination-2024
  5. The Union Govt stated that NEET was brought for transparent merit-based admissions and without mandatory donations to Private Medical Colleges and Universities. But both seem like mirages now.
  6. Private Medical Institutions have raised their fees and other amenity fees which are not affordable to the poor and even to the middle class and are not joining, which has resulted in low score  admission and the very fact of merit-based admission being defeated.
  7. Conducting centralized entrance exams is impractical in a multicultural society, imposing uniform rules in the conduction of exams (removal of ornaments including mangal sutra, hizab, safety pins used for safety dressing etc.,) which is a terrifying act  psychologically upsetting the students.
  8. NTA not a professional body to conduct theses examinations should be withdrawn immediately.
  9. AIPSN objects to intervening and preventing state autonomy in admission to higher education.
  10. The 92nd Report of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee – Health and Family Welfare was tabled in both the houses of parliament on March 8, 2016: Para 5.26: “The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government should move swiftly towards removing all the possible roadblocks to the Common Medical Entrance Test (CMET) including legal issues and immediately introduce the same to ensure that merit and not the ability to pay becomes the criterion for admission to medical colleges. The Committee also recommends that introduction of CMET should be done across the nation, barring those states who wish to remain outside the ambit of the CMET. However, if any such states wish to join the CMET later, there should be a provision to join it.
  11. In a democratic – federal system, such a centralised system managed by a non-academic agency, can hardly function efficiently.
  12. NEET is a complete failure, NEET is building a coaching industry, NEET discriminates against good students interested in medicine who want to serve the people of their states, NEET is devaluing school boards and NEET does not promote quality in education, be school education or medical education.

AIPSN rejects all kinds of centralized entrance examinations for any kind of state hr. education admissions including NEET, CUET, etc., .

  • NEET is against federalism.
  • NEET is against social justice.
  • NEET contradicts the fundamental requirements of our constitution.
  • To fulfill the needs of the medical aspirants and the demands of society, the union govt. may permit state medical colleges and medical college hospitals for every district of the state, which is deficient in many of the states.

 

Contact:

AIPSN General Secretary Ms. Asha Mishra

9425302012 gsaipsn@gmail.com

Prof. P. Rajamanickam, AIPSN Higher Education Desk Convnenor

968025569

 

AIPSN brief to the political parties for consideration in their election manifesto
by

AIPSN brief to the political parties for consideration in their election manifesto

Read the manifesto from JVV Andhra Pradesh in Telugu

 

 

Click here to read the pdf of the AIPSN brief for Political Parties 

28 Mar 2024

AIPSN brief to the political parties for consideration in their election manifesto

The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) – a platform of people’s science movements across the country has the following positions on various critical issues e.g., propagation of scientific temper, S&T policy and process, Environment and Water resources, Health and Agriculture. As the country gears up for the 18th General Election, we would like to present these positions to be considered for inclusion in the electoral manifesto of the secular, democratic political parties of the country.

  1. On Scientific Temper

Article 51A (h) of the Constitution of India speaks of the duty of citizens to promote scientific temper. Recently, new challenges have emerged in the country in the form of strong socio-political narratives, backed by the State power, that seek to oppose any scientific approach, evidence-based reasoning or, indeed, any perspective that acknowledges universal scientific knowledge. We demand:

  • Promote the separation of State apparatus from religion.
  • Promotion and support of campaigns for popularization of science and its methods, and for promotion of scientific temper, evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking.
  • Reversal of the present government’s various methods and measures to undermine scientific temper, critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning in governance, education and among the wider public
  • Reconstitution of text-book committees to reverse the present. government’s anti-science revision of NCERT textbooks so as to promote critical thinking among students; re-write these textbooks to address deletion of Darwin’s theory of evolution and various chapters/ sections on India’s natural resources, forests, environment, mineral resources etc, and rectify the distorted picture of ancient Indian civilization projected in these texts.
  • A thorough revision of the now compulsory UG/PG Courses and reading material on so-called “traditional Indian knowledge systems;” revise teaching material for new optional Courses on Science, Technology and other Knowledge Systems in Ancient and Medieval India based on the vast body of historical evidence-based material already available on the subject.
  • Correction of the unscientific view being projected in educational institutions and among the wider public of imaginary achievements in S&T in ancient India, and the primacy and superiority of only one stream of cultural-religious-linguistic knowledge, as against the diverse sources and streams of knowledge in the Indian civilization including bi-directional exchanges with other civilizations for a true picture of the growth of science.
  • Restoration of autonomy of academic and research Institutions in both natural and social sciences; pay due regard to research/survey-based data as basis for evidence-based policy-making; correct retrospective manipulation of data to suit ideological narratives; defend and restore academic freedom and pluralism of opinion in universities and research institutes; restore the confidence of the people in scientific institutions
  • Strict monitoring and regulation of the dissemination of “magical remedies,” pseudo-science and superstitious beliefs through commercial activities and in the media, including through Anti-Superstition legislation in the Centre and States.
  • Resumption of population census driven public policy framing.
  1. On Science and Technology (S&T)
  • Enhancement of public funding of indigenous research in S&T to at least 2 per cent of GDP, with due importance to basic research.
  • Strengthening of the university system in research and development (R&D).
  • Decentralization of systems and processes for research funding; scrap the highly centralized National Research Foundation (NRF) set up under the NEP, which also burdens State governments without according to them equitable participation in decision-making; enhance research in state-level universities and collaborations with Central universities and national S&T institutions.
  • Allocation of funds for state-level initiatives for S&T interventions to tackle people’s problems e.g. drought, water resource management, rural livelihoods, issues faced by marginalized communities.
  • Provision of requisite mission-mode R&D funding for identified sectors of the “4th Industrial Revolution” such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), bio- and nano-technology etc towards self-reliance in advanced technologies expected to dominate the “knowledge era,” but in which India is in danger of being left behind in pursuit of externally-dependent and false “atma-nirbharta”; also focus on agricultural research to break monopolies of MNCs and enable climate-resilient agriculture/horticulture.
  • Increase in number of research fellowships especially for first generation students; increase number of faculty research positions in institutes; increase quality and quantity of PhDs in which India lags behind.
  • Systematic measures to increase participation of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) research and jobs
  • Initiation of measures to reduce bureaucratism in S&T Institutions, and encourage academic freedom and culture of research towards reversing brain drain; reverse current trend of sycophancy, fear and discouragement of pluralism in universities and research institutes.
  • Regulation of AI, genetic engineering, data-mining and IT-based surveillance so as to ensure the public good.
  • Review of decision to close down many government-funded S&T Institutions; resuming government support for a restructured Indian Science Congress.
  • Promote free and open source software (FOSS) and other new technologies, free from monopoly ownership through copyrights or patents; “knowledge commons” to be promoted across disciplines e.g. like biotechnology, AI and drug discovery.
  • Recognition of digital infrastructure as public infrastructure to be used for public good.
  • Investment in public communication networks and free knowledge access to scientific and other academic publications without copyright barriers.
  • Ensuring all public funded research is made accessible to all.
  • Rigorous double-blind clinical trials with publication of data for open review for approval of new medicines, vaccines etc.

 

  1. Environment

Various dilutions of regulatory provisions for environmental protection have taken place in the recent past that would have serious impact on our natural resources and climate and will affect people’s livelihoods and wellbeing. There will have to be reversals of these changes. The specific demands are the following:

 

  • The system and processes of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Clearances at State and Central level be made effective, time-bound, transparent, accountable, and free of conflict of interests. EIA is to be conducted preferably through an independent Environmental Protection Agency; repeal EIA Notification 2020 and issue revised guidelines.
  • Economy-wide measures be planned and initiated to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the UNFCCC framework as applicable to developing countries, through effective policies, regulation, de-carbonization, energy efficiency in all sectors of production and consumption, while providing for a just transition from fossil fuels; promotion of renewable energy such as solar and wind; reducing energy inequality and promoting energy access for economically weaker sections such as in public transport; India’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) required to be submitted to UNFCCC in 2025 to be re-cast through a participatory process involving all stakeholders.
  • A National Adaptation Plan (NAP) should be evolved through a participatory process involving all stakeholders especially States to tackle climate impacts such as on agriculture, extreme rainfall and related landslides and urban flooding, heat waves and urban heat islands, coastal erosion and sea-level rise; streamline systems to tackle natural and climate-related disasters; evolve and implement climate resilient development strategies especially addressing the needs of vulnerable populations; provide adequate funds from the Centre and build capabilities of States and local governance structures for the above.
  • Sustainable and environment/climate-friendly development strategies should be evolved for the fragile Himalayan region and eco-sensitive regions of Western Ghats and the North-East; undertake comprehensive review of infrastructure development and urbanization in hill areas, especially in the Western Himalayan region.
  • Thoroughly revise National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) towards rapid and goal-oriented reduction of air pollution in urban areas especially through promotion of public mass transportation in preference to personal vehicle use, and effective regulation of polluting industries and construction activities; strengthen Central and State regulatory authorities.
  • Urgently initiate measures to prevent degradation and destructive development of riverbeds and flood plains, including in urban areas.
  • Undo different provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, apart from the modified definition of Forests struck down by the SC, especially 100 km from international boarder and LAC/LOC being exempt from any regulatory measure; ensure protection of rights of tribals and other forest dwellers under Forest Rights Act, 2006.
  • Repeal provisions of biodiversity Amendment Act 2023 which permits transfer of knowledge regarding bio-diversity resources to corporate without permission of National biodiversity Authority, and also denies local communities of due compensation or share of these benefits.
  • Scrap the environmentally disastrous and pro-corporate islands Development Plan for Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshadweep Island chains, without due consultation with local population in Lakshadweep, and endangering the tiny remaining populations of mostly isolated tribes in the Andamans; re-examine feasibility and location of proposed naval base in A&N.
  • Scrap environmentally dangerous National Oil Palm Mission with highly inflated claims of yields and focusing on eco-sensitive North-East and Andaman Islands.
  1. Water Resources
  • Re-formulate National Water Policy treating water as a scarce public good; tackle the growing water crisis; enhance equitable water availability for optimized domestic use, irrigation and industry through effective protection of rivers, expansion of water bodies and increased groundwater recharge; appropriate legislation, effective regulation and demand management of water; water audits and measures to conserve, treat and recycle water especially in urban areas.
  • Ensure equitable provision of WHO-standard piped potable drinking water to all households
  • Halt privatization of water resources and water distribution utilities in urban areas and recognise the right to water as part of the right to life.
  • Check pollution of rivers and other water bodies through effective legislation, regulation and enforcement of sewage and other waste-water treatment and recycling policies; withdraw provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment, 2024 allowing Centre to override State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs).
  • Undertake comprehensive review of the programme and projects for inter-linking of rivers.
  • Plan and urgently implement measures to protect and improve catchment areas of major rivers especially in the Himalayan region; also take all steps possible to check glacier melting rates such as through regulation of fossil-fuel powered vehicular movement and air pollution in mountain regions.
  1. Health
  • Make right to free health care justiciable through enactment of appropriate legislations at both Central and State levels.
  • Retain health services as a state subject with strong emphasis on federalism.
  • Public expenditure on health to be raised to at least 3.5 per cent in the short term and 5 per cent of the GDP in the long term, with at least 1% and 2% respectively coming from the Centre.
  • Out-of-pocket expenditure on health to be brought to below 25% of health spending expand and strengthen the public healthcare system to ensure free availability of quality health care at all levels, including entire range of medicines, diagnostics and vaccines, and accountability to local communities.
  • Scrap the government-funded PMJAY/Ayushman Bharat health insurance scheme and replace it with a Public-centred Universal Health Care system.
  • Reverse the privatisation of health care services and outsourcing of services through PPPs.
  • Reverse the re-branding of Health and Wellness Centres as ‘Arogya mandirs’.
  • Extend and reform the ESI scheme to effectively protect workers’ health in both organized and unorganized sector, and also covering occupational health.
  • Effectively regulate the private health care sector, especially corporate hospitals which should be brought under the Clinical Establishment Act. Modify the National Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 ensuring implementation of the Patients’ Rights Charter and standardization of reasonable rates and quality of various services.
  • Ensure right-based access to comprehensive treatment and care of persons with mental illness through integration of the revised District Mental Health Programme with the National Health Mission.
  • Adopt a people-centred, rational pharmaceutical policy with effective cost-based price controls, elimination of irrational and hazardous formulations, and a comprehensive generic medicines policy covering labelling, prescription and availability at all retail outlets; ensure availability of essential drugs free of cost at all public health care facilities.
  • Initiate programs to break monopolies of pharmaceutical multinational companies in critical areas.
  • Revive public sector pharmaceutical units to harness them for production of essential drugs and vaccines, and reverse privatization trends; reinstate Open-Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) programmes and collaborative R&D for affordable medicines; remove GST for life-saving and crucial medicines.
  • Strictly control and regulate clinical trials and prohibit unethical clinical trials; develop a justiciable charter of rights for clinical trial participants
  • Remove US government’s drug law enforcing agency USFDA’s offices and officials from India.
  • Resist dilution of India’s Patent of Laws and reject provisions in Free Trade Agreements that obstruct domestic production low-cost generic drugs.
  • Ensure effective, appropriate regulatory oversight of AYUSH system of medicine, while supporting evidence-based use of such systems.
  • Give priority to the setting up of new public colleges to train doctors and nurses, especially in underserved areas such as in the North East and in poorer States. Training institutes to be set up for health workers.
  1. Agriculture

            Right to land, water and commons for all

  • Provide equitable access to land and water: legislate for homesteads for the rural poor; grant land rights to landless for cultivation; promote kitchen gardens, backyard poultry, cattle sheds and group farming.
  • Place all above-ceiling land presently held by public or private entities under control of the state and union government for the redistribution to the landless.
  • Create a register of tenants and provide smallholders with secure tenancy. Give tenant farmers statutory support, recognise tenants as beneficiaries of schemes announced for individual benefits, and access to benefits from sector wide schemes financed through public investment.
  • Recognize women as farmers and grant them land rights, secure their tenancy rights over leased lands.
  • Recognize land rights of Adivasi farmers, implement Forest Rights Act (FRA), review all rejections under FRA, and roll back pro-corporate amendments to Indian Forest Act, 1927.

            Right to Food, Employment, Education, Health and Social Protection

  • Ensure job security and minimum wage by extending the number of workdays from 100 to 200 workdays in rural areas @ Rs. 800 wages per day, implement existing provision of 100 days of MGNREGA without creating digital hurdles.
  • Introduce a provision of 100 days of labour support for the SC, ST, and other small and marginal farmers for land development and for the adoption of integrated farming systems (IFS) including natural farming, thus 200 days of rural employment @ Rs. 800 wages per day.
  • Enact old age pensions.
  • Provide childcare and crèche facilities in agricultural workspaces.
  • Provide for separate courts for protection against caste, ethnic, religious, gender-based oppression.
  • Introduce Urban Employment Guarantee Act, guarantee employment for graduates from rural households in nearby towns.

            Right to public and bank finance, production inputs, knowledge and market

  • Guarantee extra budgetary resources to states from the 15th finance commission for raising the level of gross capital formation in agriculture as a percentage ford from the current level of 15.7% to 30%.
  • Guarantee primary producers’ freedom from debt by implementing complete(formal and informal) loan waiver, restore the right of primary producers to priority lending, stop co-lending to delink farmers from the high-cost economy in agriculture; reduce the risks faced from climate change in respect of pursuing agriculture & allied sector occupations.
  • Create a single-window loan facility for small holders to promote integrated farming, strengthen SHGs and Kudambashree-type of institutions to enable women farmers to access agriculture credit from public banking.
  • Guarantee remunerative prices for agricultural commodities establish an effective system of public procurement of all farm produce declared as essential produce/value added products by rural households through cooperatives for the promotion of sustainable rural livelihoods and for the creation of a universal public distribution system.
  • Guarantee access to publicly regulated markets purchasing the primary produce at the minimum support price (MSP) not lower than C2 costs plus 50 % for the products declared as essential commodities for production by state legislatures.
  • Take agriculture out of WTO, no more free trade agreements (FTAs), and no more patent like intellectual property rights (IPRs) on seeds.
  • Withdraw from the agreements signed by ICAR with Bayer, Amazon and otherness, guarantee research, advice, testing and extension through public sector undertakings, and pave the way for national ownership and control of infrastructure required for agri-digitalization and agri-tech delivery.
  • Reintroduce sectoral reservation through legislation for the products attracting AGMARK label to encourage value addition through cooperatives, micro and small businesses & PSUs in order to keep big business out of local markets.
  • Ensure agro-ecologically coupled integration of primary, secondary and tertiary industries, and restore state/district level planning by establishing statutory boards for scientific and equitable land use, area planning, market development, and promotion of value addition to co-products and by-products through group enterprises.
  • Separate Fisheries Ministry in Central and State Governments with the mandate to protect and promote sustainable fisheries and the livelihood of small-scale fish workers including fishers, fish farmers, fish vendors and other ancillary fish workers.
  • Establish a National Commission for Fisheries to look after policy implementation, inter-state disputes, protection and promotion of the rights and entitlements of small-scale fishing communities.
  • Create in every state “State Commissions for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare”.
  • Stop entry of private Dairy Corporate Companies and import of foreign dairy products that threaten existence of India’s Dairy Cooperatives.
  • Abandon plan to open the Indian market by permitting Free Trade on milk and milk-based products.
  • Ensure remunerative prices for milk and milk products.

 

For clarifications contact:

Asha Mishra, General Secretary, AIPSN  gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9425302012, Twitter: @gsaipsn

by

AIPSN Condolence Resolution: Admiral (retd) L.Ramdas, former Chief of Naval Staff of the Indian Navy and distinguished citizen

click  to see the  pdf  or  jpg of the condolence resolution 

 

 

AIPSN Condolence Resolution:

Admiral (retd) L.Ramdas,

former Chief of Naval Staff of the Indian Navy and distinguished citizen

 

The All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) deeply mourns the passing of Admiral (retd) L.Ramdas, former Chief of Naval Staff of the Indian Navy and distinguished citizen who contributed as much if not more to this country in his post-retirement civilian life as he did during his meritorious military career.

The Indian Nay and a grateful nation will forever treasure the stellar role of  Admiral L.Ramdas during the liberation of Bangladesh and subsequently, as Head of the Navy, in leading the Armed Services in the induction of women.

Post retirement, Admiral (retd) L.Ramdas devoted himself to numerous causes for promoting peace, constitutional rights, secularism and peoples issues. AIPSN holds in high esteem its work with him in the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy; the struggle for safety and the lives and livelihoods of people affected by the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant; his continued support for and participation in the Konkan people’s movement against the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant; and against the growing communalism in the country.

AIPSN extends its heartfelt condolences to his wife, Lalita Ramdas, a fellow campaigner on many of the same and other issues, and to his daughters. We express our continued appreciation of their support to the cause of scientific temper and literacy.