Citizens' Issues
New study exposes NGO’s climate smart agriculture as fraudulent!

Present ‘climate science’ has no clue of ‘monsoon behaviour’ because uncertainties are so huge that makes its prediction highly challenging. If this being the case how agricultural solutions from NGOs would be climate smart?


"Understanding how the South Asian monsoon will change in response to global warming and resolving the uncertainties in projected changes are ‘demanding tasks’ for climate science.”
The extract is from a study published in the 24th June issue of “Nature Climate Change” - a sister journal of the world's  most cited scientific publication - Nature. The study had been authored by Andrew Turner, National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, University of Reading and co-authored by Hari Subramaniam Annamalai, International Pacific Research Centre, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Hawaii.
If we were to go by Oxfam’s policy document - Growing Better Future or ActionAid’s - ‘On the Brink or the ICRIER-Gene Campaign Policy Paper 16: 'Impact of Climate Agriculture & Food Security', all based on the so called Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) paradigm, we can’t be faulted to be left with an impression that CSA is a magic wand wherein all solutions are known and further these NGOs have actually the in situ capability to translate these into action!
But wait a minute. What did this new “Nature Climate Change” study actually find? Let’s read their opening sentence once again:
“Understanding how the South Asian monsoon will change in response to global warming and resolving the uncertainties in projected changes are ‘demanding tasks’ for climate science.”

Translated:  Present ‘climate science’ has no clue of ‘monsoon behaviour’ because uncertainties are so huge that makes its prediction highly challenging!

If this being the case, how climate smart can these NGO agricultural solutions be?

So on what basis has the Nature Climate Change study made such a conclusion? This is what is given as an explanation:
“Current state-of-the-art general circulation models have difficulty simulating the regional distribution of monsoon rainfall...”

“But, variations within each season, over timescales of a few days or weeks, often have large impacts on agriculture or water supply...”

"Perhaps the single biggest scientific challenge is in understanding monsoon variability at intra-seasonal timescales (several weeks), the so-called active and break events in the monsoon, and how they will change in the future"...”

A few days ago, India Today interviewed my Facebook pal, GV Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director of Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) on the issue of the monsoon playing truant. And this is what Ramanjaneyulu expressed as the problem during this interview:
"There are areas which are hit by drought every year, but still there is no contingency plan...The plan should be, say, if rain is delayed for 15 days, what is the plan B? If it is delayed for 30 days, what is plan C?"

I wrote back cheekily perhaps he should target his ire at NGOs like Oxfam, ActionAid or Gene Campaign, as only they could audaciously claim they were climate smarties and not government agencies like the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD). I added that in the past farmers used to give specific names to weekly rainfall according to which they took decisions what crop and variety to plant. Thus in the past these decisions were made on the basis of soil fertility; irrigation potential and monsoon behaviour. Now the same decisions are driven by market or profit maximization impulses which makes monsoon forecasting, as difficult as it is, a prerequisite for climate smart agriculture.

But NGOs instead of developing monsoon forecasting skills choose to belittle the IMD’s chequered forecasting track record. Take for example Devinder Sharma who pompously projects himself as an international food security analyst in an article a couple of days in the Deccan Herald wrote:
“In 2009 when India was faced with one of its worst droughts, the monsoon forecast was for an 'almost normal' rainfall season.”

You must have heard of the meteorological department’s monsoon forecast. It promises to be a near normal monsoon season from June-September with rains expected to be 98% of the long period average with a 5% variation.

Sounds good.

But if you are a farmer, keep your fingers crossed. Instead of depending on the first monsoon forecast that was given out in April, I suggest you keep on praying before rain gods to be kind to you. Pray with folded hands that the rains do not deceive you once again as it did two years back in 2009. You haven’t yet recovered from the economic distress that the 2009 drought had inflicted, and if the monsoon fails again you will be in dire straits.


By the same logic we can ask votaries of CSA such as Devinder Sharma, how they can claim that their agriculture practices are climate smart even when they are unable to forecast monsoon behaviour. This trait cuts across all foreign funded NGOs. All pretend climate smartness even when they have no clue on how the monsoon will behave. If the IMD’s wrong monsoon forecasts can hurt farmers bad, even more so agricultural practices that are not aligned with monsoon behaviour, even if they are foolishly assumed as being so.

The “Nature Climate Change” study goes further to observe:
“Current state-of-the-art general circulation models have difficulty simulating the regional distribution of monsoon rainfall”.
But it is the same GCM models that predict that global temperatures will increase 4-8 deg C by 2100, the primary problem that CSA bases itself to address.  If the GCM model is unreliable for seasonal forecasts, how then is it considered reliable for a 100 year forecast?

The “Nature Climate Change” study concludes:
“Models linking monsoon responses to global warming suggest a rise in monsoon rainfall, but there is a high degree of uncertainty in these projections. Observations from data sets from most areas indicate a declining trend or no change in monsoons, contrary to the projected rise.”
Climate is average weather for a period now taken as 30 years. Now if a model cannot predict this season’s monsoon, how climate smart can be the solutions based on such models? Rather than finding appropriate solutions to a changing climate, all these NGOs have to offer are standardized solutions which are assumed as being appropriate for whatever directions the climate shifts! And they call this illogical outlook - “Sustainable Development”!

So next time you hear a foreign funded NGO staff waxing eloquent of CSA, you should now be able to recognize them for what they really are - either imbecile idiots parroting lines that they have no clue about or just sleek PR artists aiming to con you!

To read more details of the “Nature Climate Change” study, click here




Rajan Alexander

4 years ago

Hi Andy!

Thank you very much for taking the time to make a detailed rejoinder. But let me react.

1. "The scientific evidence (from basic theory and from a large number of climate modelling experiments) clearly suggests that as a whole monsoon rainfall will increase somewhat in the future and due to the expected increase in atmospheric moisture there is some evidence that rain will fall in heavier bursts. Such changes point to increased risk of flooding."

The AGW theory states that global warming induces an increase in global precipitation through the augmentation of water evaporation. Warmer seas should heat up the monsoon winds that carry moisture from the ocean to the land. In turn, warmer winds should carry more moisture, so warmer oceans should lead to more rain. This should in turn imply that global relative humidity and evaporation levels should increase. Unfortunately relative humidity and evaporation rates remain lower than normal. This is amazing as they offer themselves as perfect proxy for global temperatures.

In 2005, NASA boss James Hansen stated in an article in the journal ‘Science’ that confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the oceans which are the principal reservoir for excess energy.

A problem for the AGW hypothesis now is that the oceans have been cooling as measurements from thousands of Argo sensors floating on the sea indicate. So the lame explanation that:

“Overall, the missing heat doesn't change expectations for future climate change, because the heat won't stay missing forever. Eventually it will resurface and impact the climate system, and the recent and deceptive reprieve from rapid warming we've enjoyed will come to an expected end.”

Indeed there is no known mechanism to account for what some describe as vast amounts of missing heat, suggesting that contrary to the AGW hypothesis, heat is not accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer any radiative imbalance from all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD)'s statistical model skill level is 22% and their new dynamic model (modified CPC-NCEP-US) is 26%. This means their odds of success is one out of 4 or 5. This is after nearly 200 years of existence. Now if the "climate smart" community has anything to offer to fill this vacuum, then this is the time they should demonstrate. No one dares to even to attempt to provide an alternate forecast. The proof in the pudding as they say is eating it.

Like to add Andy, a couple of years ago, Indian Inst of Science Bangalore, India's premier science institution, fed all monsoon data for 20th century and tried to hindcast using the IPCC GCM models. They were no where near the mark. A detailed discuss on models can be found in the link I previously provided

For all your other comments please visit my previous post: Critique: ICRIER-GC Policy Paper on Climate, Agriculture & Food Security: Climate, Agriculture & Food Security

Andy Turner

4 years ago

The article “New study exposes NGO’s climate smart agriculture as fraudulent!” paints an extremely distorted picture of our Nature Climate Change review article (Climate Change and the South Asian Monsoon, Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate1495), blatantly misrepresents the science and implies a viewpoint that we have not presented and do not support.

The article states that “climate science has no clue of monsoon behaviour”- this is patently untrue. The scientific evidence (from basic theory and from a large number of climate modelling experiments) clearly suggests that as a whole monsoon rainfall will increase somewhat in the future and due to the expected increase in atmospheric moisture there is some evidence that rain will fall in heavier bursts. Such changes point to increased risk of flooding.

However, there is a considerable range in the magnitude of the projected increase in rainfall and climate models do not agree on the local detail of how rainfall might change within South Asia. It is often such local detail that is most relevant when planning how to adapt to climate change, e.g., in the agriculture and infrastructure sectors. These disagreements between climate models are due to inaccuracies in the way current models represent some of the small scale physical processes, in part related to a lack of quality observations to constrain the models. As we argue in the Nature Climate Change paper, more reliable predictions of the future will be made when models can better simulate the local features of the monsoon and its variability on a range of timescales – from days to weeks and more. Such improvements are the focus of current monsoon research.

Your article also perpetuates the old fallacy that one cannot predict the future climate many years ahead while there are still difficulties at making weather forecasts in the next days and weeks. The science of climate change is about “expected changes in the probability of occurrences of certain weather events” such as monsoon droughts and floods; as models improve in conjunction with our better understanding of the physical system, we are in the right direction to reduce the uncertainties in future projections – this is doable as climate community has demonstrated the tremendous accomplishment in the few decades in understanding and predicting, for example, El Niño events.

On the issue of Climate Smart Agriculture, of which we do not comment in our review, a cornerstone seems to be to enhance resilience and improve adaptation strategies. In our opinion, what better way to do this than improve the way that farmers adapt to variability in the current climate? The sort of floods or breaks in the monsoon that occur in recent and indeed all monsoon seasons have much larger impacts than the projected signals of future mean climate. The key to dealing with the changing climate will be to make sure that the adaptation strategies are themselves adaptable. In other words being able to adapt to current variations allows farmers and others to be able to make decisions even in the face of uncertainty in the climate models.

Dr Andy Turner, Dr. H. Annamalai and Kathy Maskell


4 years ago

The point of most "climate smart agriculture"is to help farmers SURVIVE the weather that is becoming too difficult to predict.

As the author mentions, monsoon season, once upon a time, was fairly stable. As that becomes less so, NGOs are trying to assist farmers in making the transition from a predictable climate to one that is markedly less so.

Basically, climate smart agriculture works to minimize the adverse impacts of wild weather on farmers. Not sure how that could be fraudulent.


Rajan Alexander

In Reply to Phil 4 years ago

@ Phil: "As the author mentions, monsoon season, once upon a time, was fairly stable. As that becomes less so, NGOs are trying to assist farmers in making the transition from a predictable climate to one that is markedly less so."

No where in my article I said. The official data consisting of 200 year record of GoI says that there is any significant change in the monsoon mean values.

It has to be appreciated that the phenomenon of monsoons are not fully understood, leave alone predicted successfully. The monsoons, by character, exhibit a wide range of natural variability on the spatial, temporal, intra-seasonal, inter-annual and decadal scale that characterise its pattern of distribution, frequency and intensity of rainfall. The monsoon has always had its natural vagaries and it is going to show them in future too.

That does not mean that human's are responsible for such changes

Rajan Alexander

In Reply to Rajan Alexander 4 years ago

Correction: No where in my article I said. The official data consisting of 200 year record of GoI says that there is any significant change in the monsoon mean values."

It should read as follows:

No where in my article I said THAT. The official data consisting of 200 year record of GoI says that there is NO significant change in the monsoon mean values."

Devinder Sharma

4 years ago

I am disappointed by the snide remarks made against me, Suman Sahay or Dr Ramoo of CSA. I have never called myself International food Security expert. Nor is it fair to deride the significant contribution made by Suman Sahay of Gene Campaign and Dr Ramoo of CSA.

I expect Sucheta Dalal to look into this.


Rajan Alexander

In Reply to Devinder Sharma 4 years ago

Devinder. For the record, I have not made any disparaging remarks on Suman Sahai. I did mention Gene Campaign. To equate the two is something like the slogan India is Indira and Indira is India.

As for Ramoo, I have sought a clarification from him through email exchanges. He confirmed my article did not offend him.

Thanx for the clarification. You are not a food security analyst. I thought so

Gyan Mitra

In Reply to Devinder Sharma 4 years ago

DISAPPOINTED ? WHY ? It just means you are a SIGNIFICANT player in the discussion :) Some of your thoughts are refreshing which you are unafraid to convey. You challenge the grain and this is necessary for ultimately, the farmer needs simple solutions & not Nobel winning theories.


4 years ago

Just as a casino cannot predict the next spin of a roulette wheel, but can predict it will win in the long run, it is possible to predict a long term climate trend without knowing what individual seasons will bring.

In both situations, the trend is determined even though the individual component events are not.

This is well-known and widely discussed, not only in the professional climate literature but also in broadly accessible outreach reports.

You have some other points that may or may not be worthy of consideration, but your multiple repetitions of this plainly incorrect argument do not help the credibility of your position.


Rajan Alexander

In Reply to mtobis 4 years ago

"Just as a casino cannot predict the next spin of a roulette wheel, but can predict it will win in the long run, it is possible to predict a long term climate trend without knowing what individual seasons will bring.

In both situations, the trend is determined even though the individual component events are not."

But we never know whether theory is validated as how many of us will be around till 2100 to verify?

Now your logic is fallacious at least for the common farmer. They need to adapt for current climatic changes and not for a long term climate trend though individual seasons which may or may not reflect the long term trend. That's being entirely puerile.

But what we know is that more than 20 years have passed since IPCC AR1 Report 1990 and this is sufficient time to verify. They missed their mark by a mile

The latest SREX IPCC Report AR5 t acknowledged that the prospect of any global warming, leave alone accelerated warming, does not seem even probable during the next 2-3 decades!:

...climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability".

If global warming for the next 2-3 decades are expected to be on vacation, why adapt for it now. If it re-surfaces during our life time, let's think of it then.

Big foreclosure compensation, but only for the right wrongs in the US

Last month, the government released information on the compensation victims of the banks' foreclosure practices might receive. For homeowners, it turns out that it's crucially important just how the bank messed up.

Can you put a price on the damage caused by a wrongful foreclosure? Banking regulators have. And it’s $125,000. Or $60,000. Or $15,000. Or… it’s unclear.

Last November, banking regulators launched a process to force the big banks to compensate homeowners victimized by their foreclosure abuses. Many crucial details remained unclear, including how much victims might receive.

More than seven months later, regulators finally released a “framework” that shows some of the possible outcomes. It’s a list of thirteen mortgage servicing “errors,” each with its own associated form of compensation. In addition to fixing the bank’s errors, remedies include cash payments ranging from $500 all the way up to $125,000.


It turns out that, for homeowners seeking compensation for those errors and abuses, it’s crucially important just how the servicer messed up. The logic for the differences in payment isn’t always apparent and in some instances seems to defy common sense.

Two homeowners who each had their bid for a modification mishandled, for instance, could emerge with either $125,000 or $15,000 depending on just where in the process the error occurred. Regulators also left unsettled how homeowners will be compensated for so-called robo-signing, the scandal that provoked the foreclosure review to begin with.

With consumer response to the review so far underwhelming, regulators also extended the deadline for homeowners to submit a claim to September 30. It was originally April 30.


Attorneys with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the primary regulator for the largest banks, told us the compensation is appropriately tailored for differing circumstances.

Readers wanting to know whether they might qualify for the foreclosure review should see our detailed list of Frequently Asked Questions. The FAQ also covers the separate National Mortgage Settlement arrived at earlier this year.


The worst errors, the ones reaping the $125,000 payouts, fit into three categories. The first covers active duty members of the military who were foreclosed on while protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The OCC attorneys said they arrived at $125,000 for these worst errors in part because it’s close to what the Justice Department used in recent legal settlements with banks for violating that law. (In all cases, the cash compensation drops to $15,000 if the servicer returns the home to the borrower.) The $125,000 payment is the same regardless the size of the borrower’s mortgage, but since homeowners aren’t being required to waive any legal claims to accept the money, they could go to court to recoup more.

The other two categories for max compensation encompass a far broader range of homeowners: those who ended up in foreclosure as a direct result of bank error (by mishandling payments, for example) and those who were in trial modifications when the bank foreclosed.

Over the years, we’ve reported extensively on the number of ways that mortgage servicers botched the applications of homeowners trying to avoid foreclosure through a loan modification. Servicers regularly lost homeowners’ income documentation,miscalculated incomes, and generally made homeowners run a gauntlet of errors, confusion and frustration to emerge with a modification. Trial modifications, which were supposed to last only three months and easily transition to a permanent modification, often lasted many months longer only to end badly. Many homeowners were foreclosed on prematurely.

A number of the 13 categories regulators have laid out focus on these modification errors. For instance, if the bank simply never evaluated a homeowner for a modification before foreclosing and the homeowner would have qualified, then the review will result in compensation of $15,000. If the bank denied a modification in error, that’s also $15,000.

But trial modification errors result in much larger compensation, resulting in a discrepancy that seems to make little sense. If the homeowner was accepted for a trial modification, made the payments as agreed, and then the servicer foreclosed without giving a final answer, that would be $125,000. But if the servicer did give an answer to that homeowner, even if it was entirely baseless wrong denial, and then foreclosed, it would be only $15,000.

The attorneys for the OCC said there were a number of reasons that homeowners foreclosed on while in trial modifications deserve much higher compensation than those who suffered other modification abuses. The first and main reason is that there’s a clear legal distinction between the servicer plainly violating a written agreement with the homeowner and other situations. That was one of the main guiding ideas in how they allocated the compensation, they said. The highest amounts are reserved for scenarios where the servicer either violated the mortgage by improperly handling the account or didn’t abide by the trial modification agreement.

If a homeowner fell behind on her payments, applied for a modification, but was foreclosed on before the bank even gave an answer, that’s an entirely different scenario, they said. The servicer’s failure to process the loan modification application “is not the reason why the borrower was foreclosed upon,” said one attorney. “They were foreclosed upon because they were delinquent on their mortgage terms.”

Furthermore, they said, that homeowner wouldn’t have much of a shot in court if she sued, even if it’s clear that the bank broke the rules of the government’s loan modification program (as they regularly did). That’s because the largely toothless program didn’t provide homeowners with any legal recourse for rule-breaking servicers. If, however, the homeowner could point to a clear violation of a written agreement, they might be able to win damages in court.


Such reasoning “turns the idea of remediation on its head,” said Diane Thompson of the National Consumer Law Center. “Borrowers who lose their homes wrongfully for any reason suffer the same amount of financial injury and harm, whether or not they could or would bring a separate lawsuit to challenge that wrongful foreclosure.”

It also sends the wrong message to mortgage servicers, Thompson said, to have such a mild penalty for failing to consider a homeowner for a modification at all when there’s such a significant payment associated with trial modification errors. “This essentially rewards servicers for having failed to process loan mods.”

The OCC said it arrived at its framework after seeking a variety of viewpoints, including those of consumer advocates.

One major aspect of the framework that remains unclear is what might be offered as compensation for robo-signing. The foreclosure review was prompted by revelations that the major banks had filed thousands of false affidavits in courts across the country when seeking to foreclose on homeowners. Banks have also often filed forged or flawed documents when attempting to demonstrate the right to foreclose. But the framework only says that compensation in cases where the servicer didn’t properly document the right to foreclose will be “determined on a case-by-case basis as state law dictates.” The OCC attorneys could give no further information about this.

We have updated our FAQ on the Independent Foreclosure Review to include a brief discussion of the framework, but homeowners wanting more information should see the framework itself and the lengthy FAQ that regulators produced about it.


To help us continue reporting on this issue, homeowners going through the process can also fill out our foreclosure questionnaire or contact us to let us know what's happening.




Making admission to IITs fair

Students of IITs are bright no doubt, but it is the IIT experience that brings out the best out of the one who entered the institute. The admission process should be such that the ‘best’ get a fair chance

More than 50 years back, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were formed to provide engineering education of high standards to create able engineering manpower aimed at overcoming the poverty-ridden Indian nation. In addition to the objective of overcoming poverty, the nation had to look at making itself self-reliant in all walks of life and it was felt that it was possible only when we had a capable scientific and engineering manpower capable of not only executing projects but carry out research.

Education expenses were to be grossly subsidized at these IITs. This subsidy facilitated large number of talented students, right across the income levels and social spectrum to seek engineering education. To select the best for the limited seats, the Joint Entrance Examination (IIT-JEE) was evolved. The exam was tough and competitive and was equal playing field to students who had learnt their subjects at the 12th standard level and were quick in answering them at the IIT-JEE. Based on performance at this test, a merit list would get prepared for the students to select the stream of engineering they were to opt for. Admission to IITs was strictly on merit. No paper leak took place and everything appeared to be just to everyone. To sustain this standard over five decades is no mean performance. If changes are sought, it must be well thought out.

However, with the IT boom in the 1990s these young bright IIT graduates began to be picked up not just by universities but by IT firms in the US for employment. Hitherto they went to universities for higher education and many returned to IITs as faculty to teach and do research in their homeland. About 30% of faculty at IITs is IIT alumni. With the IT boom, competition to join IITs became severe and private coaching classes not only mushroomed all over but more so at a small town of Kota in Rajasthan, known till then for the sarees and floor tiles.

Students would concentrate on coaching rather than learning at the 11th and 12th standard classes and some even spent a year or two at Kota in preparation for the IIT-JEE. It was obvious that those who could afford these classes and reside at Kota would do so. They have looked at the education as business—focus, invest, get returns. It was only those who were so bright that they did not need rigorous coaching managed to be among the small number that were given admission out of two to three lakh aspirants. Many among those who missed a seat were equally bright; it was just that in that particular “one-day match” these aspirants fared marginally less than their potential.

When you pay much attention to your 11th and 12th standard course, there is an overall development. If you focus only on the JEE, it is at the cost of that development. IITs are not institutions churning out robots; they are to bring out thinking persons with all-round interests and abilities. Therefore IITs themselves have been thinking for some time now of how to make 11th and 12th standards relevant.

With this as background, let us jump to the “compromise formula” that has been agreed upon by IITs and the ministry of human resources—the Two Tier Exam. The first will be to shortlist a lakh of IIT aspirants from among now five lakh engineering course aspirants based on the merit list. The second tier examination will be the IIT-JEE style but with a rider that only those who rank among the top 20% of their respective boards will be eligible for admission to IITs.

Let us now look at whether critical criteria are met or not.

Currently all together IITs offer about 10,000 seats per year. This is 10% of a lakh being shortlisted from five lakh engineering aspirants in the country. The shortlisted one lakh anyway form 20% of five lakh, which is a substantial proportion. All aspirants would be eligible barring the exceptionally bright who might have fared poorly in their 11th and 12th standards. In the current system of near continuous evaluation in the 11th and 12th standards, it leaves very little scope to exceptionally bright student from not performing well enough to fall within the 20% of his or her board exam.

Now the question that is raised is about injustice to students of boards of better standards not falling within the top 20% of their boards but are by that virtue better than many of lower standard boards. Prima facie this appears to be true. But if you see that in the first tier exam this student from boards of better standards has not performed well and has got eliminated while the one from “lower standard board” has got through, first ‘just’ filtering has taken place.

The question to ask is whether IITs must take only the ‘best’ students or should they also have a collective ‘best’ which provided equal opportunity to the collective best? Doesn’t the nation have the responsibility of providing opportunity to the bright young student who was born to less affluent parents and also has belonged to boards by virtue of being resident in a particular state or town where no other “better standard” boards exist and also cannot get coaching but like Ekalavya, has worked hard with high motivation and crossed the first tier barrier? Should he or she be deprived of the education IITs provide? One must remember that this youngster is Ekalavya.

In our democratic polity, Ekalavyas must a find place. Students of IITs are bright no doubt, but it is the IIT experience that brings out the best out of the one who entered the institute. Ekalavyas will always shine if his or her thumb is not cut off as Guru Dakshina.

(Sudhir Badami is a civil engineer and transportation analyst. He is on Government of Maharashtra’s Steering Committee on BRTS for Mumbai and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee on BRTS for Mumbai. He is also member of Research & MIS Committee of Unified Mumbai Metropolitan Transport Authority. He was member of Bombay High Court appointed erstwhile Road Monitoring Committee (2006-07).  He is member of the committee constituted by the Bombay High Court for making the Railways, especially the suburban railways system friendly towards Persons with Disability (2011- ). While he has been an active campaigner against Noise for more than a decade, he is a strong believer in functioning democracy. He can be contacted at [email protected])


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)