2015-2016 Committee Registration Form: Fill & Download for Free

Several Assamese have been protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which seeks to make foreign illegal migrants from some minority communities eligible for Indian citizenship. The proposed amendment is unprecedented, in the sense that that never before has religion been specifically identified in the citizenship law as the ground for distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens.[1]What is the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill?The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in July this year.The Bill amends the Citizenship Act, 1955 to make illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, eligible for citizenship.Under the previous Act, one of the requirements for citizenship by naturalisation is that the applicant must have resided in India during the last 12 months, and for 11 of the previous 14 years. The Bill relaxes this 11 year requirement to six years for persons belonging to the same six religions and three countries.The Bill provides that the registration of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholders may be cancelled if they violate any law.Why is it opposed?According to the Assam Accord of 1985, All those foreigners who had entered Assam between 1951 and 1961 were to be given full citizenship, including the right to vote. Those who had done so after 1971 were to be deported; the entrants between 1961 and 1971 were to be denied voting rights for ten years but would enjoy all other rights of citizenship. The Bill violates the Assam Accord.Besides, the Bill seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim minorities from Muslim majority countries, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Some term this move as “communally motivated humanitarianism.”Also, the Bill seeks to protect only non-Muslim minorities while Muslims who migrated would continue to be harassed as illegal migrants.The new Bill also violates Article 14 of the constitution, say activists. Since Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality to all persons, citizens and foreigners, differentiating between people on the grounds of religion would be in violation of the constitution.Legal Inadequacies of the Law:The proposed law violates India’s long-standing refugee policy. Although India does not have a codified refugee policy, the basic tenants of the scheme were listed by Jawaharlal Nehru during the Tibetan refugee crisis. One of the primary conditions given then was that refugees would have to return to their homeland once normalcy prevailed. The proposed law not only provides citizenship rights to such refugees, but greatly relaxes the procedure to avail of them.From reducing the registration fees to Rs 100 from Rs 3000 to delegating the authority from the Union government to district magistrate for speedy processing of applications, the proposed law serves citizenship to illegal immigrants on a platter.The Bill provides wide discretion to the government to cancel OCI registrations for both major offences like murder, as well as minor offences like parking in a no-parking zone or jumping a red light.How does it affect Assam?Since 1971, around 20 lakh Bengali Hindus have been living illegally in India. If the Bill is passed, an additional 1.70 crore Hindus living in Bangladesh (according to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2015) will come into India and get Indian citizenship as the Bill does not mention any cut-off date.[2]Assam has long resented the influx of Bangladeshi Muslims, citing pressure on its limited land and resources. To weed out migrants, the Assam Accord was signed in 1985, which says anyone who entered the state after 1971 would be considered an illegal resident.Assam's BJP Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal is under extreme pressure from regional ally Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) which propelled it to power in the state in 2016. Ahead of the state elections in Assam, the BJP had taken a tough stand on illegal migration. Now, the AGP is threatening to quit the alliance if the centre goes forward with the bill.The powerful All Assam Students Union, which led the Assam agitation of the 80s against illegal migrants, is spearheading the agitation against the bill in Guwahati and Shillong, which erupted over the weekend.[3]In the Bengali-dominated Barak Valley, a majority of the 315 opinions submitted to the JPC were in favour of the Bill, and people carrying placards formed a long human chain in its support.Leaders of the ruling BJP and the Opposition Congress supported the Bill, even as their counterparts had opposed it in the Brahmaputra Valley.Former Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi said that the state will not accept any more burdens of outsiders. Peasant organisation Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) said that the bill proposes to change the citizenship by birth to citizenship by religion. KMSS leader, Akhil Gogoi made a submission to JPC. “If 1.90 crore Hindu Bangladeshis come to Assam, it will jeopardise the political future of Assamese. We will not allow the political future of the indigenous people to be break. The committee has not included in its itinerary a visit to Northern Assam, the hill areas and the border areas. It has allotted just one day for whole of Brahmaputra valley,” he said. “Time allotted for the hearing is not sufficient. People have a lot to say about the proposed bill.” Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), an ally of the BJP-led Assam government, too opposed the bill. Party chief Atul Bora said it will divide the society. “Assam accord will be diluted. The bill is against the secular fabric,” he said. [4]Following the JPC hearings, protests had broken out in the Brahmaputra Valley against the Bill.Students organisations like AASU, AJYCP, ruling alliance partner AGP and the pro-talk ULFA faction organised mass agitational programmes.[5]In case the Bill is converted into an Act, illegal immigrants from different countries would be granted Indian citizenship and the immigrant population would pose a serious challenge to the demography of the North East region. Incessant influx of migrants has been posing serious threats to the indigenous people politically, socially and economically.Once the Bill is converted into Act and introduced in Assam, it would not be long before the same Act is introduced in all other North Eastern States and it may pave the way for converting the whole North East region as a dumping site for illegal immigrants.My opinionSince the act makes provisions only for six communities from three countries and excludes Muslims, Jews, Atheists and others; and thus raises a question if it would violate the article 14 (right to equality and discrimination on the basis of religion). The larger implications of this bill would be in North East where most illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are Muslims. The Centre’s claim that the bill seeks to protect minorities facing religious persecution doesn’t cut ice. If that were indeed the case, why keep out Muslim minority Rohingyas from Myanmar? The message that goes out is that India is willing to provide shelter to all except Muslims. Plus, unlike Israel which offers a home to all the Jews of the world, India is a secular country. So the equation of citizenship with certain religions is prima facie unconstitutional. India needs a rational citizenship programme for refugees that operates on a case by case basis irrespective of religious denomination.Footnotes[1] Insights into Editorial: Understanding issues of illegal migration in new Citizenship Bill - INSIGHTS[2] Citizenship (Amendment) Bill: Protests spread, under fire, CM Sarbananda Sonowal speaks up[3] Citizenship Bill Triggers Protests Across Assam, Allies Threaten To Quit[4] Thousands Hit Guwahati Streets Against Bill to Tweak Citizenship Act[5] https://www.news18.com/news/india/cm-sarbananda-sonowal-urges-peace-after-jpcs-visit-to-assam-on-citizenship-bill-2016-1746307.html

Dear Reader,History of GST, Historical Background of GST (Goods and Service Tax)Amaresh Baghchi Report, 1994Suggests that the introduction of “ Value Added Tax (VAT) ‘ will act as root for implementation of Goods and Services Tax in IndiaAshim Dasgupta, 2000Empowered committee, which introduces VAT System in 2005, which has replaced old age taxation system in India.Vijay Kelkar Task Force 2004,It strongly recommended that the integration of indirect taxes into the form of GST in India.Announcement of GST to be implemented by 1st April, 2010After successfully implementation of VAT system in India and suggestion of various committees and task forces on GST, the Union Government first time in Union Budget 2006-07 announced that the GST would be applicable from 1st April, 2010.The government has formed various Joint Working Groups of state finance ministers to study the impact of GST on the revenue of various States.The empowered committees of State Finance Ministers after various meetings reached on amicable formula for implementation of GST in India.Task force of Finance Ministers has submitted their report in December, 2009 on structure of GST in India.Government of India has issued first discussion paper in November, 2009.Constitution (115th Amendment) Bill introduced on 22nd March, 2011 and same was referred to Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance for discussion.Finance Minister in his speech announced that the GST will be rolled out by April, 2011.Constitution (122nd Amendment) Bill introduced in the Parliament in December, 2014;Since 115th Amendment Bill has been lapsed due completion of parliamentary terms. The Government of India has introduced Constitution (122nd Amendment) Bill on 19th December, 2014 the Lok Sabha has passed the bill on 6th May, 2015 but Bill is pending in Rajya Sabha.GST Bill Passed in Rajya Sabha on 3rd August 2016 (03-08-2016)When GST is Applicable – Modi Government Want to applicable GST Bill From 1st July 2017, Due to Some Legal Problems GST Bill is not applicable before 1st July 2017.The Objectives of GST, it’s implementation and Impact will make you clear that it’s good or bad-The tax revenue mix can change as per the economic condition of the country. In developing countries, indirect taxes comprise a higher share of total taxes; in developed countries, their contribution is significantly lower.1. Petroleum products2. Entertainment and amusement tax levied and collected by panchayat /municipality/district council3. Tax on alcohol/liquor consumption4. Stamp duty, customs duty5. Tax on consumption and sale of electricityGST objectives:-1. Ensuring availability of input credit across the value chain2. Minimizing cascading effect of taxation3. Simplification of tax administration and compliance4. Harmonization of tax base, laws, and administration procedures across the country5. Minimizing tax rate slabs to avoid classification issues6. Prevention of unhealthy competition among states7. Increasing the tax base and raising compliance.Implementation challenges:-1. Lack of adaptation2. Lack of trained staff3. Double registration can increase compliance and cost4. Lack of clear mechanism to control tax evasion5. Hard to estimate the exact impact of GST.For more knowledge regarding Implementation click here.Impact on inflation:-Under the proposed GST, effective tax rate on goods (comprising around 70-75 per cent of the CPI basket) will decline.A significant proportion (35-40 per cent) of goods (majorly agriculture products) are not subject to tax and we expect a status quo in future.At present, services-oriented components constitute ~25-30 per cent of the CPI basket with a major share belonging to housing, transport and communication sector. Service tax is not imposed on certain (12 per cent of the CPI basket) services and these services are expected remain exempt under GST regime. A hike in tax rate on services is unlikely to have any material direct impact on CPI. For more knowledge about the impact of GST click here.

'What are some ways to encourage pharmaceutical companies to share their data? Who will be the key stakeholders involved and what roles do they play?'Why is clinical trial data transparency and sharing important? Regulators use this data to approve new drugs and only relatively recently has the general public become aware of the extent to which such decisions hinge on handpicked data sets while an unknown amount remain unpublished, in both clinical trial registries as well as in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If a drug's approved based on part, not all, of the data on it, how could we be sure it's as effective and safe as claimed?This answer addresses the roles, responsibilities and incentives of both academia and biopharma since both are involved in the discussion on clinical trial data sharing and data transparency. Key stakeholders in clinical trial data include both decision makers as well as hapless participants who still aren't part of the decision making process.Decision makers are regulators, scientists, academia, biopharma and science publishing, all of whom have in recent years fostered the notion through regulations and abundant posturing that the entire biomedical research ecosystem from individual investigators on to entities that fund and publish their research is in favor of data transparency and keen to share clinical trial data with peers, partners and maybe even the general public (1).Unfortunately, studies continue to find that a substantial portion of data from completed clinical trials never see the light of day (2, 3). Such analyses also show the rule-makers themselves to be big-time rule-breakers.IMO understanding the main obstacles that prevent clinical trial data sharing from becoming the norm helps understand the kind of policy prescriptions necessary to bring about change.Perverse incentives and absence of tangible incentives for data sharing keep scientists chained to a hyper-competitive, publish-or-perish, winner take all attitude to the scientific data they generate. Their promotions, tenures and grants are decided by their publication, not their data sharing, record (4).Regulators (FDA, EMA, etc.), employers (research institutions, universities) and funders (governments, foundations, academia, industry) remain stubbornly blind to how data sharing remains antithetical to what it takes to forge a successful scientific career.In a scientific culture that prizes originality and novelty above all, scientists currently do not benefit from sharing their data or by mining other people's data to glean new insights simply because funders, journals and employers presently do not similarly reward them as they do those who publish original and novel data generated from their own studies.Total data transparency weakens incentive for drug repurposing, Drug repositioning - Wikipedia, which has increasingly become a lifeline that sustains biopharma revenue in an age where new products have become increasingly expensive and time-consuming to roll out (5, 6).Proposed regulatory solutions fail to adequately address need to protect trade secrets and proprietary information, and do not provide requisite relief and mitigation. Rather, they ignore the real constraints that both academia and biopharma face today and instead exhort them to share data by paternalistically highlighting obligations to volunteer participants. Ignoring such real constraints might instead serve to foster a backlash in the form of inventive expansions of what actually constitute trade secrets and proprietary information, a reaction that would end up helping no one.A systematic review found 85 opinion pieces on the importance of developing incentives for researchers to share their data but fewer studies, 76, that actually tested approaches to increase data sharing (7). Most of the approaches tested entailed mere tinkering around the edges and nothing substantive.Clearly, a substantial gap exists between stated intent and actual actions. Data sharing needs to become part of clinical trial design and a critical aspect for scientific career progression (1). Typically, researchers plan a study with the intention of analyzing the data and publishing a peer-reviewed report upon completion. No thought is given to how the data will be stored such that it's easy to share so others can re-analyze it and neither is data sharing deemed merit-worthy for a scientist's career progression.Clinical trial participants are MIA in these discussions. No clinical trial participants, no clinical trial, no results, no new drugs. As simple as that. Given they're so central to this issue, why are trial participants nowhere to be seen or heard in this debate (8)?Paternalism continues to dominate the biomedicine culture but the general public's passivity and apathy makes it equally culpable.In recent decades, patient and disease advocacy groups have started notching impressive wins and gained accelerated access to new therapies, HIV/AIDS and cancer being cases in point. However, the weakness inherent to the tactics these groups have used thus far is to focus not on the totality but rather narrowly only on enhancing the speed of the drug approval process. Doing so ended up with regulators and drugmakers both cutting corners in the decision making process whereas fighting to get a seat at the table through legislative and regulatory means would have had a far more consequential and beneficial effect with respect to data sharing and transparency.Rest of this answer detailsA recap of regulations mandating clinical trial data be reported and published.Efforts to change the status quo by Ben Goldacre - Wikipedia, the reigning enfant terrible in the clinical trial space, and his collaborative initiative, AllTrials - Wikipedia.Quick recap of recent regulatory developments in the US clinical trial space as well as important global players1997: Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 - Wikipedia is passed. The FDAMA led to the creation of ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia, currently the world’s largest online clinical trial registry.2000: ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia comes online, maintained by United States National Library of Medicine - Wikipedia (NLM), a permanent institute within the US NIH.2007: Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 - Wikipedia is passed. The FDAAA mandates the following (9),All applicable clinical trials to be prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov - Wikipedia.Data should include information on study participants, summary outcomes, particularly adverse events.Mandatory publication of trial results upon completion.Section 801 of FDAAA establishes penalties for non-compliance. For example, US $10000 per day if trial results not posted within 12 months of completion.Applicable trials entail those other than Phase I and with at least one study site in the US.Limitations of FDAAA that end up excluding data on vast majority of treatments in use today,Excludes clinical trial results obtained pre-2007.Only requires publication of trials completed after 2008.Not to mention strikingly unenforced.In response to poor compliance with these reporting requirements, US regulators tightened perceived ambiguity and issued what is called the Final Rule in September 2016 (10).Also note that the US FDA has dismantled patient protections with regard to international clinical trials. Declaration of Helsinki - Wikipedia is the international code of medical ethics which stresses that everyone involved in a clinical trial has a duty to make the findings public. Specifically, in 2009 after years of insisting that companies applying for marketing authorization for a drug in the US needed to provide evidence that all foreign trials had been compliant with the Helsinki declaration, the FDA diluted its position by pegging such trials to the much lower standard of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines (11). As Goldacre points out,These guidelines are only voted on by members of the EU, USA and Japan.They are more focused on procedures while Helsinki focuses on moral principles.Over the years, GCP has become the main ethical regulation of trials in the developing world, a sign of expediency trumping Informed consent - Wikipedia.This kind of thinking is penny-wise, pound-foolish since no matter the experimental drugs in question get initially tested on non-US populations, once approved in the US, they'd be consumed by Americans, no?The WHO. Mainly soft not hard power. On May 18, 2017, major research funders across the world, now numbering 21, released a statement on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform pledging to implement self-avowed policies and impose audits to ensure trials they fund are reported (12). US regulators notably MIA in this statement. As the global public health organization of record, the WHO has substantial soft power it could bring to bear in mediating or nudging organizations that fail to measure up during periodic audits.The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors): ICMJE recommendations - Wikipedia. It announced in 2005 that (see below from 13),'The ICMJE member journals will require, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry. Trials must register at or before the onset of patient enrollment. This policy applies to any clinical trial starting enrollment after July 1, 2005. For trials that began enrollment before this date, the ICMJE member journals will require registration by September 13, 2005, before considering the trial for publication.'With 16 journal members In 2017, up from 11 in 2004, ~3300 journals now reportedly follow ICMJE recommendations. To neutralize a perceived barrier to publication, ICMJE allows trial results to be posted to clinical trial registries (14, 15).Ben Goldacre - Wikipedia & The AllTrials EffortA physician by training who morphed into a journalist, writer and activist, Ben Goldacre is well-known in his native Britain for his two polemics, Bad Science (book) - Wikipedia and Bad Pharma - Wikipedia. His energizer bunny-like advocacy wedded to a keen sense of the fierce urgency of now makes him a compelling figure while his writing, though often hyperbolic, manages to remain engaging even when analyzing hard science or posting trenchant criticisms of prevailing policies and pervasive conflicts of interests among the deciders in the clinical trial space.Through the collaborative launch of AllTrials, Goldacre is expending yeoman effort to upend the inimical status quo of cherry-picked clinical trial data often serving as the basis for new drug approval, leaving the rest hidden and unpublished.Unlike the FDAAA, AllTrials calls for registration and publication of all clinical trials on all treatments in current use. AllTrials' definition of publication includes full reporting of methods as well as publication of negative data.As of December 2017, a total of 735 organizations from all over the world have joined AllTrials while 91006 people have signed the AllTrials petition (16). On the one hand, this seems promising.OTOH, 622 organizations and 87956 petitioners as of 24 April, 2016 (see page 7 of 17) means over 20 months, 113 organizations but only 3050 additional individuals signed a petition supporting this initiative.Clearly, there's a sharp contrast between institutional and individual participation in the AllTrials effort. Such an anemic individual participation rate only underscores how passive and apathetic even patients and disease advocacy groups remain about one of the most critical aspects of biomedicine, namely, transparency of clinical trial data.Bibliography1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK269030/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK269030.pdf2. Tirumalai Kamala's answer to Why are some clinical trials finished, but the results not reported?3. Tirumalai Kamala's answer to Why are some clinical trials finished, but the results not reported?4. Friesike, Sascha, and Thomas Schildhauer. "Open science: many good resolutions, very few incentives, yet." Incentives and Performance. Springer International Publishing, 2015. 277-289.5. Brassington, Iain. "The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials." British medical bulletin 121.1 (2017): 19-29. ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials | British Medical Bulletin | Oxford Academic6. Baghai, Tabassom. "Lack of clinical trial data transparency and current solutions." University of Ottawa Journal of Medicine 7.1 (2017). https://ottawa.scholarsportal.info/ojs/index.php/uojm-jmuo/article/download/2021/18617. Rowhani-Farid, Anisa, Michelle Allen, and Adrian G. Barnett. "What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review." Research Integrity and Peer Review 2.1 (2017): 4. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9?site=researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com8. Haug, Charlotte J. "Whose Data Are They Anyway? Can a Patient Perspective Advance the Data-Sharing Debate?." New England Journal of Medicine 376.23 (2017): 2203-2205. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp17044859. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/html/PLAW-110publ85.htm10. National Institutes of Health. "Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission. Final rule." Federal register 81.183 (2016): 64981. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-09-21/pdf/2016-22129.pdf11. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf12. http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/ICTRP_JointStatement_2017.pdf13. De Angelis, Catherine, et al. "Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors." (2004): 1250-1251. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMe04822514. http://icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf15. Dal‐Ré, Rafael. "The ICMJE trial data sharing requirement and participant's consent." European journal of clinical investigation (2016).16. Supporters17. Breil, Thomas, et al. "An Assessment of Publication Status of Pediatric Liver Transplantation Studies." PloS one 11.12 (2016): e0168251. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168251&type=printableThanks for the R2A, Jeffrey Brender.