 |
|
India limping |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coping with China Profile On Record
|
India limping The government’s projections of a “rising” India, anchored in near double-digit growth with stability, were unrealistic as the country lacked the wherewithal for sustained rapid growth, most notably world-class infrastructure and the requisite business-friendly environment. India’s critical shortcomings on this account are well illustrated in the June 2008 Goldman Sach’s report on the Growth Environment Scores, which places India at the 110th position out of 181 countries. India’s overall rating is below that of the other BRICs and, for seven of the 13 components included in the ratings, it scores below the developing-country average. India’s relatively rapid economic growth in the last few years was largely due to the endeavours of its entrepreneurs and not due to the government, which did little to address either the country’s infrastructural shortcomings or the development-stifling flaws in the regulatory framework. Had the government done what it should have India would have enjoyed much faster growth and the problems currently being faced by it would not have been so severe. That the Indian economy is in dire straits is borne out by the fact that we have today 11 per cent plus inflation, a declining growth rate which may fall to 7 per cent, a true Centre-state fiscal deficit approaching 10 per cent of the GDP, a current account deficit which could reach 4 per cent of the GDP if oil prices remain high and a plummeting stock market, which is 40 per cent off its highs. The gravity of the situation is reflected in a recent assertion by Shankar Acharya (former Chief Economic Adviser) to the effect that the situation “seems more like 1987-90, with reforms stalled, the fiscal and balance of payment deficits ballooning and political uncertainty on the rise”. He, of course, acknowledges that the situation is not as bad as in the eighties due to a more dynamic private sector, a higher investment rate and vastly higher foreign exchange holdings. While the escalating international oil and commodity prices are partly responsible for our problems, the government cannot absolve itself of its responsibility for the mess that we are in. For instance, its steps to address India’s long-standing over-dependence on imported oil have been minimalist. A vigorously pursued mix of remedial measures, including the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation, exploitation of plentiful alternate sources of energy like hydel power, development of renewable sources of energy as well as indigenous reserves of oil and gas etc would have greatly eased our situation. That the government has still not got its act together is apparent from the disappointing response in the seventh round of bidding for oil and gas exploration in India, resulting from its failure to provide the same tax breaks for natural gas exploration as for oil. To make a bad situation worse, the government, instead of addressing the increased cost of crude by a mix of a pass-through to the consumer and a sharp reduction in excise, has sought to address the problem mainly through an in-effect oil subsidy estimated at 3 per cent of the GDP. This together with the fertilizer and food subsidies, estimated at 2 per cent and 1 per cent of the GDP, respectively, huge debt write-offs for farmers and liabilities resulting from the pay commission recommendations will pauperise future governments and are testimony to the UPA’s complete disregard for fiscal prudence. To add to its economic woes, domestic turbulence in the country is at an all-time high. In recent weeks peace and normalcy in the country have been affected by the Gujjar agitation, the bandh in support of the demand for Gorkhaland, violence in J&K, strife in the North-East, the Jaipur blasts and rampaging Left wing extremism which extends to nearly a quarter of the country. This is ironical as MK Narayanan’s appointment as the NSA was hailed by the government’s spin doctors as a panacea for our internal security ills on the spurious logic that his two predecessors, being IFS officers, were not sufficiently focussed on internal security issues. The truth, however, is quite different. Both Brajesh Mishra and JN Dixit attached great importance to internal security issues and, indeed, made signal contributions to security reform. Regrettably, security reform is at a discount today and many of the institutional mechanisms activated and nurtured by them have been run down. In this backdrop, and given the government’s weak-kneed and short-sighted approach, is it any surprise that the internal security situation in the country verges on the grim? Indian foreign policy bears a distinct made-in-Washington stamp. Influenced by the nuclear deal, other activity has been put on the back-burner and India’s policies oriented to accommodate US interests. We have voted against Iran at the IAEA, have been lackadaisical in pursuit of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, have participated in military exercises with the US in bilateral, trilateral and quadrilateral formats, have been exploring an Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement with the US, are committed to work along with the US for early conclusion of an FMCT, etc. We have made substantial defence purchases from the US and are contemplating many more though they come with onerous end-user conditionalities, including inspections. Our policies on Pakistan mimic those of the US. Rather than chastising it for involvement with terrorist activities directed against us, we project that it is a victim of terror like us. On Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Kosovo, India’s voice is barely heard and criticism of US actions, if any, is muted. Pusillanimity is yet another deeply depressing characteristic of the UPA’s foreign policy. China’s provocations in Arunachal and Sikkim evoked the mildest of reactions, its demands in relation to Tibet were, by and large, fully met — the Dalai Lama being even prevented from meeting the Vice-President — and its denial of the customary call by our Foreign Minister on either its President or Prime Minister was meekly accepted by us. Such lack of spine is also evidenced in our dealings with Pakistan and Bangladesh. The former has been allowed to get away with its involvement in terrorist activity directed against us, and the latter with providing sanctuary to militant elements from the North-East and encouraging illegal migration to India. In these circumstances, it is only natural that India’s standing in the international community and, indeed, even in its neighbourhood is at an all-time low. There is also virtually no issue of international or regional import where India has left its
impress. The writer is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan and Deputy National Security Adviser.
|
|
— Prime Minister Manmohan Singh It has become evident to the whole country that we have a PM whose priority is to fulfill his commitments made to President Bush. The problems faced by the people and the country can wait. — CPM leader Prakash Karat — Amar Singh,
general secretary of the Samajwadi Party — RJD leader
Lalu Prasad Yadav Iran’s development of ballistic missiles is a violation of UN Security Council resolutions and completely inconsistent with Iran’s obligations to the world. — White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe The aim of holding this manoeuvre is to show (Iran’s) will and authority to the enemies that have threatened Iran with harsh language in recent weeks. — Hossein Salami, a Revolutionary Guards commander — Rahul Gandhi
on the kind of girl he would like to marry I am not crying foul as I knew India would be difficult… I just did not believe it could be this difficult. I still have no computer, no employer provided phone, no efficient capacity to plan and book travel and I remain unpaid for many months with considerable personal expenditure un-remitted. — Ric
Charlesworth, who has resigned as a technical adviser of Indian hockey
|
Coping with China THE media, at times, has the alacrity to jump the gun in its enthusiasm to steal the limelight and in the process misses the forest for the wood. For example, when the scheduled meeting of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee with Chinese Premier Wen Jibao, during his four-day tour to China concluded on the 8th of this month, was cancelled so as to enable the Chinese Premier to rush to China’s Sichuan province, which was struck with the aftershock of the devastating earthquake, a section of the media reported that Mukherjee was snubbed and it hastily made a comparison with such an incident earlier when a scheduled visit of the minister with his Russian counterpart was cancelled at the last minute. At a time when China was recovering from the aftershock of the earthquake and when it recorded a fresh tremor and there was panic among people, perhaps, the priority before the Chinese Premier was to assuage the sagging morale of the people rather than the courtesy call with the Indian Foreign Minister. Be that as it may, the big question is: How do you cope with China, India’s mighty neighbour? This issue has always dominated the Indian defence and foreign policy establishment and will continue to do so, particularly at a time when the two Asian giants have made rapid strides. Is there enough space in the world for the two to co-exist? This is indeed a very tricky question that defies any simplistic answer. While everybody is talking about China’s ascendancy in the world stage, very little attention is paid to China’s territorial expansion in recent times. Hong Kong, which was a British colony, reverted to China on July 1, 1997, with a very ingenious and innovative political contrivance called “one country, two systems” under which Hong Kong continues to retain the existing system of governance and economy while being under Chinese sovereignty for fifty years from July 1, 1997. The “one country, two systems” was the idea of China’s pragmatic leader Deng Xiaoping, which was fine-tuned after protracted parleys between the leaders of China and Britain. The idea of “one country, two systems” not only united Hong Kong with the mainland, but also facilitated Macao, which was a Portuguese enclave with China a year later in 1998. Although, Hong Kong’s integration with the mainland does not provide a seamless economic boundary, as Hong Kong continues to remain a separate economic entity with its Hong Kong dollar being intact, nevertheless the dividing line between mainland China and Hong Kong is water thin. It is also a matter of interest that after the integration of Hong Kong and Macao with the China, the ongoing talks and the unprecedented warmth and bonhomie with Taiwan hold the possibility of unification of Taiwan with the mainland. The Chinese have already made the offer to replicate the “one country, two systems” to Taiwan with further flexibility. It may be far-fetched as of now, but one cannot rule out the possibility of Taiwan’s unification with the mainland. What will be its impact on the world and the world economy and how will it affect India? The policy planners have to ponder these aspects. While formulating our approach towards China, we will have to take into account these aspects. We cannot afford just a short or medium term approach; we have to have a long-term approach to cope with a rising China with its territory and economy expanded and its military further strengthened. The question that policy planners should broach and address is: what would be its impact on the security in the region and on India in particular? We need to have a multipronged approach to deal with a rising China. It need not, and should not, be confrontational. Neither should it be conciliatory. The relationship should be on equality and reciprocity. The Asian identity and the idea that the next century belongs to Asia should be borne in mind by all players in the region who are the stakeholders. While defence preparedness is one important aspect, the fact remains that defence should be treated as a deterrent and armed conflict and confrontation are neither desirable nor possible. What is more important is diplomacy, which is war by other means. China itself has suffered long due to internal turmoil such as during the days of the rural people’s commune and the Cultural Revolution, which affected China’s economy and external relations very badly. That is why they have embarked, on what they call “harmonious” relations both within and outside. This is a pragmatic approach of the Chinese to deal with both internal polity and economy and also externally. While at the micro level, there is an institutional mechanism to deal with minor irritants between the two countries and regular and periodic meetings at the political level, what is important as proposed by India, is that the two countries should evolve an open and inclusive security architecture at the macro level. Elucidating the idea further, Mr. Mukherjee, while addressing the students at Beijing University, rightly said that as two major countries in Asia, India and China should try to work together to evolve a new framework from basic building blocks such as the Asian Regional Forum (ARF) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Comprehensive International Cooperative Association (CICA). While Russia is already a founder-member of the SCO, it is in the interest of both India and China that the USA is associated in a meaningful way in the Asian Regional Forum (ARF). In fact, there is already some loud thinking in this regard. Such an idea was already broached at the Asia Security Summit, which concluded its deliberations at Singapore in the first week of June. Setting the tone and tenor of the deliberations, Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, very rightly said that China and India are thinking very positively about ways to ensure their sustainable rise on the basis of calculations for peace and not hegemony. A statesman like Lee and a cosmopolitan state like Singapore are uniquely placed to facilitate the convergence of India and China, which will be beneficial to the region and the world at
large.
|
|
Profile He came out with a sound advice to his party men: "Continue talking to the people who are opposed to our line, and to voters who vote against us." The veteran Marxist was instrumental in working out a relationship with the Congress to "keep the communal forces at bay". The CPM has been fighting the Congress since ages but "to keep off communal forces, we are offering support to Sonia Gandhi's party", he had said. He wondered only last year on his 94th birthday how long the support would continue. Little did Babu know then that the support would end on his 95th birthday. Jyoti Babu's last wish is to see that the Left Front in West Bengal wins another election. “I have no idea how long I will live but it is my wish to see the Left Front get another chance to finish another term", he says. The Marxist patriarch, who had always walked fast, finds hard to walk these days because of old age. Even though the age affected his movements, his spirits are high. "I have always worked for the people and will do so till the end of my life", he says. Between 1977 and 2000, Jyoti Babu served as the Chief Minister of West Bengal. In 1997, he seemed all set to be the consensus leader of the United Front for the post of Prime Minister. However, the CPM's central committee decided not to participate in the government, thanks to the hardliners who included Karat and Yechuri. Basu, later, termed the decision as "a historic blunder". Asked in an interview what precisely happened when he was offered the chance to become the Prime Minister, Jyoti Babu said: "We had reached a situation where, knowing fully well, who I am, what my philosophy is, what my beliefs are, they invited me, all of them together, unanimously, to sit on the Prime Minister's chair". Then the CPM leadership said: "We can't do it because our central committee resolution prevented us from joining the government". "So we called an emergency meeting of the central committee and there, by majority — I don't know how many votes, 35 to 20 — the decision was made to keep out. I was in minority. Harkishan Singh Surjeet was also in minority". H.D. Deve Gowada from the Janata Dal instead became the Prime Minister. The mixed legacy of Jyoti Basu, the country's longest-serving Chief Minister, is likely to be debated for years to come. Apart from the eulogies of committed communists, there has been much in terms of journalistic pieces of instant history recording the passing of an era. It was, as if, everyone had been waiting for Jyoti Basu, veteran Marxist and Chief Minister of West Bengal, to relinquish office after a record 23 years at the helm. And when he finally handed over the baton to his deputy Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, an era came to end. Top communists usually don't get out of their big chairs in their life time. Stalin ruled over the Soviet empire for 29 years, Mao Zedong reigned behind the bamboo curtain for 27 years till his death in 1976. Jyoti Basu is too much of a "bhadralok" to be put in the same league. The deadliest weapon in his arsenal is the hammer, that too as a part of the party symbol sewn into the flag, made of cheap red cloth. Basu was 64 when he became the Chief Minister and had faced election after election but was not ousted in any of them. He led a team of Marxists who had little experience of governance, having spent their years mostly in trade-union offices drinking tea from mud cups. The government that Basu led was mediocre; its only self-serving achievement being the legislation by which tenant farmers could not be evicted, thus making them fiercely loyal to the Marxists. But tenant farmers were just one constituency in the agrarian society. On the other hand, the state's industry went through a period of bankruptcy and closure, while jobs in the organised sector evaporated. The Leftist labour unions made matters worse by raising wage demands on firms already on stretchers. How could Basu stay in power for so long? He had at his call a People's Liberation Army or call them powerful Marxist cadres, who helped him win election after
election.
|
|
On Record
DR R.K. Pachauri, chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on climate change, and TERI are closely associated with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s expert panel that prepared the country’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). In this interview Dr Pachauri talks about the NAPCC document. Excerpts: What is the significance of the document for the country? It is a significant policy document. The NAPCC comes at the critical juncture where human society is grappling with growing problems of declining food security and high food prices, unprecedented global prices of crude oil and threat of climate change, which has the potential of exacerbating some of these conditions. The NAPCC signals India’s intent to move towards greater use of renewable energy resources and more efficient management of critical natural resources like water. What are its most critical parts and what should be India’s response? Ever since industrialisation began the world has increased its dependence on the use of fossil fuels, the limits to which are now appearing at menacing levels. Not only with respect to growing physical scarcity and higher costs but also in terms of externalities that this pattern of growth has imposed on the earth’s climate system. Therefore, the 21st century will witness a major transition to a more sustainable pattern of development, oriented towards environmentally benign and more equitable use of energy resources in particular and sustainable management of natural resources in general. Anything short of this would only compound problems associated with growing disparities of income and wealth, large-scale deprivation of hundreds of millions of people in respect of food, fodder and fuel. India, poised as it is towards greater economic power on the world stage, can influence the course of development across the globe not only through its growing influence on the global market but through intellectual and human appeal of its ability to create a model that others can emulate. Does NAPCC stress a lot on renewable energy, largely solar? Endorsing renewable energy technologies is a vital component of any climate change policy and the NAPCC includes a provision for setting up a national solar mission with the goal of increasing the production of photovoltaic to 1000 MW/year, increased international collaboration on technology development, strengthening domestic manufacturing capacity and increased government funding and international support. India receives about 5000 trillion kWh per year equivalent energy through solar radiation and just one per cent of India’s land area can meet the entire electricity requirements till 2030. Technologies to meet this requirement are still very expensive. Modeling results indicate that even at today’s energy prices at $ 145 per barrel of oil and $ 180 per tonne of coal, these technologies may not be economically attractive. With current technologies, these can become competitive only at around $ 360 per tonne of coal. Indigenisation and evolution of technology from R&D are expected to reduce these costs by 50 per cent and should be pursued since renewable energy technologies will play a crucial role in enhancing energy security as well as addressing climate change concerns by providing substitutes for coal and gas. What about other renewables like wind, hydro and nuclear power? Wind power may not seem attractive due to its low capacity utilisation factor and high capital costs. However, wind can play an important role with regard to energy security. Proactive policies are already facilitating the installation of wind turbines and the current installed capacity is around 9 GW. This can become even more attractive with scientific siting of wind turbines and introduction of low wind speed turbines. Nuclear generation is another technology that would be economically attractive in a regime of high coal prices despite some of the problems associated with it. Hydropower projects should be based on all ecological and environmental implications. Some hydropower projects in India have been implemented rather badly in the past, which need to be corrected. Won’t nuclear energy become a threat to the development of renewable energy like solar? Our demand for energy is so high that there is enough space for all renewable energy technologies to develop alongside nuclear
energy.
|
||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
THE UPA government’s less-than-satisfactory performance was preordained by its minimalist programme, its survival-at-any-cost philosophy and its being headed by a token Prime Minister controlled from 10 Janpath. 
It is the intention of my government, as I believe it is also the will of the Indian people, particularly the thinking segments of the people, that in this increasingly interdependent world that we live in, whether it is the question of climate change or managing the global economy, India and the US must work together shoulder to shoulder, and that is what is going to happen.
A decade from now, those who are terming the nuclear deal anti-national would have reason to thank Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav.
If we win the trust vote, the nuclear deal will get through…. If we don’t the deal will be over. It is a deal not with the US only but with 45 countries.
The ideal match would have to be an open-minded person who wants to understand the world from other people’s point of view.
ON the day the Left withdrew support to the central government, veteran Marxist Jyoti Basu was celebrating his 95th birthday. The news, that struck the nation like a thunderbolt, did not surprise Jyoti Babu.