|
|
Raising
money for govt Ministers
without work |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IPL
auction
Obama
losing popularity
Corridors
of Power
Shaping
intelligence for the world of tomorrow Chance
to reshape Haiti Health
|
|
Ministers without work
Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh finding time to meet his junior ministers on Tuesday to know what they have been doing since their induction in the NDA ministry shows that he earnestly wants all of them to contribute adequately to the functioning of the government. Earlier he had written to all his Cabinet colleagues to keep their juniors usefully involved in the decision-making process concerning their respective departments. The Prime Minister has been in favour of a mechanism to ensure the sharing of responsibilities, but that is yet to be in place. Such a mechanism seems to be unavoidable now, keeping in view the predicament of most of the 38 Ministers of State who have virtually no work to do. What they have apprised Dr Manmohan Singh of is a sad commentary on the style of functioning of senior ministers. Had the Prime Minister not taken the initiative of having an interaction with the junior ministers, the unfortunate situation would have continued to persist. Most of them are young but are qualified enough to be trained to grow into able administrators. It is true that Dr Manmohan Singh heads a jumbo ministry. But this is unavoidable because of the compulsions of coalition politics. After all, every constituent of the ruling NDA has to be accommodated to ensure that the coalition remains intact. Under the circumstances, there is need for a proper system for the allocation of work to every minister. When they are paid their salaries with huge perks they must be given responsibilities to justify their presence. Otherwise there is no point in having ministers who have nothing to do. Decision-making should not be the prerogative of seniors only. There are also ministers like Mr Prateek Patil of the Sports and Youth Affairs Ministry who, by their own admission, have no idea about what their ministry is doing. Either they have no interest in their portfolio or have not bothered to acquire enough understanding of their department. How can such ministers produce the desired results when they are ignorant of the functioning of their department? If they have a case to be allocated enough work they must also be enthusiastic to learn to be useful to their ministry.
|
|
|
IPL auction
The
spectacle of cricketers being auctioned like horses, or slaves of yore, does not make a palatable sight for all. But then the same has been the case with footballers in Europe going to the club which bids the highest. The IPL is also a business venture and the moneybags have been picking up the gladiators with the willow in a similar fashion. This time particularly, the richie rich have put their maximum money on players who are hardly household names in India. Imagine Kieron Pollard, 22, West Indian all-rounder, being picked up by Mumbai Indians reputedly for a record $ 2.3 million after a four-way tie at $750,000 between it and Royal Challengers, Kolkata Knight Riders and Chennai Super Kings. Likewise, New Zealand speedster Shane Bond was picked up by Kolkata Knight Riders for something like $1 million. Those are huge sums and it remains to be seen whether these players will justify the dollars reposed in them. But the real story is that none of the Pakistani cricketers was picked up by any IPL team, in spite of the fact that they are Twenty20 world champions. If one listens to the team managements, this happened because the franchises were once bitter twice shy, since during the previous season, Pakistani players were denied permission by their government following the 26/11 attack. Nobody wanted to take a chance because of concerns about security and lack of clarity over availability. Anyone who spends millions for a player wants the latter to be available for the entire tournament. Absent players would have not only exhausted their purses, but also wasted slots. But as far as Pakistani players are concerned, they are fuming, with captain Shahid Afridi saying that “IPL and India have made fun of us and our country by treating us this way”. Now that is taking things a little too far. What Afridi and his boys should remember is that they come into such a commercial venture not as representatives of their country but as paid individuals. It is conventional wisdom that the one who pays the piper calls the tune.
|
|
|
Whoever thinks a faultless piece to see,/ Thinks what ne’er was, nor is, nor e’er shall be. — Alexander Pope
|
Obama losing popularity Just
over a year ago, when Mr Barack Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, as the 44th President of the United States, he was seen at home and abroad as a catalyst for “change”. He was expected to usher in a revival of the economy and national self-confidence at home and promote the emergence of a new era, when his country would provide moral leadership for global peace, security and cooperation. He had an approval rating then of 68 per cent. Barely a year later, Mr Obama’s popularity has plummeted to 46 per cent. Democratic Party President Jimmy Carter had a 57 per cent rating at a comparable period of his Presidency and the charismatic John Kennedy’s popularity rating was 77 per cent at the end of his first year as President. Given the dominant global role of the US and the crucial influence of domestic developments on American foreign policy, how will these affect its approach to global issues? While Mr Obama has lost popularity primarily because of growing unemployment, criticism has also begun to mount on his conduct of foreign policy. Even his supporters acknowledge that rather than focusing on a few critical issues, he has lost momentum because of simultaneously taking on too many issues, ranging from climate change and nuclear disarmament to Middle-East peace initiatives and the existing crisis points like Iran, North Korea and the Af-Pak area. The fiasco in Copenhagen has placed the US in an rather embarrassing situation of being unable to provide moral leadership by agreeing to fulfil the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol on the one hand while expecting emerging and developing countries to make unacceptable sacrifices on the other. Hopefully, realism will prevail in 2010 and the US will realise the need for equity in dealing with others. Globally, promises to ink a START treaty with Russia and close the Guantanamo detention centre in Mr Obama’s first year of office remain unfulfilled. The US faced its first airborne terrorist threat since 9/11 following national Intelligence shortcomings. Yemen emerged as a new centre of global terrorism, with the terrorist movement there strengthened by the earlier release of some Guantanamo detainees. The Middle-East peace process was stalled, with Israel continuing its settlement activity. North Korea remained adamant in retaining its nuclear programme while demanding that the US should conclude a peace treaty and the world remaining averse to calls for new nuclear sanctions on Iran, even though Mr Obama showed considerable flexibility in fashioning a new approach to the Islamic Republic. Mr Obama based his entire approach to global relations on the mistaken belief that he could build a new world order based on a Sino-American condominium, in which the US and China would work cooperatively and jointly guarantee world peace and security. What emerged instead was that, emboldened by its belief, the US was weakened by its economic downturn and that it was losing its military edge in the Western Pacific, China was becoming more and more “assertive” and undermining American interests in Asia. Moreover, China’s increasing assertiveness was making its neighbours, with whom it had differences on its maritime and land boundaries like Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and India, increasingly concerned. With China openly asserting that the US should recognise the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean as its sphere of influence, it was only a question of time before the starry eyed approach to China began to be questioned in the US. The decision of Google to review the continuance of its operations in China, the suspicions evoked in Japan’s Hatoyama dispensation and China’s development of anti-missile capabilities have led to uncomfortable questions being raised about some of the basic assumptions of Mr Obama’s foreign policy team. If the Obama Administration’s policies to India’s east have been marked by miscalculations of China’s imperatives, its policies towards the Af-Pak region have been marked by uncertainty and vacillation. Even as the Pentagon was calling for reinforcements, Vice-President Biden appeared clear that the administration should avoid involvement in counter-insurgency against the Taliban and focus exclusively on eliminating Al-Qaeda. Mr Obama, in turn, tried to placate domestic criticism by declaring that he will begin scaling down troop levels in Afghanistan in mid-2011 and keep away from any effort at “nation building” there. The net result is that the Taliban leaders and their allies in the Pakistan military establishment appear convinced that it is only a question of time before the Americans cut their losses and run away from Afghanistan. Efforts by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates to stress that the Americans will stay in Afghanistan as long as it takes to stabilise the situation there have not changed this perception. All that this approach has succeeded in achieving is to persuade the ISI that the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy against Afghanistan and India should be sustained. India has emerged relatively unscathed from the dithering in Washington. Suggestions by sections of the Obama Administration to nominate a Special Envoy to meddle in India-Pakistan relations were scotched. But concerns over President Obama’s quip: “Say no to Bangalore and yes to Buffalo” remain a source of concern in India’s IT industry. Similarly, during his visit to Beijing, Mr Obama appeared ready to concede to China, a country that continues to supply nuclear weapons and missile knowhow to Pakistan, a special role in relations between India and Pakistan and to “strengthen dialogue and cooperation” in South Asia. It is to the credit of Dr Manmohan Singh that he did not mince words about the developments in India’s neighbourhood, whether it was on terrorism or on the Obama Administration’s earlier illusions about China. At his joint Press conference with Dr Manmohan Singh, President Obama described India as a “responsible power”. He added: “The US welcomes and encourages India’s leadership role in helping to shape the rise of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Asia”. Moreover, the Manmohan Singh-Obama joint statement reiterated their “shared interest in the stability, development and independence of Afghanistan and in the defeat of terrorist safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. The India-US relationship has a vast potential for the expansion of cooperation in key areas ranging from agriculture, education and energy to space, defence and high technology cooperation. But New Delhi will have to bear in mind that it is dealing with a US Administration that is anything but sure-footed. Despite this, the world’s two largest democracies can work together on global issues like climate change and in facilitating a global economic recovery, apart from countering terrorism, building an inclusive architecture for cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region and establishing a stable balance of power in
Asia.
|
|||||
Corridors of Power Corridors of Power Dark ! Abysmal ! Ghastly ! Loaded with skeletons in the cupboards Eerie drones of secret stories untold Blind alleys Sans slant of sunshine Play with a bud Nestled in the bosom of mother branch Still to bloom A’ make the planet luminous Cherubic fledgling in its cosy nest Yet to unfold its wings Precious life cut short Wick stifled untimely Innocence trampled, sacrileged a’ sacrificed At the altar of the demon called “Power” Blind and deaf to pleas of justice Alien to them are pricks of conscience Morality exists not for them Nor do the five letters “Humane” Woman’s life, her honour Mere playthings Fates of countless Ruchikas known and unknown Are sealed Yet the hungry hounds Ogling wolves Loom at large Untouched, unbounded What a mockery of the Bold Proclaims made “The year gone by Belonged to the Indian
woman”!!
|
|||||
Shaping intelligence for the world of tomorrow
We
remember Rameshwar Nath Kao today for his work and for his engaging personality. In regard to the former, I cannot help recalling a couplet by an Arab poet of the 10th century: These are our works, these works our souls display/Behold our works when we have passed away. Ramjee Kao created an organisation, negotiated rather than confronted inter-agency contentions and achieved a historic success. He could also be indulgent to a fault. Those who worked closely with him have described Kao as a complex mix of objectivity and subjectivity in matters concerning human relationships. A peer in a position to assess from a distance described him as a fascinating mix of physical and mental elegance, and one who was shy to talk about his accomplishments. Kao’s business in life was intelligence, more specifically external intelligence. Its relevance is in no need of commentary. We can go as far back as Kautilya, or even earlier, to perceive its importance. In fact, the methodological sophistication exhibited in Kautilya’s chapters on the secret service and internal security can be read with benefit even today. The same holds good for Sun Tzu’s chapter on secret agents. He highlights the relevance of ‘foreknowledge’ and concludes with the interesting observation that ‘there is no place where espionage is not used.’ Over centuries the ambit of intelligence, and the craft itself, expanded and enriched itself in response to requirements. Techniques were refined and technology opened up qualitatively different vistas. In the 20th century individual agents on specific assignments gave way to regular agencies. Fascination with the unknown also brought forth a vast amount of literary output that combined fact and fiction, working powerfully on public imagination and even lending respectability to questionable acts. There is merit in C.P. Snow’s observation that “the euphoria of secrecy does go to the head.” A particularly serious problem relates to the misuse of intelligence. The classic instance in recent times is the process leading to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The July 2004 Report of the US Senate Select Committee on Pre-War Intelligence Assessment of Iraq revealed that “group think dynamics” led the intelligence community to interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusive and ignore in the process established mechanisms to challenge assumptions and group think. Closer to the mark was the secret Downing Street memo of July 23, 2002 in which the head of British intelligence reported after discussions in Washington that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy” of regime change. The Iraq inquiry now in progress in London is shedding more light on this. It is hardly necessary to remind an Indian audience that ministerial responsibility to the legislature, and eventually to the electorate, is an essential element of democratic governance to which we are committed by the Constitution. The methodology of this is in place for most aspects of governmental activity; the exceptions to it pertain to the intelligence and security structure of the state. How then is oversight and accountability ensured? The traditional answer and prevailing practice, of oversight by the concerned minister and Prime Minister and general accountability of the latter to parliament, was accepted as adequate in an earlier period but is now considered amorphous and does not meet the requirements of good governance in an open society. Concerns in the matter have primarily arisen on two counts: (a) the nature and extent of supervision over intelligence services exercised by the political executive and (b) the possibility and scope of misuse of these services by the political executive. Both concerns emanate from the absence of specific accountability, on these matters, to the legislature. The problem is not a new one and has been faced by other democratic societies. In the late 1970s opinion in the United States reached the conclusion that “oversight of the intelligence community is essential because of the critical importance of ensuring the nation’s security, as well as checking the potential for abuse of power.” As a result, two congressional committees were established in 1976 and 1977. Despite this, the 9/11 Commission Report of 2004 found the congressional oversight of intelligence “dysfunctional” and recommended structural changes. A similar exercise was conducted in the United Kingdom through the Intelligence Services Act 1994 that established the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the intelligence services. Other countries like Canada, Australia, South Africa, Norway, Germany, Argentina, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania have also put in place similar mechanisms of public accountability. It has been argued that the scope of the mandate of the parliamentary intelligence oversight committee is crucial for its success. Three models of the mandate can be identified: (a) comprehensive to include both policy and operations, as in the US and Germany (b) limited to matters of policy and finance, as in the UK (c) focused on human rights and rule of law, as in Norway. The basic purpose of all three is to ensure that government policy in a given field is carried out effectively within the boundaries of the law. For this reason, it is felt that without access to some operational detail, an oversight body can have or give no assurance about the efficacy or the legality of the intelligence services. Given these models of calibrated openness to ensure oversight and accountability, there is no reason why a democratic system like ours should not have a standing committee of Parliament on intelligence that could function at least on the pattern of other Standing Committees. Since internal and external intelligence do not in our system report to the same minister, the possibility of entrusting this work to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs may not meet the requirement. The shortcomings of the traditional argument, of leaving intelligence to the oversight of the executive, became evident in the Report of the Kargil Review Committee and its sections on intelligence in its findings and recommendations. It identified flaws, acknowledged the absence of coordination and of “checks and balances”, and noted the absence of governmental correctives. The report referred to relevant systems in major countries but did not include in it their systems of oversight and accountability. Some correctives were introduced pursuant to the establishment of the National Security System and the report of the Group of Ministers on the reform of the national security system in its entirety. These improvements enhanced internal accountability and coordination but did not go far enough and did not put in place a more open system of public accountability. In the discussions that followed the publication of the Kargil Review Committee Report, and apart from inter-agency spats and the blame game, one informed commentator described it as a “substantive contribution in educating our Parliament and public opinion” aimed at “introducing transparency in this sensitive sector.” Arguments of this nature tend to be condescending. They ignore the time-honoured formula which is the bedrock of democracy: that “instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action.” They belittle the capacity of elected representatives to be responsible in matters of national security. Also overlooked is the fact that depending on the fall of the electoral dice, these same representatives are transformed into the political executive entrusted with the responsibility of supervising the work of intelligence agencies. The contention that openness and public discussion would compromise the secrecy essential for intelligence needs to be examined carefully. Operational secrecy is one aspect of the matter and has to be maintained. The legislature, nevertheless, is the organ of the state that allocates funds and is therefore entitled to insist on financial and performance accountability. The practice of subsuming allocations is not conducive to transparency; it may even encourage misuse. The proposed standing committee could fill this void; it could also function as a surrogate for public opinion and thus facilitate wider acceptance of the imperatives of a situation. Given the nature of emerging threats to human security, a wider sampling of opinion would in fact facilitate better comprehension of the issues and of possible remedies to attain total national power and comprehensive defence. Let me conclude by saying that in a fast changing world, the challenges facing intelligence practitioners are enormous. Can they adapt their organisations, policies and practices to a world in which there is a qualitative change in the notion of security and in the nature of threats? Both compel a paradigm shift in procedures and objectives; so does the imperative of accountability in terms of democratic norms of good governance. Each of these needs to be factored into the work patterns of the intelligence operative of tomorrow. A timely synthesis would pave the way for
success. Excerpted from the Fourth R.N. Kao Memorial Lecture delivered in New Delhi on January 19
|
|
Chance to reshape Haiti Satan's
terms and conditions must have got worse in recent times. America's most prominent TV evangelist, Pat Robertson, announced that the Haiti earthquake was a result of a "pact with the Devil", made when they overthrew slavery 200 years ago. But in the old days a pact with the Devil brought you a life of fame and riches and earthly pleasures. Now you get a few years of life in the world's poorest country and then buried under a pile of rubble. Maybe the Devil will issue a statement soon, that "due to difficulties arising from the current economic climate, I have found it necessary to temporarily restrict certain privileges to my valuable customers. But you can be certain I will endeavour to maintain my usual high standard of evil, and look forward to satisfying more gluttony than ever once it is financially responsible to do so." At least Robertson claims a spiritual logic for his sociopathic judgement. Whereas TV presenter Rush Limbaugh complained about the aid effort, saying, "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called income tax." That's the trouble. It's just take take take with some people isn't it? Or there's the Heritage Foundation, an influential group among American politicians, which declared that "the earthquake offers an opportunity to reshape Haiti's long-dysfunctional government and economy." That's the aid they need, a hand-up not a hand-out. Because it takes a functional economist to see a disaster zone and think, "That's handy." If only the Heritage Foundation could get people out there to rummage through the wreckage searching for survivors, so they could call into an air pocket, "I could rescue you, but that would only make you dependent. So come up with a business plan, young fellow, and in years to come you'll thank me for this. Ta-ra." To start with you'd think if the Haiti government had their wits about them they'd realise there are a lot of reporters out there with very few provisions, so a couple of branches of Costa Coffee would make a healthy return. But no, they're too dysfunctional to organise it. The most worrying part of this craziness is it isn't far off the official US strategy. The International Monetary Fund has extended $100m in loans to Haiti for the disaster, and according to The Nation magazine, "These loans came with conditions, including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage, and keeping inflation low." I suppose the idea is not to make things even worse. Give them more than the minimum wage and then you'd have binge-drinking to worry about as well. This deal was probably arranged by the bank ringing Haiti's government and saying "Hello is that the Prime Minister? It's Miriam here from the IMF. I'd like a few moments to talk to you about your account, only I notice from our records that you've had a tectonic catastrophe so you'll need to revise your
payments." — By arrangement with The Independent
|
|
Health Office
workers beware: long periods of sitting at your desk may be a killer. Scientists have identified a new threat from our sedentary lifestyles that they call "muscular inactivity". Sitting still for long periods of time leads to the build up of substances in the blood that are harmful to health. And exercise alone won’t shift them. Millions of people lead sedentary lives, spending their days between car, office desk and the couch in front of the TV. While the ill effects are well recognised it has conventionally been thought that they can be offset by frequent trips to the gym, swimming pool or jogging track. Now researchers say that that is not enough. In addition to regular exercise, office workers need to keep moving while they work, by making regular trips to the printer, coffee machine or to chat with colleagues. Writing in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Elin Ekblom-Bak and colleagues from the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm say research shows long periods sitting and lack of “whole body muscular movement” are strongly associated with obesity heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and an overall higher risk of death, irrespective of whether they take moderate or vigorous exercise. Dr Ekblom-Bak said: “Everyone knows about the health benefits of regular exercise. But what we have not been alerted to before is that long periods sitting down carries an extra risk that cannot be dealt with by taking exercise. There are a growing number of studies that show this.” “One study compared two groups of sedentary office workers, one of whom had regular breaks to move around while the other remained sitting for up to eight hours a day. The group that had the breaks had better blood lipid levels and blood glucose and less obesity.” A second study from Australia showed that for every extra hour women spent sitting (watching TV), their risk of metabolic syndrome - a pre-cursor of diabetes and heart disease, rose by a quarter, regardless of how much exercise they took. Dr Ekblom-Bak said that sitting still should be recognised as a risk to health, independently of taking too little exercise. “It is important to have a five minute break from desk work every 45 minutes. Don’t email colleagues - walk across the office to give them the message. Take a coffee break or put the printer in the next room. I am a desk worker and I try to do it. It is not difficult but sometimes you get lost in your work and you forget about it.” The authors say more studies are needed to confirm the ill effects of prolonged sitting and ways of combatting them. But on present evidence they conclude that “keep moving” should be added to the advice to “keep exercising.” “Climbing the stairs rather than using elevators and escalators, five minutes break during sedentary work,or walking to the store ratner than taking the car will be as important as exercise,” they
say. — By arrangement with The Independent
|
|
|
|
| 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 | |
