Banking service chronicle previous year question papers

 Banking service chronicle previous year question papers

Banking service chronicle previous year question papers Technology giant Google announced on 3 September 2018 that it is employing a new Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to combat online spreading of contents involving child sexual abuse. Banking service chronicle question bank The tool uses deep neural networks for image processing to help discover and detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online Banking service chronicle review.

 Banking service chronicle previous year question papers

gktoday current affairs pdf

gktoday current affairs pdf

gktoday current affairs pdf Published this article :  On the front page of the World Nuclear Association website prominently rests a quote from what some consider the worlds leading environmentalist and among the worlds top scientists Dr. James Lovelock There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization. - James Lovelock preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness At age eighty-six Dr. Lovelock has just published his fourth book The Revenge of Gaia (Penguin Books 2006). Gaia is Dr. Lovelocks belief that earth is a living evolving organism not just a hunk of rock we all live upon. Through his book Lovelock refers to Gaia when he is discussing our third planet from the sun. His latest book is a MUST read for anyone who is following the renaissance in nuclear energy. Environmentalists wont read this book. Perhaps their bosses will BAN them from reading this book. Those environmentalists who carefully read Lovelocks latest book may very well become nuclear power lobbyists if they would bathe shave and spiff up a bit. Chapter Five Sources of Energy will instantly disintegrate every ridiculous argument propounded by the naïve and antediluvian anti-nuclear movements across the world. Dr. Lovelocks credentials and achievements are light years beyond those of any environmental mouthpiece espousing the green movement. More so than anyone alive Lovelock is first and foremost a giant of the earths environmentalist movement. Since 1974 Lovelock has been a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994 he has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green College University of Oxford. New Scientist described him as one of the great thinkers of our time. The London Observer has called him one of the environmental movements most influential figures. In 2003 he was made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty the Queen. Prospect magazine named Dr. Lovelock in September 2005 one of the worlds top 100 global public intellectuals. How does Dr. Lovelock respond to the question of nuclear waste? He writes I have offered in public to accept all the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my small plot of land it would occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit and I would use the heat from its decaying radioactive elements to heat my home. It would be a waste not to use it. More important it would be no danger to me my family or the wildlife. That should enlighten the yokels arguing against the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository. Chapter Five Sources of Energy concisely and cogently answers every silly theory about renewable energy sources hyped by the green movement. Lets take Biomass which makes sense to any concerned citizen. Lovelock even agrees with the theory of Biomass writing Used sensibly and on a modest scale burning wood or agricultural waste for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia. Please note that he modified his statement with sensibly and modest. In a nutshell he explains why Biomass will not become a leading energy source Bio fuels are especially dangerous because it is too easy to grow them as a replacement for fossil fuel they will then demand an area of land or ocean far larger than Gaia can afford… We have already taken more than half of the productive land to grow food for ourselves. How can we expect Gaia to manage the Earth if we try to take the rest of the land for fuel production? He added poignantly Just imagine that we tried to power our present civilization on crops grown specifically for fuel such as coppice woodland fields of oilseed rape and so on. These are the bio fuels the much-applauded renewable energy source…We would need the land area of several Earths just to grow the bio fuel. Wind power gets shellacked as well. For those environmentalists such as Amory Lovins who believe Wind Farms are going to become a significant energy source they are full of hot air. According to the Royal Society of Engineers 2004 report onshore European wind energy is two and a half times and offshore wind energy over three times more expensive per kilowatt hour than gas or nuclear energy. Denmark which pioneered wind farms is regretting the decision. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries said In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense… Many of us thought wind was the 100-percent solution for the future but we were wrong. In fact taking all energy needs into account it is only a 3 percent solution. Lovelock writes To supply the UKs present electricity needs would require 276000 wind generators about three per square mile if national parks urban suburban and industrial areas are excluded… at best energy is available from wind turbines only 25 percent of the time. German environmentalists who have recently led the charge for Wind Power should reconsider. Lovelock writes The most recent report from Germany put wind energy as available only 16 percent of the time. Surely solar power must be the answer right? Wrong! Lovelock writes Solar cells are not yet suitable for supplying electricity directly to homes or workplaces mostly because despite over thirty years of development they are quite expensive to make. At the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there is an experimental house with a roof made almost entirely of silicon photocells. In summer it provides about three kilowatts of electricity but the cost of installation was comparable with the house itself and the expected life of the cells is about ten years. Sunlight like wind is intermittent and would without efficient storage be an inconvenient energy source at these latitudes. Solar and wind power were just two of the many energy sources Lovelock sends to the dumpster. Wave and tidal energy hydro-electricity hydrogen fusion energy coal and oil and natural gas all suffer similar consequences under Dr. Lovelocks scientific microscope. Geothermal gets a partial endorsement but Lovelock writes Unfortunately there are few places where it is freely available. Iceland is one of them and it draws a large part of its energy needs from this source. How many of you know that while natural gas could cut carbon dioxide emissions by half if used ubiquitously some of the natural gas leaks into the air before it burnt? According to the Society of Chemical Industrys report (2004) this amounts to about 2 to 4 percent of the gas used. Methane the main constituent of natural gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Fusion sounded great in theory but when I discussed it with Dr. Fred Begay at the Los Alamos National Laboratories this past November he told me it may take fifty years to develop if it ever could be developed as an energy source. Lovelock explains in his book why Fusion Energy would be wonderful but he brought up the one point which stymies nuclear physicists (and which environmentalists wont even talk about) … the nuclear fusion of hydrogen yields millions of times more energy than its mere combustion but to start the powerful reaction requires some means of heating the hydrogen to 150 million degrees. How exactly go you go about heating something on earth up to 150 million degrees when the core of the sun has a temperature of a little more than 100 million degrees? Again great theory and work is being done in this arena to bring about a solution sometime this century but this technology remains in an incubation stage. The most shocking and disturbing discussion through Lovelocks book was the problem with carbon dioxide emissions. The burning question these days is WHAT to do with nuclear waste. Lovelock believes we should start worrying about what to do about carbon dioxide emissions waste The worlds annual production of carbon dioxide is 27000 million tons. If this much were frozen into solid carbon dioxide at -80 degrees Centigrade it would make a mountain one mile high and twelve miles in circumference. To sequester this much each year could not be achieved quickly – probably not sooner than twenty years from now. He added If only had developed and installed the equipment for removing carbon dioxide from power stations and industry fifty years ago we would now face surmountable problems. Another problem with carbon dioxide should give you nightmares or reach for a gas mask. Carbon dioxide according to Dr. Lovelock has a complicated removal with an effective residence time of between fifty and a hundred years. About half of the carbon dioxide we have so far added to the air remains there. That means the carbon dioxide we add to our existing air pollution will still be breathed by our children grandchildren and their children. How is that for a legacy? James Lovelocks Conclusion on Nuclear Energy How does James Lovelock feel about nuclear energy? I believe nuclear power is the only source of energy that will satisfy our demands and yet not be a hazard to Gaia and interfere with its capacity to sustain a comfortable climate and atmospheric composition. This is mainly because nuclear reactions are millions of times more energetic than chemical reactions. The most energy available from a chemical reaction such as burning carbon in oxygen is about nine kilowatt hours per kilogram. The nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms to form helium gives several million times as much and the energy from splitting uranium is greater still. Through his book Lovelock reminds us that nuclear power is the single answer for this century We need emission-free energy sources immediately and there is no serious contender to nuclear fission. Lovelock addresses Three Mile Island Chernobyl nuclear testing in the 1960s and many other events over the past fifty years as nuclear energy has developed. If you wondered about radiation and cancer Lovelock answers that as well. You may leap up after reading those pages and start faxing them off to every environmentalist group you can contact. It may be the most definitive analysis of the disconnect the media and the greens have about nuclear energy and its impact on our health that you have ever read. Lovelock concludes The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed. One specific question that has puzzled me for a number of years was this How many people die to produce each of our energy sources? The table below answered that question. The comparative safety of the different energy sources comes from the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland in a 2001 report which Lovelock reproduces on page 102 of his book. The Institute examined all of the worlds large-scale energy sources and compared them against their safety records. The numbers of deaths were expressed in terms of terrawatt year of energy made between 1970 and 1992. A terrawatt year (TTY) is one million million watts of electricity made and continuously used throughout a year. Fuel Fatalities Who Deaths per TTY Coal 6400 Workers 342 Hydro 4000 Public 883 Natural Gas 1200 Workers and Public 85 Nuclear 31 Workers 8 Lovelock does not simply endorse nuclear as an idle thought. He is passionate about nuclear energy as a life-saving measure My strong pleas for nuclear energy come from a growing sense that we have little time left in which to install a reliable and secure supply of electricity…. The important and overriding consideration is time we have nuclear power now and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives including fusion energy require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. He concludes his masterpiece of Chapter Five of The Revenge of Gaia by writing Meanwhile at the worlds climate centres the barometer continues to fall and tell of the imminent danger of a climate storm whose severity the Earth has not endured for fifty-five million years. But in the cities the party goes on how much longer before reality enters our minds? gktoday current affairs pdf

gktoday current affairs pdf

general knowledge refresher by o.p. khanna pdf

general knowledge refresher by o.p. khanna pdf

general knowledge refresher by o.p. khanna pdf Published this article :  China is well entrenched in the global marketplace but with Chinese piracy reported at 90 percent its the third least friendly country for protecting intellectual property (IP). Chinas accession into the World Trade Organization started four years ago. With this commitment to regulatory and economic restructuring China has indeed been a country of economic opportunity for multinational corporations. In theory WTO accession means that WTO members can enjoy IP protections. In China secure those patent protections carefully. Dot the is cross those ts and watch your language. Also anticipate litigation. According to attorneys A. Jason Mirabito and Carol Peters in a March 2005 article published in Chip Scale Review In the past there was little enforcement of IP in China. However in 2002 Chinese courts litigated more than 6000 civil cases involving IP issues. About 2000 cases involved patent suits. The rest were trademark and copyright actions. Those 2002 statistics pale compared to recent figures reported by the International Herald Tribune In 2005 Chinese courts dealt with 12205 civil intellectual property cases an increase of 32 percent from 2003 and a few dozen two decades ago. Consider one recent case which demonstrates that Chinas legal savvy is climbing with its growing stake in US markets and the global economy. The case also demonstrates the role of US courts in patent and IP protection along with the perseverant or energized stance required by US companies threatened by counterfeit goods or the prospect of piracy. Energizer & Eveready vs. Just about Everybody The dispute started in the spring of 2003 when Energizer Holdings a US company and its subsidiary Eveready filed a lawsuit with the International Trade Commission (ITC). The complaint addressed a signature product a long-lasting battery design—affecting in particular a line of zero mercury-added alkaline batteries that Energizer has held a patent on for three decades. Also mentioned in the suit are games toys and other products manufactured with batteries whose designs are protected. Energizer asked the ITC to issue a cease-and-desist order and to ban US imports of these products claiming the batteries exported to the United States by the 26 manufacturers affiliates or distributors named in the suit had infringed on Energizers US patent. Among the multiple respondents named in the complaint nine were Chinese manufacturers including Fujian Nanping Nanfu. Nanfu Battery is one of Chinas largest alkaline battery manufacturers and suppliers. Energizer requested the ITC investigation under Section 337 of the US Tariff Act. At the time of the original filing China was considered the worlds largest manufacturer and exporter of this specific battery with an estimated 75-80 percent of its goods being exported to overseas markets. According to a China press report Chinese batteries usually cost between a 10th and a third less than US-made ones making them very popular in overseas markets. The ITC handed down a preliminary ruling in 2004 deciding that nine manufacturers from the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong infringed upon Energizers patent and recommended banning imports of the batteries. But four months later the ITC closed its investigation and ruled that Energizers patent was invalid because it was …indefinite as a matter of law…. Or in the legalese The Commission held that Evereadys proffer of alternative constructions of said zinc anode was an admission of indefiniteness. In plain terms the main patent claim or its language was incorrectly written. Attorneys Mirabito and Peters reported that the Commission determined there was no infringement of the Energizer Holdings patents and the continued importation of Chinese batteries was permitted. It Just Keeps on Going and Going… True to the brand as the battery that never quits Energizer kept on going and going and appealed the ITCs final decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the suit Energizer named the ITC as defendants. Energizers main contention was that the issue regarding language was not substantial enough to invalidate the patent. The Courts January 25 2006 ruling and a follow-up March 20 mandate reversed the earlier ITC opinion finding that the ITC erred and the patent draft was written correctly enough. In that regard we conclude that anode gel is by implication the antecedent basis for said zinc anode. The Commissions holding of invalidity on the ground of indefiniteness is reversed. In the unanimous ruling the Court directed the Commission to proceed in accordance with the Administrative Law Judges prior ruling that the Energizer patent is valid according to Legal Times analyst Emma Shwartz. It was a happy day at Energizer headquarters in St. Louis. We are pleased that this case has been sent back to the ITC for review said Michael Pophal Senior Patent Counsel at Energizer quoted in a company press release (http//tinyurl.com/kfb6m). By issuing this mandate the appeals court has cleared the way for additional inquiry into whether those companies that import mercury-free alkaline batteries into the United States are doing so illegally. If it is indeed determined that they are doing so illegally the ITC will then determine the appropriate remedy for that illegal activity. As before Energizer will seek the general exclusion remedy in the ITC. If the ITC upholds the companys claim this remedy will bar infringing batteries including those made or sold by the remaining respondents from importation or sale in the US and will permit sanction enforcement by US Customs. Whats Next? A Changing Landscape? Energizer expects a favorable outcome from the ITC. But even as they await the ITC review the Internet-surfing public has been reading about the recent ITC mandate in starkly opposite terms in China recent press accounts erroneously have been reporting that the Court ruled in favor of Chinese manufacturers. They fail to report that the jury with respect to the ITC is still out. It appears that a gentle collaboratively toned communication between Energizer and China has helped the situation. Many of the erroneous reports have been pulled from news sites. While Energizer seems to be battling questionable imports the longest and hardest they arent the only company doing battle with Chinese manufacturers and companies alleging technology violations of patents trademarks and IP infringements. The litigious ranks include Hitachi-IBM and Cisco who won its patent battle over the Shenzhen-based Huawei in 2003. Cisco eventually proved that Huawei arguably the top Chinese provider of switches and wireless infrastructure had copied the U.S. companies firmware code line for line into its products. Huawei settled. Still other recent cases are coming to favorable conclusions for plaintiffs defending goods in China courtrooms an indicator that China is serious about its place in the WTO and in the global economy. -- In late 2005 java giant Starbucks Coffee won its two-year-old case against Xingbake (translation Star Bucks) for trademark and logo infringement. The case was decided in Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Peoples Court and was considered a landmark judgment and litmus test of Chinas amended trademark laws. Xingbake has filed an appeal. -- In 2004 Swiss agribusiness and agricultural chemical maker Syngenta was awarded an apology and compensation after its patent infringement lawsuit was successfully concluded against a Chinese business group. The case was heard in a Nanjing court one known for its expertise in intellectual property. There is little doubt that Chinas government will quickly improve its IP stance but this analyst believes the most effective pressure will come from its own domestic companies particularly as they evolve from a heavily manufacturing-depending economy to a service and integrated products economy. This more sophisticated economic profile makes IP rights even more critical because more Chinese companies will have more at stake when IP is violated. Recent positive announcements make it clear that rule of law increasingly will be guiding Chinas economy. In the meantime keep your intellectual property under a close watch and build trust with your Chinese partners. Good contracts good guanxi and good sense will prove invaluable. general knowledge refresher by o.p. khanna pdf

general knowledge refresher by o.p. khanna pdf

shine india magazine download

shine india magazine download

shine india magazine download  Published this article page no  How to Improve the Quality of Interviews Meetings and Settlement Conferences by Learning to Use Advocacy and Inquiry More Effectively. As NJ divorce attorneys we are trained to be advocates in the process known as adversarial. Many of us self-selected into the legal profession partly because our underlying personality and temperament traits are geared toward advocacy. Similarly lawyers the good ones are typically quite inquisitive. Their questioning techniques however often take on the tone of cross-examination. We can all stand to improve the way we practice the non-adversarial settlement-oriented part of our profession by paying attention to the way we employ the principles of advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy is stating ones views. Examples of advocacy include sharing how youre feeling describing what youre thinking stating a judgment pushing for a particular course of action decision or outcome and making demands. Inquiry is asking a genuine question. By asking real questions information is truly sought. Rhetorical or leading questions are a kind of advocacy in disguise. Weve all observed journalists and other questioners with not-so-hidden agendas pose inquiries such as Isnt it true that your administrations domestic fiscal policy has done a disservice to the elderly? Another loaded style of pseudo question-asking might go something like Some people (not me of course) might say that you handled yourself rather poorly in the first two debates. How would you respond to such criticism? In any discussion or conference we are engaged in we can be high or low on advocacy. The same can be said for inquiry. Regardless of whether our advocacy and inquiry levels are high or low at a given instance we can come across positively or negatively depending upon our style intent and often habit. For instance if we are operating from a high advocacy low inquiry perspective we come across quite positively if we are truly explaining our point of view. Cramming our viewpoint down the other partys throat conversely is a destructive tendency. It should be mentioned that high advocacy/low inquiry results in one way communication even if both people are engaged in it. It can be useful for giving information but doesnt enhance understanding of diverse perspectives or build commitment to a specific course of action. Advocacy that imposes the proponents views on others usually creates either compliance or resistance. On the other hand If we are geared up in the inquiry department but toning down the advocacy we can conduct meaningful non-threatening information gathering interviews or we can find ourselves falling into interrogation mode a natural tendency for many NJ divorce lawyers. High inquiry/low advocacy results in one way communication in a different sense in that the inquirer refrains from stating his or her views or beliefs. While it can be quite useful for finding out information it can create difficulties when the inquirer has a hidden agenda or is really using the questioning process as a device to get the other person to discover what the inquirer already thinks is right or both. There are certainly times when keeping both advocacy and inquiry levels to minimum is the way to proceed. This is what were doing well when we are observing or listening attentively. The flip side in this realm is withdrawal. Weve all observed this in four-way settlement conferences when a sore topic is being discussed with one spouse preaching from the soapbox while the other checks out mentally and glazes over. Low inquiry/low advocacy also flows in one direction Participants watch but contribute relatively little. This approach is ideally employed when being a tacit observer is useful but it can create difficulties when participants withhold their views on key issues. Finally in the context of energetic sessions when we are high in both advocacy and inquiry departments mutual learning or appreciation of each others viewpoints is the objective. High advocacy/high inquiry fosters two way communication and learning. I state my views and I inquire into yours I invite you to state your views and inquire into mine. We must be careful particularly in the context of settlement talks not to over-work the process. When excessive communications generate too much information density participants become worn-out irritable and confused or overwhelmed. Positive energy is a great thing but its also important to keep dialogues down to a manageable pace. Participants need time for things to sink-in. Managing the pace of high advocacy high inquiry discussion is also indispensable when taking into account the differences between introverted and extraverted (not a spelling error but rather the Jungian term) personality types. While extraverts often relish high pace high energy dialogue introverts often find them quite distracting if not frankly annoying. Balancing advocacy with inquiry is necessary. Taken alone however the balancing process is not enough to promote a positive meeting of the minds. In order for this to occur the quality of advocacy and inquiry is also vital. For example Thats a really moronic comment. How long did it take you to come up with that one? is both a statement and a question but it doesnt encourage negotiated problem solving. Ideally our use of advocacy should involve providing information to others and explaining exactly how we moved from observing or collecting this information to our view of the situation. Competent use of inquiry entails honestly seeking others views probing how they arrived at them and encouraging them to challenge our perspective. Balancing high quality advocacy with high quality inquiry makes significant breakthroughs possible. A DOZEN PRACTICE TIPS If we assume that we are obviously right and that our job is to get others to realize what we already know we will be unable to promote either agreement on a specific issue or ultimate settlement. Accordingly we are well advised to 1) Assume from the onset that we may be missing things that others see and seeing things that others miss. If we begin with this assumption the result is that we will listen more intelligently and inquire more genuinely without downplaying our own views. 2) Assume that others are acting in ways that make sense to them and that they are motivated to act with integrity. (This advice applies regardless of whether you believe another to be Demon Seed or the reincarnation of Mother Theresa of Calcutta.) 3) Attempt to understand what leads to behavior that we find problematic. Are others caught-up in dilemmas? Are we contributing to any problems? 4) Help others to understand or appreciate our viewpoints and how we think about them by giving examples of the underlying data we select. Go on to state the meaning that we find in the examples and explaining the steps in our thinking to others. 5) Describe our understanding of the others reasoning. 6) If we notice negative consequences to what others may be doing identify the consequences without attributing any intent on their part to create those consequences. Distinguish between intent and impact between motive and outcome. 7) When choosing to disclose our emotions we must endeavor to do so without implying that the other person is primarily responsible for creating our emotional reactions. Remember also Eleanor Roosevelts observation that no one can make us feel inferior without our permission. 8) Find out how others see the situation by asking them to give examples of the information they selected from which they necessarily drew the inferences which lead to their conclusions. Ask them to explain the steps in their thinking. 9) Ask for help in finding out what we may be missing by encouraging others to identify possible gaps or errors in our thinking. 10) When we have difficulty with how others are acting ask them to explain what has prompted them to act as they have done in a tone that suggests they may have a reasonable answer. 11) Inquire into others feelings and emotions but dont ask Whats your problem? or Why do you get so worked up? Say instead You appear to be sad about something am I right? Do you feel comfortable talking about it? 12) Ask for help in exploring whether we are unknowingly contributing to the problem. Quite often well-intended action on our part is problematic for others. These tips have been extraordinarily helpful to many both in their work and private lives. I hope that you will find them helpful. shine india magazine download

banking services chronicle magazine

 banking services chronicle magazine 

banking services chronicle magazine  Published this article  Similarly it is time we link climate change—the greatest lifestyle related catastrophe and health—with NCDs. We in our cities are certainly beginning to see how vector-borne diseases are growing because of the changes in weather. We know that heat and cold stress will grow making the poor more vulnerable. But it is not just for WHO to make this call. The fact is that of our institutions must confront this reality. The link between foul environment—our air water pollution mounds of garbage or toxins in food— and health is so evident that it is crying for solutions. There is no hiding from this anymore. The good news is that our health is also the only real trigger for environmental action. We will act to improve the environment when we know it impacts us directly. For instance today in Delhi there is outrage against the pollution in the air. This is because when there is public health emergency in winter—when pollution levels spiralled out of control—people have come to understand the link between toxins and our bodies. So people want change because now there is a link between environment and their health. This is important and different. From pesticide poisoning to water pollution this body connection has been harder to establish. Also unlike in water pollution we dont connect the dying river to our taps. And if we do there is always the option of installing a household water filter or just buying bottled water. banking services chronicle magazine

banking services chronicle magazine 

competition in focus arihant

 competition in focus arihant 

competition in focus arihant Published this article  Further optimising the E-waste recycling chain requires strict monitoring enforcement and tracking realization of economies of scale and global cooperation. Failing to address any of these elements will result in suboptimal resource efficiency while posing a risk to the environment. Enforcement of EPR targets and comprehensive monitoring of formal recycling flows and processes is a critical first step to avoid leakage of valuable materials to an uncontrolled informal sector. This monitoring will lead to the creation of a level playing field where all the stakeholders shall be held accountable for their actions during the process of collection dismantling processing extraction and recycling. Thus a stepwise approach is essential for optimizing the recycling chain during all stages of the process rather than only at the beginning or the end as the current policy advocates. All the steps involved in the recycling process should be critically benchmarked against international best practices to derive maximum financial environmental and resource efficiency. competition in focus arihant

competition in focus arihant 

competition wizard monthly magazine

 competition wizard monthly magazine

 competition wizard monthly magazine Publish this articles page no  These committees are mandated to have 50% women members.  It is a fact that Panchayats with greater women membership have performed better in projects like· drinking water supply sanitation etc. UN Report. Further a suitable representation of the weaker section of the society is there in the Pani Samiti.  Information Technology has been leveraged to collate and display real-time nationwide water· data on a portal www.ejalshakti.gov.in.  A Rashtriya Jal Jeevan Kosh RJJKis setup for accepting contributions from private players.· VAJIRAM AND RAVI Yojana Summary-April 2021 Page 6 WATER GOVERNANCE  The average annual precipitation of 3880 billion cubic meters BCM in India is highly variable both· in time and space.After evaporation we are left with about 2000 BCM of water. We cannot utilise this quantity in full owing to geological and other factors.  The utilisable water resources are about 1122 BCM 690 BCM or 61% surface water and 432· BCM or 39% groundwater.  The water resources utilised are about 700 BCM 450 BCM of surface water and 250 BCM of· groundwater. It is estimated that our annual requirement would be about 843 BCM in 2025 and 1180 BCM in 2050. Water Uses Statistics  About 78% of water utilised goes for agriculture 8% goes towards domestic use 6% is used· for industry and the remaining 8% goes towards other uses.  Indias per capita water availability is declining – it reduced from 1816 cubic meters in 2001 to· 1545 cubic meters in 2011. We are already in a water stressed situation defined by per capita availability of less than 1700 cubic meters. competition wizard monthly magazine

 

competition wizard monthly magazine