Chidambaram, his wife & family have assets worth Rs 95 crore

first_imgMumbai, May 31 (PTI) Senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram (70), his wife and family have total assets worth Rs 95 crore, according to the affidavit filed by him today to contest the Rajya Sabha election.Chidambaram filed his nomination papers for biennial elections to Rajya Sabha from Maharashtra.According to his affidavit, filed in 22 pages before the Returning Officer, he and his family have movable properties worth Rs 54.30 crore while he and his family own immovable properties worth Rs 41.35 crores.He showed a total income of Rs 8.58 crore for the year 2014-15 while his spouse (Nalini Chidambaram) showed income of Rs 1.25 crore for the same period during the filing of income tax return.Chidambaram has movable properties of Rs 42.95 crore and immovable properties worth Rs. 4.25 crore. His wife Nalini Chidambaram is the owner of movable properties worth Rs 11.23 crore and immovable properties worth Rs 25.03 crore.He has shown Rs 3.50 lakhs cash in hand and his wife has cash in hand Rs 1.24 lakh. He has bank accounts in 13 branches of different banks spanning from Chennai to New Delhi to Karnataka while Nalini has six bank accounts in different places.Under the details of movable assets, the affidiavit says Chidambaram posseses 32 gram gold (worth Rs 87,232) and 3.25 carat diamond worth Rs 97,500. His wife has 1.43 kg gold (worth Rs 39.17 lakh) and 52 kg silver worth Rs 20.46 lakh and 76.61 carat diamond of Rs 22.98 lakh.He has one Honda and one Skoda car while his wife is having Toyota Innova car.Under the details of immovable assets, Chidambarams affidavit says he has said that he bought 38.72 acres land in 1994 for Rs 25.16 lakh in Karnataka and thereafter developed it by investing another Rs 3.77 lakh into it and the current market value of this piece of property is Rs 1.93 crore, according to the affidavit.advertisementHis Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) movable properties are worth of Rs 11.86 lakhs while immovable properties are having monetary values of Rs 12.07 crore, according to his affidavit in which Chidambaram has described himself as a senior Advocate in the Supreme Court and his wife as a senior Advocate in the Madras High Court.He does not have Facebook account but is active on the Twitter. PTI APM KRK PALlast_img read more

Study queries how much science behind government wildlife management

first_imgGovernments everywhere say they use science to manage wildlife, but newly published research questions whether they actually do.“We were surprised by the overall pattern,” said Kyle Artelle, lead author of a paper published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances. “We certainly weren’t expecting it to be such a low score.”Artelle, a biologist with Simon Fraser University and the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, noticed something odd a few years ago when studying bear management in British Columbia. Although the province said its approach was based on science, Artelle found basic scientific tenets — measurable objectives, clear evidence, transparency and independent review — were missing.How common was that? he wondered.He and his colleagues began looking around. They surveyed 667 management plans for 27 different species that are either hunted or trapped in 62 states, provinces and territories in the United States and Canada.They looked for 11 different indicators that those four basic principles were being used. Clear evidence, for example, would be information such as population numbers. A description of how those numbers were derived would demonstrate transparency.The results were disconcerting.Almost two-thirds — 60 per cent — of management programs demonstrated fewer than half the indicators. The average across all 667 plans was 4.6.Measurable objectives were found in 26 per cent of the plans. Evidence on hunting rates was present about 80 per cent of the time, but about half the programs offered no data on populations.Just over half described how population numbers and trends were set and only 11 per cent described how hunting quotas were determined.Only nine per cent had any sort of independent review.There was little difference between U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions. Artelle did find more evidence of scientific thinking in management of big-game animals.The point is not that wildlife is necessarily being poorly managed, or even that management decisions should be based solely on science, said Artelle.“Managers have to balance the interests of a whole bunch of people, budgets, political realities. We don’t expect every decision is going to be driven entirely by science. It’s not possible.“A lot of the decisions that need to be made science can’t answer.”Science can tell us how many deer there are and what might happen if more are hunted. It can’t tell us if that’s a good idea.“These are value decisions,” Artelle said. “What’s important is that we separate out the science from the values.“In a lot of ways, that doesn’t yet happen.”Science ends up becoming a fig leaf for how decisions are really made, he said.“Agencies will just say, ‘It’s based on science.’ Full stop. Of course there are other considerations and we expect them to come into play.“But it’s all about transparency and saying, ‘This is what the science tells us and this is what we’re going to do with it,’ instead of saying the whole thing is science-based and masking the value judgments or the other political or economic judgments that come into play.”— Follow @row1960 on Twitterlast_img read more