|
|
A Tribune Special
Revamping civil services exam |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A world without N-weapons
On Record
Profile
|
A Tribune Special Neglect defence only at India’s peril, says Maj-Gen Pushpendra Singh (retd)
Four centuries earlier, Rana Sanga and the Rajput confederacy faced Babur at Khanwa, 60 km from Agra. Despite legendary heroism, extolled in ballads and folklore, the Rajputs were decisively defeated. Other than defeat, what is common in these two heroic battles? Both symbolise the Indian warrior’s unparalleled valour and limitless capacity for sacrifice. Both also illustrate our rulers’ great capacity to neglect national defence. The Rajputs failed to modernise artillery and cavalry. When facing Alexander, Raja Puru’s war-elephants were stampeded by the charging Macedonian phalanx and crushed their own forces. Thousand years later, the Rana’s war-elephants were stampeded by Babur’s artillery. Then the Rajputs were enveloped and routed by the Mughal cavalry’s tulughma. However, there is one notable difference between then and now: Rana Sangha and allied rulers personally led their men and many embraced veer-gati. In 1962, the Indian army was pushed into battle by ‘leaders’ in air-conditioned offices, totally oblivious of ground realities. The valiant Kumaonis braved the Ladakhi winter in summer uniforms. Then faced Chinese human-wave assaults with bolt-action rifles, which often jammed and vintage ammunition misfired. Nevertheless, the 120-odd heroes accounted for over 500 Chinese before their ammunition and life-blood ran out. Fast forward to Kargil 1999. Denial of surveillance equipment for a quarter-century by uncaring, ignorant babus helped Pakiatanis to surreptitiously intrude across the LC. The ensuing war again witnessed most conspicuous valour, which ultimately negated Pak’s napak designs. But 700 gallant sons were martyred to pay for their ‘leaders’ neglect of defence preparedness. This writer is witness to one such peremptory and callous dispensation, which literally made the Army blind. Illuminating shells for the indigenous Field Gun had been “under development” by the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) since seventies and thus faced an import ban. In 1996, with total void in night illumination, we sought to import just one per cent of our requirement to enable artillery night firing and observation. But the Ministry of Defence (MoD) vetoed the proposal, “since DRDO success was imminent” — as it had been for 20 dark years! It was brought out that, taken in conjunction with the void in surveillance and night vision equipment, the lack of these shells would keep the Army totally blind. But they remained unmoved. Only small fry in the system, the Army officers nevertheless stated that MoD would be responsible for any border violation due to night-vision voids. But three years down the line, this proved a worthless scrap of paper. The hamstrung commander on-the-spot got the sack — and worse, a blot on his military reputation! Today, Babur’s self-proclaimed legatees are conspiring with the Dragon to pose a collusive threat. Both launched rhetorical assaults on our borders. In September, Pakistan accorded quasi-provincial status to Gilgit-Baltistan. Post-1948 this region had been illegally separated from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK); designated Northern Areas and federally administered by Rawalpindi. Now it has been given its own Assembly and appellate court, in an effort to alienate its link with Jammu and Kashmir. China blocked Asian Bank aid for Arunachal Pradesh-based projects and has now protested our Prime Minister’s visit to the state. Reflecting our military inadequacy through decades of neglect, our response has been at pains to avoid causing offence, while blaming media for its “hype”. In 2004, the United Progressive Alliance government-I cancelled all major defence deals then at the finalisation stage and blacklisted some firms for alleged kickbacks. With this they scored multiple goals against the National Democratic Alliance government, but were actually a hat-trick of self-goals; shooting India’s defence preparedness in the foot! A quarter-century back, the Bofors Howitzer was a key acquisition, which show-off its battle-winning might during the Kargil conflict. The deal included technology transfer for indigenous manufacture and for future upgrades. The political storm over alleged kickbacks froze all defence modernisation for two decades. The NDA government finally took courage and cleared the import of modern Howitzer systems. These were among those cancelled by UPA-I; negating 30 years’ effort to modernise the Artillery. The stark disparity between our once-dominant Navy and Chinese Navy was highlighted in the Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s Report to Lok Sabha, October 2008. Our submarine fleet is at only two-thirds of the 1985-Plan and serviceability of even these is down to half — yet another victim of political football with national defence; this time the HDW submarine contract was cancelled. Like the Bofors deal, this too included technology-transfer for indigenous manufacture. The foreclosures perpetuated foreign-source dependence and crippled defence capability — two double self-goals. Further, against the Navy’s minimum strategic requirement for three-carriers, it is down to one — the 50-year-old Viraat, which has had its lifespan repeatedly extended. With the induction of Gorshkov delayed by at least five years, the Viraat has been docked for yet another extension, effectively denying us blue-water capability. The Air Force is in deeper trouble with a three-decade wait to replace ageing MIG fighters, while the DRDO struggled to deliver a prototype. From the sanctioned 45 squadrons, it will be down to about 29 before the first aircraft of the 126-fighter deal is delivered. Similarly, its transport fleet is only two-thirds of the requirement and its 32-year ancient air-defence missiles have outlived even their over-extended service life. (CAG report, October 2008). The weakness in strategic forces is most distressing. It is surprising that we can circle the moon but still lack China-capable missiles! On its 60th Anniversary, China proudly displayed ultra-modern, 8000-km, US-capable missiles Dongfeng-41 (East-Wind), ICBM and Ju-lang-2 (tsunami) SLBM. In April, China had show-cased its super-power Navy at Qingdao. The centre-piece was the second-generation nuclear submarine equipped with Ju-lang-2 SLBMs. We have made some progress in launching the hull of our nuclear submarine which will take two years to fit with Nuclear-power pack etc. Then sea trials and, five years hence, we will hopefully have our first generation nuclear submarine – if SLBM-development keeps pace. However, most worrisome is premeditated, deliberate status downgradation and morale of the defence forces — particularly after the Sixth Pay Commission Report. It is galling to see completely different standards applied to martyrs under the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of External Affairs on one hand, and the Armed Forces on the other. As the Chinese up their belligerent rhetoric and boldly violate our borders, Pakistan appears slowly imploding — nukes et al. Thus a grave security situation is brewing, which may boil over sooner than we think. Will the Rezang La syndrome once more prevail, with the flower of our youth martyred at the altar of political football and bureaucrats’ impudent sloth? The answer, friends, is blowing in the East-Wind. The weakness in strategic forces is most distressing. It is surprising that we can circle the moon but still lack China-capable
missiles!
|
|
Revamping civil services exam
MUCH has been said about the need to revamp the Civil Services examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to recruit officers for the most prestigious civil services in the country. The suggestions from the apex levels of the government talk of changing the age profile of the candidates shifting the same to a lower age band. The most recent announcement has come from the UPSC Chairman at the Inaugural UPSC Foundation Day lecture. He said that the preliminary examination shall be made aptitude-based. While these suggestions are, no doubt, well intentioned, they miss the very basic tenet which is fundamental to recruitments and hiring of professionals both in the government and private corporate organisations around the world. “Right man for the right job” is the basic and most often used dictum in human resources hiring and recruitments. The manner in which the Civil Services examination in the country is structured does not take into account this basic HR gospel. What else could be the explanation to having the same examination for jobs as diverse as those of a District Collector, Superintendent of Police as that of a diplomat?
While the quest of an aptitude test for the selection of the senior most levels of bureaucracy definitely shows the right intent, the weightage assigned to different stages and content of the examination undermine this intent. Interestingly, the stage of the examination at which the aptitude testing is being mooted is one which is best left untouched since it is the stage which rightly tests for the diverse knowledge of the candidate across various fields — a basic pre-requisite for any of the jobs under the purview of the civil services. It should be at a much later level in the three-stage process of the examination that the aptitude-based assessment should be incorporated. The final service allocation following the UPSC civil services examination is done on the basis of the cumulative marks scored by the candidates across the two later stages of the examination — the Main examination and the Interview. Since service allotment becomes a two-stage process, the final stage of the interview by the panelists cannot determine the service for which a candidate may be most ideally suited. Consequently, it ends up being an exercise in sweepstakes wherein any candidate who gets ‘lucky’ to score well in one of the optional examination would get a service which may not be ideally suited to his skills, temperament, aptitude, attitude and bent of mind. The rub lies in the fact that even if this misgiving is taken care of, it would still leave a lot of room for revamp at the stage of the interview. Even the most successful candidates in the civil services would concede that the interview process seems to be quite arbitrary, if not whimsical. If at all there is need for an aptitude-based assessment at any stage of the examination, it is here. In the garb of quest for unpredictability, what are being doled out are personal whims and fancies of the panelists which can be corroborated by the sheer chasm in the marks scored by the same individual in different attempts in the interviews given to different Boards. While the rest of the government functioning is slowly but surely moving onto the 21st century paradigm invoking some of the latest management techniques, the process of recruitment to the apex level of the government is still governed by a vestige of the colonial times. The HR community has evolved a host of instruments that have been used around the world for assessing the ideal job-candidate match. These instruments have been validated across organisations and scenarios for testing the right candidates for different types of jobs, testing parameters like multitasking, pressure handling, networking/people skills, etc. Each of the stated parameters has a relevance to different fields like the IAS, IPS, IRS, IFS etc. Having a common format of a ‘Personality Test’ is akin to giving the same scalpel to the surgeon for conducting different types of surgeries. It is not just an intuitive gut feeling but a scientifically proven fact that the parameters that are required for doing the job of an administrator are totally different to that of a career diplomat. To leave such an important task as choosing the officers for the civil services of the nation to merely a touch and feel-based traditional interview would be patently unfair not only to the deserving candidates but also the country at large.n
The writer, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (2006 batch) is currently Assistant Commissioner of
|
A world without N-weapons
TUCKED away in one of the many paragraphs of the Joint Statement issued during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent US visit is an idea that deserves a little more attention than it has got – their “shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons”, for which US President Obama and Dr Manmohan Singh “pledged to work together, as leaders of responsible states with advanced nuclear technology”. Its significance can be appreciated better in the background of the international discourse on nuclear disarmament and strategic security issues. A “nuclear weapon free world” has long been a cherished goal of the international community since the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on Disarmament in 1978. But it has remained an ideal. India has been in the forefront of its advocacy nationally and along with like-minded nations (Six-Nation Initiative, Non-aligned Movement (NAM) and other groupings and, above all, the Action Plan for a Nuclear Weapon Free World put forward by the late Rajiv Gandhi at the Third Special Session of the UNGA on Disarmament in 1988). The main reason for this is that the US, the country with the largest nuclear arsenal, was not ready to move in that direction. Obama is the first US President to have broken the “taboo” and affirm “America’s commitment” at Prague in April last. Yet, there has been no move to have the goal of abolition of nuclear weapons adopted globally, i.e. as a legally binding obligation undertaken by all nations. No nation has thought it fit to ask the other nuclear weapon states to follow suit so that the goal of a “global zero” (of nuclear weapons) could be (re)endorsed by the UNGA in order to seal agreement at the conceptual level. And, accordingly, to then task the Conference on Disarmament (in Geneva) to finally commence negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Even the NAM, which has been consistent in not losing sight of the centrality of nuclear weapons in its consideration of international security issues, does not appear to have viewed Obama’s Prague promise (at its Sharm El Sheikh Summit in July) as an opportunity for pursuing what has been one of its foremost objectives with renewed vigour. On the other hand, skeptics questioning the practicability of a world without nuclear weapons, on one ground or another, abound. More than the voices discrediting the “vision thing”, it is the lukewarm reception accorded to Obama’s public declaration of this conceptual breakthrough in the US position by the strategic establishments of NATO countries, including the US itself that is disconcerting. India has its own share of hawks who are likewise unable to shed the view that nuclear weapons should remain part of the nation’s war fighting arsenal for “deterrence” and accordingly tend to be dismissive about Obama’s Prague speech in a somewhat self-serving fashion. The importance of the allusion to the “shared vision” in the India-US Joint Statement, therefore, lies in India’s grasp of the historic opportunity offered by Obama’s clearing of the cobwebs. This perceptive move deserves note by informed public opinion within the country. It should be built upon for taking things forward in a broader and multilateral setting in consort with other countries. Like-minded nations within the NAM (and outside) could be sounded for interest in serving as a kind of “core group” for forging an international consensus on a legally binding commitment to realise a world without nuclear weapons in a reasonable time frame. Attention must also be turned to examining what India can do. For, in the long run, nuclear weapons are not an asset but a liability. Whatever the justification in 1998 for going in for them, it does not follow that their retention in perpetuity or even voluntary integration into the nation's defence arsenal is desirable. Also a view needs to be taken, internally within the country naturally, whether nuclear weapons are essential for safeguarding the nation’s strategic security interests for all time to come and under all circumstances. Possibly not, it is submitted. The utility of nuclear weapons for India was, and is, political, not military – as a lever, and leveler, of sorts. But such is the calculus of these “weapons” that the political advantage accrues only if they are maintained in fighting fit, full military, condition. This, in turn, means that the benefits cannot be had without incurring the risks; also that some degree of an arms race is built into the (il)logic of nuclear weapons, subjective disinclination for indulging in it notwithstanding. Hence the overall negative assessment in a “cost-benefit-risk” analysis. If a domestic consensus can be built around the above premises, it would follow logically that the political leverage acquired by the nation as a result of its 1998 decision to invite itself into the “nuclear club” can, and should, be exercised (i.e. traded off) for the purpose of securing a world free of nuclear weapons (which, in the final analysis, is India’s supreme interest), now that it is no longer an unthinkable proposition. The opening created by Obama’s fresh approach affords a golden opportunity of doing just that, namely, putting the national nuclear prowess to larger political use, in the service of the long, and widely, cherished goal of nuclear disarmament and therefore of lasting national and international security. Thus, India could unilaterally declare its readiness to reconsider the non-civilian part of its nuclear programme provided a multilaterally negotiated (and legally binding) programme for time-bound elimination of all nuclear weapons of all countries could be agreed upon internationally – but, of course, not until then, i.e. not under any partial measures such as the UN Security Council Resolution 1887, CTBT, FMCT etc. (which should all be fitted into a “nuclear weapons free world” paradigm now). The role and function of the nuclear arsenal in the nation’s possession needs to be debated in the above perspective in order that a reasoned and pro-active approach to the changing external scenario can be evolved without becoming prisoners of the past, or of habit, by default.
The writer, a former IFS officer, was the Indian Ambassador to IAEA, UNIDO and UN offices in Vienna and to Austria
|
|
On Record She is also a crusader against criminals in politics. She has been highlighting the criminal background of the candidates in elections under the banner of Bihar Election Watch. She is also an RTI activist. Through the Bihar Right to Information Manch, she recently organised a people’s court to highlight 49 cases of RTI users being victimised by officials. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar took cognisance of it, directed withdrawal of cases against RTI users and inquiry against the guilty officials. She speaks to The Tribune in Patna about her mission.
Excerpts: Q: What is the motto of the Bihar Right to Information Manch? A: It was formed by Humlog Trust in July 2007 to spread awareness among the common people and sensitise government officials about the RTI Act and its effective implementation. Our motto is to help poor people know their democratic rights. Q: How far has it progressed? A: The Manch has 600-odd members today. We have organised RTI awareness camps at the block, sub-divisional and distict levels across the state. We help people obtain the required information from the government. Q: What has been the people’s response? A: Very good. Earlier, 50-60 people used to attend our camps. Now over 500 people attend each camp. Government officials, too, attend the camps to interact with the users. Q: Have you set up a permanent helpline Centre? A: We have two information centres at Patna and Punpun (a block headquarter in Patna district). RTI activists and volunteers help people file their applications and appeals as also act as counsels in the hearings. Many people have benefited from these centers. Q: What about your Humlog Trust? A: It is a citizen's initiative to strengthen peace, harmony and social well-being. It believes in polycultural community bonding. Formed in September 2002 in Patna, it aims to resist religious polarisation among Indian citizens, check violence and destruction of property during public protests and promote ecological balance. Q: What are the activities undertaken by the Humlog Trust? A: Besides organising health and blood donation camps
for the poor and slum dwellers, we have been celebrating festivals like Diwali, Eid and Christmas with people from all faiths. We organised peace march for Peace in Kashmir and protest march in Patna against the Gujarat riots and the US role in Iraq. We also organised workshops on citizens’ participation in good governance. We have provided blood to over 1,000 poor patients and free food and medicine to 500 patients at the Patna Medical College Hospital. Our campaign against the injudicious use of plastic and plastic bags attracted the government’s attention; legislation on it is on anvil. Q: How do you manage the funds to run the Trust and its activities? A: We do not get funds from the government or the agencies Q: What has been your most commendable job so far? A: Under the banner of Bihar Election Watch, we have compiled and highlighted the criminal background of candidates contesting elections and thus checked criminalisation of politics. The media too has helped us a great deal in this endeavour. Q: Does your family support you in your endeavours? A: I am very fortunate to have a very supportive and understanding husband and children. They not only give me moral and emotional support but also contribute money and spare time for my organisation.My husband and children have also donated blood many a time at my
camps. |
|
Profile Following pressure and fearing for the TRS chief’s deteriorating condition, who had been on a fast-unto-death for 11 days, the Centre pledged to initiate the process of forming the Telangana state carved out of 10 districts of Andhra Pradesh. This gave enough excuse to KCR to break his fast. Subsequently, both Hyderabad and Delhi heaved a sigh of relief. But then, Rao’s dream of a separate Telengana state lies shattered as of now as there is as chorus of opposition to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh from the state’s two other regions – Rayalaseema and coastal Andhra. There appears to be no chance of the Centre redeeming its pledge. Five years back, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had called him a “Yogi’. Indeed, KCR had behaved sage-like by abdicating the Shipping portfolio and settling for a portfolio like Labour for the sake of providing stability to the UPA government. “I am not for power and position”, he said then. A small step by him proved a big leap forward in defusing the crisis precipitated by the DMK. Few in the weird world of politics give up a ministerial berth, that too, within 24 hours of getting it. Rare are persons like Rao. By voluntarily relinquishing the Shipping portfolio in 2004, KCR greatly impressed both Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister. He might have shown a spirit of renunciation but he is committed to another cause – much bigger to him than a ministerial post at the Centre. The sole objective of his life appears to be the formation of Telangana state. At the moment, it is doubtful whether he can achieve his avowed objective. A few years back, KCR had not only quit the Deputy Speaker’s post in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly but went a step further. He threw away the Assembly membership and snapped ties with Chandrababu Naidu’s ruling Telugu Desam Party. His election, four times from his home constituency of Siddipet in Medak district, showed his immense popularity. The sole mission of 55-year-old KCR appeared to be the revival of the Telangana movement and he did succeed. KCR began his political career with the Congress as a student leader. However, he came under the spell of N.T. Rama Rao and joined the TDP. NTR saw the spark in him, was impressed by his dedication and commitment in the young man and pitch-forked him to the post of Minister. KCR also enjoyed the confidence of Chandrababu Naidu, who too inducted him in his ministry but nothing deterred him from his mission – creation of a separate Telangana state. He was very well aware of the factors that prevented carving out of the new state in 1969-71 and determined not to repeat the same mistakes later. The issue of backwardness of Telangana had been uppermost in his mind since he joined the NTR government. He had also pleaded time and again with Naidu not to ignore the aspirations of the people of Telangana but later remarked in disgust: “Chandrababu has done more harm to Telangana than any other Chief Minister and he will face the consequences”. KCR’s warning proved to be prophetic – Naidu was routed in the elections. KCR was able to revive the Telangana movement in 2001. His plea that the region, comprising 30 million people, is rich in resources and yet remains backward and constantly neglected caught up like wildfire. Doubtless, KCR has built up the TRS from the grassroot level and mobilised the people’s support throughout the region. Chandrababu Naidu realised, though belatedly, the magnitude of the movement revived under the TRS banner. He sent emissaries to KCR, offered him a cabinet post and a portfolio of his chose but it was too late by then. The TRS leader told him rather bluntly: “I do not crave for anything except separate Telangana”. KCR took his fight to the national level and succeeded in eliciting an assurance by the ruling United Progressive Alliance government on
Telangana. |
|
|
|
| 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 | |
ON November 18, 1962, C Company, 13 Kumaon faced Chinese human-waves at Rezang La in Ladakh. Out-gunned and greatly outnumbered, the company fought last-man-last round and perished in a saga of rare valour.
P
ONE wonders if Telangana Rashtra Samiti leader K. Chandrasekhara Rao, or ‘KCR’ as he is called, has been duped or an earnest attempt was made to save his life. Indeed, he has been prevented from meeting the fate of Potti Sriramulu who died fasting unto death in 1952, paving the way for the creation of the linguistic state of Andhra Pradesh.