|
|
Two better than one
And now Iran |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sweet enough
Chinese
chequers, dam(n) nonsense
The language of life
There are myths about Iran and the nuclear bomb When India looks East
Global warming to hit food production
|
Two better than one THE Cabinet approval to the ordinance for establishing not one but two Central universities in Jammu and Kashmir is in sync with the government’s approach to treat the state as a special case. The decision to have two Central universities in J & K was guided as much by political considerations as by a desire to open up further avenues of higher education in the border state. The government’s prompt action in clearing the decks, less than a month after the formal announcement was made, may also be prompted by a desire to rob political parties and separatists of an issue. The earlier decision of having a Central university in Jammu and an Indian Institute of Management in the Valley had led to protests in both regions, but hopefully the decision to set up one Central university in each region will be welcomed by all sections, leaving no scope for agitations or a feeling of discrimination. The real challenge, however, will be to ensure that the two universities make a difference to higher education in the state. It will be a pity if these universities also turn out to be clones of the existing universities and offer similar courses. There are already half a dozen universities in the state and it will be better if the role and character of the two new universities are designed on new lines meant for the 21st century. It will certainly be unfortunate if the two universities offer the same disciplines for higher study and research and are confined to catering separately to the needs of the two regions. What is required is a free flow of students and researchers to enable the Central universities to impart education and research facilities in new areas. The two universities need not duplicate each other’s effort and disciplines. This way the students and researchers will have access to a wide range of subjects to delve into. Ideally, the two universities need to be developed as world class institutions. Over a period of time , when the state is free from its present travails, the two universities should provide a window of opportunity to attract the best of talent that builds institutions engaged in the pursuit of excellence.
|
|
And now Iran IRAN has suffered a major blow at the hands of terrorists having their bases in Pakistan. Jundallah, the outfit that has claimed responsibility for Sunday’s suicide bomb attack at the entrance of a sports complex, killing 42 persons, including five senior commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, has been active in the country’s northeastern area (Sistan-Baluchistan province) bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan for some time. Iran has accused intelligence agencies of Pakistan, the US and Britain for masterminding the terrorist attack at the sports complex where the killed Revolutionary Guards commanders were scheduled to have a meeting with Sunni tribal representatives to redress the grievances of the minority community. Whatever the truth, but the fact that the Jundallah terrorist group has been operating from inside Pakistan cannot be denied. Iran has rightly asked that Pakistan must hand over to Teheran all the Jundallah members who are believed to have been involved in the deadly attack. Jundallah is known for its links with the Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. President Asif Zardari has offered to cooperate with Iran in the efforts to bring the culprits to book in a time-bound manner. But that is not enough. What is alarming is Pakistan’s failure to prevent the use of its territory by the so-called “non-state actors” for launching terrorist attacks in other countries. The problem of cross-border terrorism needs to be given a more serious thought, as it is showing no sign of coming to an end. And Pakistan has not shown keenness to stamp out terrorist outfits, which generally get away with murder. Iran, a Shia-majority country, has a restive Sunni minority. The Jundallah group has succeeded in spreading its tentacles in Sistan-Baluchistan province because of a large concentration of disgruntled Sunni Muslims there. The region cannot afford to have socio-political destabilisation in Iran when three of its neighbours — Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan — are striving for peace. No militant group should be allowed to exploit the sentiments of any section of the population in Iran irrespective of the nature of its grievances against the rulers.
|
|
|
Not sweet enough THE Punjab government’s decision to raise the state assured price (SAP) of sugarcane by Rs 20 may not enthuse farmers who had expected at least Rs 250 a quintal. Growing sugarcane is no longer profitable. That is why the area under sugarcane has shrunk by 30 per cent in Punjab. Worse, farmers have shifted to paddy, a source of the state’s water woes. Not just the low support prices, delayed payments by sugar mills too have forced farmers to abandon sugarcane. Sugar mills have their own problems. Despite sugar prices doubling in the past one year, their profits have not soared accordingly because they do not get enough sugarcane supplies and power to operate at full capacity. Because of low production, the country’s sugar stocks may dwindle further in the coming year. Globally, sugar prices are ruling at a high — partly because of imports by India and partly because of a crop failure in Brazil. This may spur hoarders to exploit the situation unless the government nails them effectively. Since sugarcane cultivation is time-consuming, the situation cannot be eased in a short time. The consumer, meanwhile, is paying a heavy price for faulty government policies, which result in gluts or shortages. Politics dictates sugar and sugarcane prices. The Centre fixes its minimum support prices and then state governments announce their own prices depending on whose interests they have to protect and promote. Little attention is paid to improving sugarcane productivity, which is abysmally low due to outdated farming practices. Inefficiencies have crept in the functioning of sugar mills both in the private and cooperative sectors. Since every crisis throws an opportunity too, now is the time for hard decisions to clear the mess. Farmers must get a fair price so that they grow enough sugarcane. Mills have to be modernised and assured regular power and sugarcane supplies so that they stay in business.
|
|
|
Had laws not been, we never had been blamed;/For not to know we sin is innocence. — William D’Avenant
|
Chinese chequers,
dam(n) nonsense WHY are the Chinese so nervous, huffing and puffing away over something as innocuous as Dr Manmohan Singh’s election visit to Arunachal and the Dalai Lama’s spiritual journey to the revered Buddhist monastery in Tawang? These demarches were preceded by a gratuitous statement that Arunachal is part of China and India should best back off from there. This bluster, sometimes expressed though the columns of party journals, targets India for not responding to China’s boundary “concessions” and for adopting a hegemonistic attitude towards its neighbours, Pakistan and Nepal included. The Sino-Indian boundary is still “disputed” and while negotiations are in progress, the matter has not been settled and hence the status quo ante, as perceived by Beijing, must prevail. The facts are otherwise. China has dragged its feet on boundary demarcation, refusing to exchange sector maps as settled through talks so as to avoid inadvertent incidents of innocent trespass. It has also blandly gone back on one of the agreed principles of understanding, namely, that settled border areas shall not be brought into question during the boundary talks. It has violated this seminal principal by claiming “possession” of all of Arunachal, particularly Tawang, and adopting ludicrous rhetorical positions. India does not need to be unnerved by such conduct that betrays a sense of uncertainty and anxiety over the situation in China’s borderlands in Tibet and Xinjiang which remain restive. Arunachal went to the polls once again and registered a 75 per cent vote in a democratic process that Communist China does not understand and deeply fears. China may have appeared proud and powerful as it celebrated the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic; but while the stands in Tiananmen Square were full of regimented supporters, the people were locked away. China has done remarkably well in many ways. But it is replete with inner contradictions and social disharmonies. Economic liberalism and modernisation do not go well with a tight party dictatorship, the suppression of religious freedom and rural-urban and regional disparities. All monoliths are solid until they crack. There has, however, been too much media and right-wing hype about alleged Chinese designs on India by projecting growing capabilities into malevolence. This mix of jingoism and fear is immature. Chinese military modernisation and technological displays are impressive but India has no need to match either of these in numbers or idle showmanship. Ours is not an aggressive posture and the Chinese have a shrewd idea that 1962 is ancient history and adventures are best avoided. This does not mean that India should not improve its border infrastructure and connectivity and uplift living standards in all outlying regions. If Dr Manmohan Singh meets the Chinese Premier, Mr Wen Jiabao, in Bangkok on October 23 on the margins of the East Asian summit, this should offer opportunity to iron out recent wrinkles in bilateral relations. Among these is a new red herring being dragged across the trail as a result of reports that the Chinese plan to dam the Tsangpo at Zangmu (29.14 lat., 29.52. long.) with an installed capacity of 450 MW (comparable to the Baglihar project India has commissioned on the Chenab). Even if this be true (and more such sites are reportedly being investigated) this is probably a modest run-of-river hydro-project with little consumptive use and no hint (or capability) of diversion northwards. Such a project would be fully within China’s right to build. Indian news reports continue to be singularly ill-informed about Tibetan geography, topography and hydrology. The Water Resources Ministry must take the rap for such national ignorance which has deeper roots in the downgrading of geography as an educational discipline. For one thing, the Tsangpo (Siang/Dihang in Arunachal) is confused with the Brahmaputra (which is formed in Assam after the confluence of the Siang, Luhit, Dibang and Noa Dihing, all substantial rivers in their own right). So the “Brahmaputra” is not being diverted anywhere and will not “run dry”. In any event, more than 70 per cent of the run-off of the Brahmaputra is generated south of the Himalaya. Reference is made to a report by Li Lung, “Tibet Water Plan to Save China” (2005) through the Great Western Route Project, by diverting over 200 billion cubic metres of water from Tibet to North China, 120 BCM of this coming from the “Brahmaputra basin”. This diversion is proposed at a far higher latitude in the great U-Bend of the Tsangpo as it drops into India from Tibet is also confusingly discussed as a possible source of pumping power for moving water north. While many old time generals and ideologues have commended the Great Western Diversion Project, a number of technical experts, economists and ecologists have panned this fantasy. So, while India keeps a wary eye on water resource development in Tibet, it does not need to become hysterical and thrown off balance and diverted from the real tasks of diplomacy and development. Earlier reports of floods from extreme river surges in Arunachal and in the Sutlej Valley were mistaken for Chinese mala fides. They were, in fact, the result of debris/glacial lake outbursts in remote Himalayan Valleys. These, with glacial and permafrost melting and aberrant weather, are going increasingly to impact the entire Himalayan-Karakoram region on account of climate change. Cooperation in meeting this common challenge is what India and China should be talking
about.
|
||
The language of life DURING my long service with the government, I have attended a number of computer courses on system design and analysis with the Computer Maintenance Corporation, Crimes Record Bureau and my own organisation i.e. the C.R.P. Force. With my background of mathematics, I did quite well in all these programmes. However, I still feel that I am not adequately literate in computers. Occasionally, I take the help of my grandson, yet to be seven, when I get stranded on my personal computer. His principal area of interest is, of course, the video games. But he often ensures that my computer gets in a mood to comply with my commands also. However, while struggling to learn computers, I strayed on to a bit of philosophy. I picked up a realisation that the binary language of the computer is symbolic of the language of life. Computer is based on the inter-play of eight tiny bulbs. These get individually lighted or go off on command to permute into 256 combinations that have been assigned various characters like the digits from 0 to 9, letters of various languages and mathematic symbols etc. These characters and their combinations are used to give commands to the computer that is programmed to respond to these. Coming now to life, the scheme is strikingly similar. We see some sort of a binary system operating in our lives also. Some of us are good (a lighted bulb) and some are bad (a bulb that is off) — of course, the good means more good than bad and the bad is more bad than good. Some promote love and others hatred, some inflict wounds on the humanity and the others strive to heal these, some create wealth and the others destroy it, some earn through the sweat of their brows and others feed on their effort, some look highly presentable and some ungainly. One could go on like this to eternity. So let us conclude here that some of us are positively bestowed and some are negatively charged. What then is the sum total of every thing? Do the things just cancel each other out into an ultimate nothingness? No, though the material remains the same it constantly keeps changing shape. Thus, iron ore gets converted into a Swiss watch, allied with alumina it metamorphoses in to an aircraft; fossils become a valuable source of energy and so on. The world today is a lot different from the lump of the gases that somehow got cast away from the Sun billions of years back. Thus, the binary aspect of life though a universal phenomenon, this is not all to a life. The essential difference is that there are shades of grey in life that a computer does not cater
for.
|
||
There are myths about Iran and the nuclear bomb Iran’s expanding nuclear program poses one of the Obama administration’s most vexing foreign policy challenges. Fortunately, the conditions for containing Tehran’s efforts may be better today than they have been in years. The recent disclosure of a secret nuclear facility in Iran has led to an apparent agreement to allow in U.N. weapons inspectors and to ship some uranium out of the country, and the United States and Europe seem to be closing ranks on the need for sanctions and engagement. Of course, the matter is far from resolved; Russia and China are sending mixed signals on their position, while even a weakened Iranian regime remains duplicitous. But the prospects for developing a strategy with a solid chance of success improve if we dispose of five persistent myths about Iran’s nuclear program: 1. Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. For years we’ve heard conflicting accounts on this issue. There have been claims since the 1990s that Iran was a few years away from a bomb. Then, two years ago, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had discontinued its dedicated nuclear weapon efforts in 2003. Today, the consensus among experts is that Iran has the technical ability to make a crude nuclear device within one to three years — but there is no evidence that its leaders have decided to do so. The regime’s most likely path to the bomb begins in Natanz, in central Iran, the site of the nuclear facility where over the past three years about 1,500 kilograms of uranium gas has been enriched to low levels. Iran could kick out U.N. inspectors, abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reprocess the gas into highly enriched uranium in about six months; it would take at least six more months to convert that uranium into the metal form required for one bomb. Technical problems with both processes could stretch this period to three years. Finally, Iran would need perhaps five additional years — and several explosive tests — to develop a Hiroshima-yield bomb that could be fitted onto a ballistic missile. Of course, the United States and others would see Tehran moving in this direction, and exposure or inspection of suspected facilities would complicate Iranian objectives. We can further lengthen this timeline by ridding Iran of the essential ingredient for a bomb: low-enriched uranium. On October 1, Iran agreed to ship most of this uranium to Russia for fabrication into reactor fuel; we will know in the next few weeks if it will keep that pledge. If it does, Iran’s “break-out” capability — the ability to produce a bomb quickly — would be eliminated, at least for the two years it takes to enrich more uranium. 2. A military strike would knock out Iran’s program. Actually, a military attack would only increase the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear bomb. “There is no military option that does anything more than buy time,” US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last month. “The estimates are one to three years or so.” And that’s if the United States struck hundreds of targets. A less powerful Israeli attack could only damage, not destroy, Iran’s facilities. Worse, after such a bombing, the Iranian population — now skeptical of its leadership — would probably rally around the regime, ending any internal debates on whether to build a bomb. Iran would put its nuclear program on fast-forward to create weapons to defend itself. It could also counterattack against Israel or other U.S. allies. This month, a top official of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard threatened to “blow up the heart of Israel” if the United States or Israel attacks first. On the merits of a U.S. strike, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said he worries about “the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that ... having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to predict.” Attacking Iran would not end the problem; it could start a third U.S. war in the region. 3. We can cripple Iran with sanctions. Sanctions rarely, if ever, work on their own. There is no silver bullet that can coerce Iran into compliance or collapse. Some mix of sanctions — whether restricting travel, making it harder for Iranian banks to do business, further limiting foreign investment or even denying Iranian citizens basic needs, such as gas — may be necessary if Tehran does not restrain its nuclear program or live up to its pledges. But the key is to couple such pressure with a face-saving way out for the Iranian leadership. 4. A new government in Iran would abandon the nuclear program. Some believe that an irrational, apocalyptic government now rules Iran and that regime change is the only solution. But there is broad support across Iran’s political spectrum for the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Recall that the country’s nuclear program began with the shah, a U.S. ally who had plans to build 20 nuclear reactors, similar to the plans the mullahs promote today. The shah also started covert work on nuclear weapons. The U.S. government knew about this research but looked the other way, going as far as selling Iran its first nuclear reactor. Even with a reformist government, it is unlikely that Iran would quickly end its nuclear program. But its leaders might be persuaded to limit the program’s nuclear weapons capabilities. “Tehran’s decisions,” according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, “are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.” 5. Iran is the main nuclear threat in West Asia. The real threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program is that other states in the region feel they must match it. The race has already begun. While Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons has not spurred other countries in the area to develop their own, over the past three years a dozen states in West Asia, including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Libya (again), have begun civilian nuclear programs. These programs, alas, are not about reducing the countries’ carbon footprint — they are a hedge against Iran. These states have begun the decades-long process of developing the technical, commercial and engineering capabilities to build nuclear weapons, should they decide to do so. At this point, it is not clear that stopping Iran would stop these programs. The real danger is not a nuclear-armed Iran but a West Asia with more nuclear-armed nations and unresolved territorial, economic and political disputes. That is a recipe for disaster, and that is why there is no country-specific solution; we cannot play nuclear whack-a-mole. A comprehensive plan must build barriers against acquiring nuclear weapons and must reduce the motivation to do so. This means dealing with the regional security and prestige issues that motivate most countries to start nuclear programs. It requires a global approach that deals with both sides of the nuclear coin: disarmament and proliferation. Reducing existing nuclear stockpiles creates the support needed to stop the spread of the weapons; stopping the spread creates the security needed to continue reductions. We must keep flipping that coin over. Each flip, each step, makes us a little
safer. Joseph Cirincione is the author of “Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons”
— By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
When India looks East THE much-delayed annual East-Asian Summit, postponed thrice, is finally taking place in Thailand from October 23 and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is participating in the conference to engage India in the multilateral organisation. Dr Manmohan Singh is now a familiar face at such summits for having made his presence felt at the G-20, Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRIC) and Shanghai Corporation Organisation conferences. Such meetings have provided him an excellent opportunity to share and exchange India’s perspectives with world leaders. The signing of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the 10-member ASEAN in Bangkok on August 13 after protracted negotiations opens a new chapter in India’s relationship with the ASEAN countries, both at the bilateral and multilateral levels. It is unfortunate that in spite of India’s geographical and cultural proximity to ASEAN, India’s relationship with the region has remained rather subdued, if not lukewarm until India embarked on liberalisation and economic reforms in the early 1990s. Despite the shared maritime heritage of India with the countries of the region, particularly Indonesia, it has not been fully exploited until recent times. It is perhaps not widely known in India that Sumatra in Indonesia is only 92 nautical miles away from Indira Point. Similarly, Phuket in Thailand is only 273 nautical miles away from Indira Point in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. As such, it is closer to Thailand rather than India. Besides, with Myanmar becoming a member of ASEAN, India also shares a land border with this regional entity. With the eastward expansion of ASEAN to include Myanmar, India and ASEAN are no longer just maritime neighbours but share a land boundary of over 1,600 km. Both India and Indonesia were also two important founder members of the erstwhile Non-Alignment Movement. How does one explain India’s earlier subdued relationship with the region in spite of geographical contiguity and proximity until when India ushered in what is christened as “Look-East Policy”. One plausible reason perhaps is that the Cold War years were characterised by geopolitics in which economics was on the back burner. India became a sectoral dialogue partner of ASEAN in 1992 and a full dialogue partner in 1996. The dialogue partnership with ASEAN has enabled India to significantly deepen its relationship with its member countries. The accordance of the status of full dialogue partner to India along with others such as Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the USA is a recognition of India’s economic prowess and potential. As part of its Look-East Policy, India had been securing a summit-level engagement with ASEAN. It was in this backdrop that at the 7th ASEAN summit, held in November 2001 in Brunei Darussalam, the then Chairman of ASEAN took a decision to upgrade its relations with India to the summit level. Thus India participated in the first ASEAN-India summit in Phnom Penh in November, 2002, and the second ASEAN-India summit in Bali in October, 2003. The Bali summit articulated the framework agreement on comprehensive economic cooperation between ASEAN and India. The framework agreement on comprehensive economic cooperation signed at Bali in October, 2003, provided a road map to future economic cooperation between India and ASEAN. The third summit held in Vientiane further articulated this road map and committed to full implementation of the ASEAN-India free trade area. The signing of the FTA with ASEAN is the fruition of the comprehensive economic cooperation agreement. Dr Manmohan Singh is also likely to meet Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and other world leaders to have discussions on bilateral issues. Dr Manmohan Singh’s proposed meeting with his Chinese counterpart has assumed significance in the light of the recent controversy relating to Arunachal Pradesh, a part of which is claimed by China. There is speculation that the one-to-one exchange of views between the two Prime Ministers, who share a positive vibe, will considerably ease the tension between the two Asian giants, who are poised to play a critical role in world politics in general and regional politics in
particular.
|
|
Global warming to hit food production Experts
have focussed on the effects of food production on climate change. But what about the effects of climate change on food production? After all, few things are as sensitive to changes in weather as agriculture. Farmers wait for warmer seasons to grow some crops and colder seasons to plant others. They pray for rain and, at times, hope the rain eases up. The relationship between a good yield and the weather that produces it is rather delicate. Climate change, however, is going to be rudely indelicate. The basic story is simple: Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. More heat causes more evaporation. That water has to come down somewhere. Where it comes down depends on atmospheric conditions, weather patterns and much else. It is, frankly, quite complicated. But it’s also quite important. Where it comes down also decides growing patterns and land suitability. That’s why the number crunchers over at the International Food Policy Research Institute have built a complex model to estimate such things. The results of the model, which compares a world with climate change to a world without it, are not comforting, particularly in the developing world. By 2050, wheat yields in developing nations would drop by about 30 percent and irrigated rice yields would drop by 15 percent. That would have an outsize impact on cost: Wheat prices are projected to increase by about 180 percent, and irrigated rice prices would jump by about 115 percent. The overall result? Twenty-five million more children would be malnourished. We can, to some degree, buy our way out of this. IFPRI estimates that counteracting the effects of climate change on children will cost $7 billion annually. If we begin spending that sum next year, that will be $280 billion in increased aid. Sound bad? “We’ve underestimated it,” says Gerald Nelson, a lead researcher on the study. “We don’t take into account variability, melting glaciers or sea level rise. We don’t take into account droughts and floods.” At that point, you’re not talking about decreased yields. You’re talking about the extinction of foodstuffs, unless scientists can breed plants that endure totally different climates. A study by Wolfram Schlenker, an assistant professor of economics at Columbia University, and Michael Roberts, a professor of agricultural economics at North Carolina State University, attempted to calculate the long-term impact of climate change on U.S. production of corn, soybeans and cotton. Climate change might hit the developing world hardest and first, but as Schlenker and Roberts show, over time it hits the developed world pretty hard, too. Their study proceeds from the finding that moments of “extreme heat” are critical to crop outcomes. They found that nationwide average yields on corn, soybeans and cotton drop by 30 to 46 percent under the slowest warming scenario, which is considerably more mild than most scientists think
is likely. — By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
|
|
| 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 | |
