Arunachal govt to set up community radio stations in all dists
2
Itanagar: Arunachal Pradesh govt is pushing forward with a plan to establish community radio stations (CRSs) in all the districts, with a strong focus on enhancing grassroots communication, disseminating govt policies effectively and promoting local socio-economic and cultural development.
The move aims to transform the way information reaches communities by adopting a two-way communication model that values both outreach and feedback.
Information and public relations secretary Nyali Ete, through a video conference on Friday, addressed all the deputy commissioners to discuss the strategic rollout of the CRSs, an official statement said. Ete emphasised that these stations will not treat districts as homogenous units but will instead cater to the distinct needs of multiple communities within each district.
He said CRSs will serve as vital conduits for both spreading information and gathering community input, which can, in turn, shape policy decisions.
Senior officials including, IPR director Gijum Tali, deputy director Marbang Ezing, photographic officer Manoj Bhattacharjee and DGM of Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL) Khuswinder Singh Bhatia, attended the meeting.
Key principles outlined by Ete include the requirement that CRSs be operated by non-profit entities to ensure credibility and public trust, and that at least 50 per cent of the broadcast content must be localised, featuring official information, community-driven discussions and participation through talk shows.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
The Sisyphean quest to bolster manufacturing in India
78 Years of Freedom The Narendra Modi government's quest to bolster the domestic manufacturing sector is not the first time a government has tried this. In fact, the manufacturing sector has been the focus of government policy — in one way or the other — ever since 1956, to relatively modest success. At the time of Independence or thereabouts, the Indian economy looked very different from its current state both in terms of size as well as composition. At the time, agriculture was the overwhelmingly dominant driver of the economy, contributing about half of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as per data with the Reserve Bank of India. The nascent manufacturing sector, on the other hand, made up about 11% of the GDP. Now, the services sector has taken over the dominant role vacated by agriculture, while manufacturing has remained largely where it was. The first Five Year Plan (1951-56) focused on the idea of increasing domestic savings, since it was presumed that higher savings would directly translate into higher investments. This policy, however, ran into a fundamental problem: investments could not materially increase as the country did not have a domestic capital goods producing sector. The second Five Year Plan (1956-61), based on the ideas of PC Mahalanobis, and successive Plans sought to address this by increasing investments in the capital goods producing sectors themselves. The idea was to increase government investment in capital goods production, while the micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) would cater to the consumer goods market. As the economist and professor Aditya Bhattacharjea noted in a paper published in Springer Nature: 'With long-run growth being seen as the means for reducing widespread poverty, the model provided an intellectual justification for increasing investments in the capital goods sector of a labour-abundant country.' So, what followed was that growth rates of both investment in and output of the machinery, metals, and chemicals industries outpaced those of consumer goods industries. The Mahalanobis model did not incorporate specific industry-wise policies, but it had a few broad themes that came to characterise India's industrial policy over the country's first three decades since Independence. The first and most obvious theme was the huge role of the public sector. The feeling at the time was — not unlike what the Modi government felt in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic — that private sector investment would not be picking up the load for some time, and so the public sector would have to do the heavy lifting. The 1948 Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) reserved the production of arms and ammunition for the Union government, and new investments in sectors as diverse as iron and steel, aircraft, ships, telephone, telegraph and wireless equipment were kept as the exclusive domain of central public sector enterprises. The 1956 IPR, which came after the historic Avadi session of the Indian National Congress in 1955, expanded the reserved list to 14 sectors. The driving ideology was that the government and the public sector would assume the 'commanding heights' of the economy. The second and equally significant theme of this thought process was the use of licensing as a means to ensure that scarce resources were allocated to priority sectors. Third, the belief was that the domestic industry would need to be protected from international competition, and this protection took the form of high tariffs — something U.S. President Donald Trump seems to have a problem with even today — and import licensing. By 1980, the share of manufacturing in India's GDP had grown to about 16-17%. According to some economists like Pulapre Balakrishnan, the real growth in the manufacturing sector took off from here, and not from the 1991 liberalisation, as is often assumed. This, they said, was due to a few policy changes enacted by the government of the time: allowing up to 25% automatic expansion of licensed capacities, allowing manufacturing licences to be used to produce other items within the same broad industrial category, and significant relaxation of price controls on cement and steel. The 1991 reforms and the resultant end of the 'licence raj', the opening up of the economy to the private sector and international competition further helped things, with the manufacturing sector growing strongly and contributing a steady 15-18% of a rapidly-growing GDP till about 2015. Steep fall That year saw a marked change, however, with the share of manufacturing in GDP consistently falling for the next decade. A major reason for this change was the non-performing assets (NPA) crisis in the banking sector. Profligate lending by banks in the 2009-14 period led to a build-up of bad loans, which came to light in 2015-18 following an Asset Quality Review of the banking sector. Such was the crisis and its fallout that bank lending to large industry virtually dried up. This, coupled with the loan-fuelled over-capacity that had been created during the 2009-14 period meant that companies did not need to invest in additional capacity to meet demand, and could not find adequate credit even if they wanted to invest. Underpinning all of this was the increased reliance on imports from China, which virtually converted large parts of Indian manufacturing into assembly and repackaging units. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic also severely hampered both demand and investments in India. The Modi government's Make in India efforts, thus, could not prevent the share of manufacturing in GDP falling from 15.6% in 2015-16 to 12.6% in 2024-25 — the lowest share in 71 years. Another problem faced by the Modi government, something all previous governments also faced, was that a lot of the reforms to drive manufacturing were needed at the State level. So, while the Union government has put in place the framework for land and labour reforms that could potentially increase the scale of Indian manufacturing, they are held up as most State governments are not cooperating. The services sector, on the other hand, has gone from strength to strength on the back of the IT boom. So, where services made up 37% of the GDP in 1950, this grew to 42% by 1996-97. Thereafter, the acceleration was rapid, with the sector now making up nearly 58% of the GDP. So, 78 years after Independence, the manufacturing sector remains an also-ran in India's growth story, despite fervent attempts by government after government. The services sector, on the other hand, has blossomed outside the government's focus.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Current trends in India's patenting landscape
In 2023, 3.55 million patent applications were filed worldwide. In India, 90,298 applications were recorded that year, marking an increase of 17.2% from 2022 and 25.2% from 2021. Over 50% of these applications originated from Indian residents, highlighting growing domestic innovation. Despite these year-on-year improvements, however, India continues to lag behind countries like China, the US, and Japan both in terms of absolute numbers, and applications filed and granted that are domestic in origin. This brief examines the patent-related challenges in India, administrative inefficiencies, weaknesses in the domestic innovation ecosystem, the current status of patent filing in the country, capacities in patent boosting and performance, and inconsistencies across state-level patent incentives. The brief proposes targeted reforms. Most students in the city are unaware of intellectual property rights (IPR) and did not file patents for their research work.(Photo used for representational purpose) Patents help drive innovation and economic growth. For India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi envisions a techade powered by the country's young innovators, with patent filings breaking records and startups thriving across tier-2 and tier-3 cities. The recent surge in patent registrations in India, up by 50% in five years, and a climb to the 39th position in the Global Innovation Index 2024 highlight India's progress and ambitions to lead globally in patents and innovation. At the time of writing, the Government of India was drafting a strategic blueprint to institutionalise IP financing, improve credit availability, and enable businesses to leverage IP to raise capital. With intangible assets accounting for 85% of the S&P 500 valuation, India is working to create a uniform IP valuation system and appointing IP evaluators to boost IP-backed financing, generate awareness, and alleviate risk aversion among financial institutions. India's aspirations also extend to achieving a tenth of global patents in sixth-generation mobile services through the Bharat 6G Alliance, building on its achievements as the world's second largest mobile phone producer and the one with the fastest 5G network rollout. These initiatives build on India's National IPR Policy, which prioritises knowledge-driven development, emphasising IP commercialisation, human resource development, and stronger IPR administration. This brief analyses the current status of patent filing in India and contrasts it with other countries. Individual Indian states' patent-boosting and performance are also discussed to contextualise India's position, capacity, and performance in patent filing and granting, and the targets it must aim to achieve. This paper can be accessed here. This paper is authored by Debajyoti Chakravarty, ORF, New Delhi.
Indian Express
26-07-2025
- Indian Express
India stuck to TRIPS and domestic law in UK deal, says official amid drug access concerns
India has not gone beyond the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement or domestic law in the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)-related deal with the UK, a senior government official said on Saturday after trade experts raised concerns stating that India had moved away from its conventional position on IPR in the UK trade deal. The 'Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment' and trade experts pointed out that the UK deal has provisions tilting in favour of patent holders since they bring the issuance of compulsory licences — a critical tool to ensure access to affordable life-saving medicines — under greater scrutiny and constraints. 'In the IPR chapter, India has not breached the TRIPS agreement and is in compliance with domestic law. Only best practices that do not infringe on domestic laws have been adopted. Sharing of information and several such elements are part of the deal,' the government official said. The Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment is a network of patients, activists and professionals working towards access to affordable medicines in India. It said the UK-India FTA provisions on patents tilt the balance in favour of the patent owner and undermine access to medicines. 'There is a progressive movement towards accepting the demands of FTA partners, which is systematically debasing the public interest safeguards available in the Indian Patents Act. Article 13.6, stating the understandings regarding TRIPS and public health measures, clearly places voluntary mechanisms such as voluntary licensing as the preferred and optimal route to promote access to medicines,' the working group said. Biswajit Dhar, a trade policy expert with the Council for Social Development, said that the provisions in the UK deal favouring voluntary licences leave access to medicines in the hands of market forces and undermine the role of the government in facilitating access. 'Further, it also gives a clear signal to potential compulsory licence applicants that they are not welcome. Often, voluntary licences contain onerous conditions on the licensee and fail to bring sharp price reductions compared to compulsory licences,' Dhar said. 'There are also provisions in the IP chapter which can potentially undermine the safeguards preventing evergreening of patents. Though couched in best endeavour language, there is a provision to 'facilitate the sharing and use of search and examination work of the Parties'. The implementation of this provision would lead to the harmonisation of patentability criteria and undermine safeguards against evergreening, such as Section 3(d) of the Patents Act,' said K M Gopakumar, co-convenor of the Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment. Compared to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) IP chapter, this chapter shows further movement towards strengthening the interests of patent holders at the cost of access to medicines. The implementation of these provisions reduces the ability of the central and state governments to fulfil their constitutional obligation on the right to health, the working group said.
