Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF)

The RIDF was set up by the Government of India in 1995-96 for financing ongoing rural infrastructure projects. The fund is maintained by NABARD. Domestic commercial banks contribute to the fund to the extent of their shortfall in stipulated priority sector lending to agriculture. The main objective of the fund is to provide loans to state governments and stateowned corporations to enable them to complete ongoing rural infrastructure projects. Till the end of 2009-10, fifteen tranches (I to XV) of RIDF have been released covering total cumulative sanctions for Rs.1,03,718 crore for the entire country, out of which only Rs 68,440 crore (66percent) have been disbursed (Table 6.28). For Bihar, however, only Rs 1815 crore, or 47 percent of the total sanctions of Rs 3835 crore could be disbursed till March 2010.The scope of RIDF has been widened to include activities in agriculture and allied sectors including irrigation projects, rural connectivity (roads and bridges), social sector investments (rural health, education and drinking water), soil and water conservation, rain water harvesting etc.

Other activities include rural market yards, rural health centres and primary schools, mini hydel plants, shishu shiksha kendras, anganwadis, and system improvement in the power sector, flood protection, watershed development/reclamation of waterlogged areas, drainage, forest development, market yard/godown, apna mandi, rural haats and other marketing infrastructure, cold storage, seed/agriculture/ horticulture farms, plantation and horticulture, grading and certifying mechanisms such as testing and certifying laboratories, etc., community irrigation wells for irrigation purposes for the village as a whole, fishing harbour/jetties, riverine fisheries, animal husbandry and modern abattoir.

The total disbursements made by NABARD under the various tranches of the RIDF in Bihar is shown in Table 6.29. Only Rs 1242 crore out of total sanctioned amount of Rs 2899 crore, or 43 percent of the sanctioned amount have been disbursed till March 2009, leaving a huge shortfall between sanction and disbursement. By March 2010, the disbursements have marginally improved to 46.5 percent. Such shortfall in disbursements of RIDF funds as compared to sanctions has been a continuing feature and a matter of concern in the implementation of RIDF.

Salman Khurshid Admits the Error Dine While Dealing with Anna Team

Union Low Minister accepts that government had done some error while dealing with Anna Hazare.

"Errors of judgment have been made; errors of judgment are made whenever you are involved in a difficult situation. Errors of judgment are not mistakes," the minister told a television channel.


For More Information Read the Link.

http://goindocal.com/india-%BB-politics-errors-of-judgment-have-been-made-while-dealing-with-anna-hazare-khurshidgo-2269.htm

Massive Protest Seen Against Result of JPSC 4TH PT Examination

JPSC aspirants of Jharkhand civil service examination, who were protesting against the JPSC, were arrested  after the 14 hour of protest.

Students were found agressively protesting against the dismal list of  candidate who get through in 4th PT. In comparison to the BPSC, who has declared 15 thousand results against the 257 vacancies, recently published result is too small. 

The most controversial state  Public Service Commission of India had declared the list of 10 thousand successful candidates  in its first PT examination against the 64 vacancies in first exam. Similarly, 17,000 and 21,000 students were declared passed in the 2nd and 3rd PT exam conducted by JPSC. The total numbers of vacancies were 172 and 143 in 2nd and 3rd PT exam conducted by the state commission respectively. 

For More Information:

see the Link

http://goindocal.com/your-localstudents-launch-their-protest-againgo-2208.htm

Recession Fear Looms over US Economy

New York, Aug, 27: A string retreat in recent data has increased the probability of a double-dip recession by 80 %, as per the modeling statistics by Bank of America Merrill Lynch that released on Wednesday, data accounted the toll the U.S. debt downgrade by S&P, Europe’s debt issues and stock market volatility.

To be sure, the economic team of Bank of America Merrill Lynch looking for more data is required for it to raise its overall official prediction of a recession. Still, the recent dismal number from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve and the University of Michigan were enough for Merrill to increase its overall probability of a contraction of economy in the next year to 40% from 35 % at the start of this month.

The widespread survey of manufacturing in the Philadelphia region taken toll to its lowest level since March 2009, as per the Fed data. Consumer confidence reading is at lowest level since May 1980, the survey released by Thomson Reuters/University Michigan on August 12.

The weekly jobless claims released Thursday unexpectedly increased to 417,000, above economists’ estimates and further validating the data from earlier in the month.

The Philly Fed had puts a recession probability by 85.7 %, while the consumer survey puts contraction chances at 80 %, as per the Bank of America's probability model, which uses a so-called Bayesian technique that “tests if the economy is in a recession based on the interaction of variables that are associated with turns in the business cycle.”

“More timely consumer and business sentiment indicators dropped in August in response to a range of bad news,” said Michael Hanson, one of the firm’s economists, in the note. “While we concede the risks are rising, a recession is not baked in the cake. If the economy can avoid further shocks, we would expect a modest bounce in growth into the end of the year.”

According to their reading, the Philly Fed has perfectly forecasted four of the last seven recessions. The older Michigan survey has precisely signaled three of the eight recessions in the past.

“It’s a 100 percent chance,” said Peter Schiff, CEO & Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital. “In fact the recession might have already started.”

The Bank of America Merrill economics team is less pessimistic than Schiff and is quick to identify that since 1990, the Philly Fed has indicated recessions six times that have never come to fruition. Therefore, a sudden drop of this magnitude is not unusual for this indicator.

In another indicator is that the Fed has decided to keep interest rate low for the long time.

Anna Hazare Latter to PM

Dr Manmohan Singh,

Prime Minister of India,

7, Race Course Road,

New Delhi.

Dear Dr Manmohan Singh ji,

You are one of the most honest Prime Ministers that the country has had. It is ironical that your own government should seek to take the Prime Minister out of the purview of Lokpal’s investigations.

As of today, the Prime Minister is covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under that law, any allegation of corruption against a Prime Minister can be investigated. No exception has been made for either the Prime Minister or any of his activities (like external affairs, defence etc). Every activity of the Prime Minister can be investigated under Prevention of Corruption Act.

However, as of today, the investigations are done by CBI, which is directly under the control of the Prime Minister himself. The only change that we are proposing in the present system is that rather than being investigated by an agency directly under his own control, let the PM be investigated by an agency which is independent, like the Lokpal. We are not proposing any other change.

The five ministers, who are members of the drafting committee, unanimously feel that the Prime Minister should be kept out of Lokpal’s investigations. The Constitution of India does not grant any such immunity to the Prime Minister. Only President has been granted immunity from any investigations and trials.

So, in order to take the PM out of Lokpal’s ambit or even to take some part of his jurisdiction out of the ambit of Lokpal’s investigations, the government would need to amend the Constitution and the Prevention of Corruption Act and grant him immunity similar to that enjoyed by the President. Is the government planning to do that? Why? 

We thought we would get a better and stronger anti-corruption regime under your tenure. On the contrary, the government seems to be shrinking the scope of anti-corruption regime. Taking the Prime Minister out of any probe would be a retrograde step.

Government’s stand is that a Prime Minister under scanner would become “dysfunctional”. Do you really feel so? You have worked with both Mr Rajiv Gandhi and Mr Narasimha Rao. Did you get a feeling that Mr Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, become “dysfunctional” due to Bofors probe? Or did Mr P V Narasimha Rao become “dysfunctional” due to probe in Jharkhand Mukti Morcha case?

The Prime Minister is privy to a lot of security related sensitive information. Suppose tomorrow, a corrupt person like Madhu Koda or A Raja or any of the Reddy Brothers became Prime Minister. Don’t you feel that the security of the country itself would be seriously compromised if Prime Minister enjoyed complete immunity from any investigations and trials? There is no civilised country that we are aware of where the head of government is immune from corruption investigations.

We remember that in the past, you had yourself offered to be brought under the purview of Lokpal Bill. Then why are your own ministers opposing your inclusion in Lokpal’s ambit? Is there a disconnect or communication gap within the government?

Interestingly, three out of the five ministers, who are members of the joint drafting committee, have themselves advocated inclusion of the Prime Minister in Lokpal Bill on earlier occasions.

Shri Pranab Mukherjee, as the Chairperson of the parliamentary standing committee on Lokpal Bill in 2001 under NDA regime, had himself recommended that Prime Minister should be covered under the ambit of Lokpal. The then Prime Minister Sh Atal Bihari Vajpayee agreed to that recommendation.

Later in January 2011, Mr Moily, Law Minister in the present government, suggested inclusion of Prime Minister in Lokpal’s purview in the draft law prepared by him. This draft law was sent to the home ministry under Mr Chidambaram, which also concurred with this view in its comments made in March 2011.

So, it appears that in the last ten years from the year 2001 upto March 2011, the government’s view has been that the Prime Minister should be brought within the purview of Lokpal. Now, all the three ministers have suddenly taken a U-turn and they appear to be adamant on keeping the PMO out of Lokpal’s ambit.

We are wondering what happened post March 2011, which prompted the government to suddenly take a U-turn on this issue?

Till now the Prime Minister could be investigated by CBI. Why should an honest Prime Minister like you be scared of being investigated by an independent Lokpal?

We would be grateful if you could kindly clarify government’s position in this regard.

With warm regards

Yours sincerely,

K.B. Hazare, Shanti Bhusan, Justice Santosh Hegde, Prashant Bhusan, Arvind Kejriwal