The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Let down by Britain
Help students get back their money

North Indian students hoping to study in Britain have got a nasty shock: the British High Commission has refused to help them get back large amounts they had deposited with British colleges as part of the admission process. They have been advised to approach the colleges concerned for fee refunds and, in case of denial, move courts. Their troubles started recently when the British High Commission froze the grant of student visas, suspecting foul play in the large turnout of applicants. From 1,000 student visa applications in 2007 the number rose to 1,800 in 2008 and an amazing 13,500 in 2009.

One reason for the sudden spirit in demand for Britain could be the growing attacks on Indians in Australia. Australia’s loss could be Britain’s gain. Another is the pull of better prospects in a Western country. The third is the failure of their home states, to throw up enough opportunities to meet their rising aspirations. Youngsters in large numbers are willing to do anything to study or settle abroad: fake documents, loans or even marriages. It is the genuine students who have got caught in the mad race. The British cannot escape blame because, like Australia, they had allowed the loot of trusting foreign students, unfamiliar with the real status of substandard academic institutions they chose for admissions.

The suspension of the student visas, it is reported, is temporary. The students who are serious about studies and have got admissions in recognised institutions on the basis of genuine papers and faithfully follow the rules should not be allowed to suffer. Their visa cases should be cleared on priority. Fake applicants, fraudsters passing as travel agents and so-called teaching shops need to be dealt with firmly. It is time the authorities concerned in India and Britain clean up the mess that has crept in the private immigration and education businesses.

Knowledge power
Literacy and quality education are needed

India that ranks 134 out of 182 nations in the Human Development Index has been consistently failing in one of the basic indicators of development — Education. While even today nearly one-third Indians cannot read or write, it is disheartening to note that less than 1 per cent engineering graduates opt for research. Even the Prime Minister, speaking at the 97th edition of the Indian Science Congress, said that Indian science set-up is fossilised and bureaucratic. India needs to meet the twin challenge of literacy and quality in higher education simultaneously.

Not too long ago, in September 2009, the Prime Minister launched the flagship Sakshar Bharat Mission with the aim to educate by 2012 as many as seven crore learners out of which six crore will be women. Now the mission has got underway in 19 states that have shown commitment to adult literacy. The Pratham report on school education has found that improvement in the education levels of fathers has a direct bearing on education and learning abilities of children. Literacy campaigns enhance social awareness among women and make them realise the value of education for themselves and their children. In higher education, today India might be lagging behind, however it must seek inspiration from a study that states: Given ideal conditions, India’s research productivity would be on a par with that of most G8 nations within seven to eight years and could even overtake them in 2015-2020.

When it comes to education, India cannot have an either or approach. The Prime Minister’s resolve of 100 per cent literacy has to be backed by sustained drives. Since money is not an impediment for education now, all it needs is political will and active cooperation of the states that can play a crucial role in making India fully literate. At the same time, instead of producing unemployable graduates — engineering or otherwise — India should use its demographic advantage to build a strong knowledge base. While innovation and creativity must define education standards, it must be made relevant to not only the economic needs of the country but also the world at large. Only then can India hope to claim the status of a knowledge power.

Thought for the Day

Good-night, good-night! parting is such sweet sorrow/That I shall say good-night till it be morrow.— William Shakespeare

ARTICLE

Improving India-US ties
Defence cooperation can be the next big thing
by Rajendra Abhyankar

A year after Defence Minister Anthony noted that “the security scenario is undergoing unprecedented change, and the defence industry has come to occupy the centre-stage like never before - not only in our country, but the world over”, US Defence Secretary Gates’ three-day visit to New Delhi bolstered Indian role in promoting security in Afghanistan and stability in the entire region. It also gave a boost to bilateral defence cooperation and trade. According to knowledgeable sources, his visit will prepare the way for a potential visit by President Barack Obama to India this summer. Following on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Washington visit last November it tries to set at rest a major conundrum on the future of US-India relations: do we take a “strategic pause” to get over the slow negative creep in the relationship and consolidate the gains, or do we look for the “next big idea” which will keep up the momentum much as the civil nuclear agreement did?

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit established that both sides were still looking at strengthening their strategic partnership although its nature is still to be spelt out. The range of discussions during Mr Gates’ visit could be seen as evidence that the US regards India as its “global” strategic partner: protection of global common interests, maritime security and counter-terrorism. Mr Gates’ statement that another 26/11 type incident would fray New Delhi’s patience, exhorting Pakistan to deliver on the perpetrators of that attack was a welcome US intervention on the issue even though he received a customarily self-serving response from Prime Minister Gilani in Islamabad.

More importantly, in a clear push for closer bilateral military cooperation in the face of the “greatest common challenge of terrorism”, the visiting US Defence Secretary during talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought increased defence cooperation and trade. The visit exuded optimism on both sides. It highlighted the potential of this sector to be the likely driver of the relationship during the next few years. There has indeed been considerable progress in the defence relationship since the bilateral cooperation agreement of 2005. India is a unique case where, contrary to generally accepted norms, defence cooperation has preceded defence trade largely because of ingrained blocs against acquisitions of the US equipment that both sides need to work through: lagging concerns about the US as a reliable supplier, US posture on the release of technology and guarantee against the transferability of specifications to third end-users. Yet the signature on the End-User Monitoring Agreement was a landmark.

Mr Anthony conveyed to Dr Gates Indian concerns regarding denial of export licences for various defence-related requirements of the armed forces and the continuing inclusion of some Indian defence PSUs and DRDO labs in the “Entity List” of the US government expressing the view that such restrictions were anomalous in the context of the steady improvement of the bilateral defence relations. It would appear that President Obama has initiated a comprehensive reform of US export control regulations and Secretary Gates assured that this would involve facilitation in the supply of defence technology and equipment to India.

It makes eminent sense for India to consider defence cooperation and trade with the US as the next major building bloc of the relationship. While defence acquisition remains a complex matter and India will choose to keep its options open, increasing requirements for India’s power projection would tend to suggest the US as a major partner for the future, given greater reliance on the Air Force and the Navy. It can be expected that future weaponry will increasingly rely on unmanned vehicles and use more of laser technology. In both areas the US is the world leader even though there is a high degree of innovative capacity with China. As things stand, a recent CII report states that 50 per cent of the Indian military equipment is ‘obsolete’, corroborating the Indian Army’s recent statement in Parliament that it had just over fifty per cent of the required capability. Only 15 per cent equipment is “state-of-the-art”, 35 per cent “mature” and 50 per cent “obsolete”.

A scenario of having to contend with two adversaries at the same time has already been painted by the Army Chief. A significant increase in the four-fold difference between the Chinese and Indian military prowess can be expected in the next few years coupled with an intensification of its nuclear and missile nexus with Pakistan. Chinese base facilities at Sittwe, Hambantota and Gwadar will be completed soon enough and the resulting expansion of the Chinese military capability will affect the military balance on the seas and in space. India will have to cope with this dangerously evolving scenario. The case for increased US-India defence cooperation and trade becomes self-evident.

However, as minister Anthony reiterated, the bilateral defence trade relations have to move from a purely buyer-seller relationship to a more comprehensive relationship covering the transfer of technology and co-production. It is in this context that he emphasised the need to convince India of the benefits from entering into the agreements which could not be done during the Gates’ visit: the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) which will enable cashless supplies to each others’ armed forces, the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA) which will enhance the “interoperability” of the Indian and American forces, as also ensure secrecy of the US’s C4ISR (command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems and the Geo-Spatial Agreement which will facilitate aircraft navigation.

The fact that Secretary Gates agreed to provide India the necessary information speaks volumes for the steadily maturing relationship. While the finalisation of the CISMOA will eventually take place, the LSA still remains a politically contentious pact, harking back to the controversial refuelling facility to US aircraft provided by India during Gulf War I.

India currently procures approximately 70 per cent of its equipment needs from abroad, but aims to reverse this balance and manufacture 70 per cent or more of its defence equipment in India. India is poised to spend well over $30 billion over the next four-five years to import military hardware and software, which will only serve to reinforce its position as the developing world’s 10th biggest arms buyer. This provides us a significant opportunity to leap-frog technology inflow in the defence industry and change the direction and technology content of our armed forces. Russia still provides 80 per cent of India’s military hardware, but the US is beginning to make its presence felt. Over the last two years, India has purchased over $3 billion in military equipment from the US, including eight maritime reconnaissance aircraft and six C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft.

There is a major opportunity to build an industrial infrastructure which, in keeping with our status as a global economic power, will be able to quantitatively, technologically and qualitatively support the requirements of our armed forces in terms of weapons, systems, platforms, upgradation and overhaul. For this the share of our private sector has to go up from its present level of 14 per cent ( with foreign sources taking 70 per cent and the rest going to DPSU’s and the ordnance factories) which in 2001 was permitted 100 per cent entry in the sector subject to an FDI cap of 26 per cent.

While ensuring the security of over one billion Indians remains the government’s supreme national responsibility, would the procurement of US weapons and equipment necessarily mean a move to strategic alliance? There is a gap in knowledge between what India and the US respectively understand by strategic partnership. There are many ways to cut the “strategic cake”: by time, by space, by criteria and by issues. There is, therefore, need for both sides to define the content and parameters of their strategic partnership.

Meanwhile, our experience with Israel gives a pointer: even though it is the second largest supplier of defence equipment, it has not meant a change in India’s traditional position on the Arab-Israeli issue.

The writer, a former diplomat, is Chairman, Kunzru Centre for Defence Studies and Research, Pune.

MIDDLE

A case of addiction to milk
by B.K.Karkra

The early Aryans lived mostly on milk and meat. They, of course, also had high fondness for ‘Som Rasa’. This invigorating intoxicant was taken mixed with milk. The cherished drink was lavishly offered to gods and the gatherings on all festive occasions.

It has not been possible to identify the plant from which ‘Som Rasa’ was extracted. This herb, in fact, seems to have gone extinct. However, thanks to Kurien and his dedicated team, milk continues to flow in our land. In the absence of this timely white revolution triggered by them, we would have by now been drinking the milk prepared out of urea and detergents.

Now, leaving the gone-by millennia behind, I shift to the great sub-continental tragedy, the Partition of 1947. I was then at Jaitu, a politically vibrant town of the erstwhile state of Nabha. There was violence in the air and bodies and blood in the streets.

We lived in a barrack-like house on the first floor of a building that had a number of windows opening on the grain market below. I saw the bullock and camel carts bringing grain, auctions being held and money and grain changing hands peacefully.

Later, through these very windows I was to see an infant girl circling round her mother in deathly panic, crying ‘Maa Maa’, and both being slaughtered in seconds along with other members of this Muslim family. On top of this, I heard the mob shamefully proclaiming, ‘Morcha Fateh’ (We have won on this front). The ghastly scene still stays pasted on my mind.

Man just seemed caught in a spiral of chain reaction and appeared to have lost his sense of balance. He was just getting tossed about helplessly. When trains started steaming in from the Ferozepur side soaked in Hindu blood, people this side of the divide lost faith in the goodness of human heart and rather thought that violence was perhaps the law of nature and nothing could be done about it. It took considerable time for the sanity to return.

Amid all this, I had an ancestor who reminded me of the Vedic times as he, of all things, was addicted to milk! He was otherwise in the mould of Amir Khusrao, far ahead of his times and perfectly at ease with all religions. It really pained his heart to think what ‘man had made of man’.

However, he just could not retire for the day without having a glass of milk. Finding him uncomfortable on this count one evening, my father quietly slipped into the street below littered with bodies and procured a glass of milk for him from a halwai shop. This ancestor of mine took the milk alright realising that it had after all been brought at great risk. However, I do not think that he savoured it as much he usually did.

OPED

Democratic decision-making
Public debate on Bt Brinjal is justified
by Kavitha Kuruganti

THE humble vegetable brinjal and the possible entry of its genetically modified version are indeed causing huge rumblings not just in the public minds but within the government too with different ministers articulating different views on Bt Brinjal.

Finally, the debate around genetically modified (GM) seeds and indeed the debate around sustainable technologies in farming have arrived in India.

Given the controversy around this technology in farming, public consultations undertaken by Jairam Ramesh assume significance. As the series of consultations are unfolding, the biotech industry must be having sleepless nights at the massive public resistance that is pouring out through these consultations.

In the three consultations so far, an overwhelming majority of speakers were against Bt Brinjal. For almost the first time in this country where anti-GM activists have been resolutely branded as anti-science, many scientists and even entire universities have come out with recommendations against the entry of Bt Brinjal.

A legitimate platform was created for scientists of different hues to engage with the issue, look into available data and come up with their analyses and share the same in public. Unfortunately, the worried industry is already spinning this as a “talk bazaar” with “fear psychosis”.

Ramesh had correctly defended the government’s right, nay responsibility, to take a final decision on this issue (and not leave it to a bunch of “experts”) in response to a reported statement by Pawar that the expert committee’s views are final as far as he is concerned.

Ramesh wrote in his letter to Pawar that “GEAC may well be a statutory body but when crucial issues of human safety are involved, the government has every right and in fact has a basic responsibility to take the final decision based on the recommendations of the GEAC”. He cited the precedent of his predecessor T R Baalu giving the final nod to Bt Cotton in 2002.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety’s (under the Convention on Biological Diversity) Article 23.2 says that ‘Parties…shall consult the public in decision-making process regarding living modified organisms…’ and India is a signatory to this.

And as the Cartagena Protocol aptly terms Bt Brinjal and other GMOs, these are living modified organisms, which have a way of propagating and spreading and given that genetic engineering constitutes an irreversible technology when released into the environment, utmost caution is needed before allowing it in our food and farming systems.

Interestingly enough, the GEAC itself, in its October 2009 meeting while concluding that Bt Brinjal was safe for environmental release, said that ‘since this decision will have major policy implications, the GEAC decided to forward the recommendations and report of the expert committee…to the government for a final view”.

Many environmental activists are also arguing that the standard environmental impact assessment processes should require mandatory public hearings in any case with a technology like Bt Brinjal too.

In the case of Bt Brinjal, a lot of questions have already been posed on the ‘expert committee’, its constitution, mandate and functioning. The expert committee chief himself has been heard talking about how “genetically engineered food products will not be equal to the non-genetically engineered food products. That’s for sure. Now, how much damage, we do not know at this stage”.

Further, the conflicting interests that many ‘experts’ carried with them were also highlighted by many. This is a thoroughly discredited expert committee and when Pawar faithfully refers to this committee, it only reinforces suspicions triggered by the expert committee chief’s reported confessions of being ‘under tremendous pressure’ to approve Bt Brinjal.

While this is the case with this particular group of experts, whereby the reason as to why decision-making cannot depend only on them is quite apparent, the issue is also much larger, given that ‘expertise’ is often in a highly specialised but reductionist domain.

There is an emerging school of thinking which stresses upon an integrated approach, of including environmental and social goals firmly into S&T policy/decision making and one that advocates for a better ‘knowledge democracy’.

In this approach, concepts like sustainability, plurality and justice are deeply embedded and for obvious reasons, the approach does not rely on just a few “experts”.

It involves people and various knowledge domains of people. As a group of Science & Society experts and practitioners have recently concluded in a manifesto they released, this is about “Knowledge Swaraj”.

Coming back to Bt Brinjal, apart from Sharad Pawar’s reported statements, the other objectionable stance was that of the Minister for Science & Technology, Prithviraj Chavan. His statements at a time when his colleague is undertaking public consultations across the country actually undermine the democratic processes initiated by Ramesh.

Taken together, Chavan’s and Pawar’s statements could be construed as a gag order on the scientists coming forward to critically engage with the issue since most funding for scientific bodies and institutions comes from these two ministries. That would indeed be unfortunate.

It is interesting to note that many media stories after Ramesh shot off his letter to Pawar chose to portray it as a story of a Bt Brinjal opponent vs. a proponent. However, Ramesh, in fact, did not say anything about Bt Brinjal per se but only defended decision-making at a policy level on this issue.

The biotech proponents, who are arguing that the resistance to Bt Brinjal is just “fear psychosis” and “scare-mongering”, would be amazed to see the number of absolutely rational, scientific reasons that are being put forward by so-called lay persons as well as scientists while providing feedback to Ramesh in the consultations.

Scientists are pointing out to anything from peptide segments and epitope properties to integrated pest management while farmers are sharing real life experiences with Bt Cotton, Brinjal production, seed pricing, their pest management practices etc. How can all of this be brushed aside as ‘fear psychosis’? How can decision-making happen without taking all these aspects into consideration?

In fact, this can truly be an exercise, if taken up properly with all good intentions, in honesty, transparency and appropriate processes, of making the scientific establishment accountable to the public and about the public actively engaging with major policy decisions centred around something as basic as our food. This can be about democratisation of science and technology if the minister stays faithful to the processes that he has initiated.

The writer is with the Kheti Virasat Mission and has been working on sustainable agriculture issues for more than 15 years.

Revisiting Shopian tragedy
by Balraj Puri

A fresh inquiry into the Ruchika case, mainly due to the media hype, has revived many similar cases of women victims suppressed by the powers-that-be in places like Ghaziabad and Ahmedabad. In Kashmir, it has given a fresh stimulus to the agitation over the suspected rape and murder of two sisters-in-law in Shopian. But unlike elsewhere, it was the CBI report which has provoked a hostile reaction.

The state high court, which had directed the state government to refer the case to the CBI, and to which it submitted its report on December 14, 2009, has started a hearing on it.

There were flaws in the manner the case was initially handled. The bodies of Nilofar (22) and her sister-in-law Asia (17) were found on May 30 but the police took five days to register the case. A Special Investigation Team of the state police was set up on June 8 after strong protests by people. What happened to the vaginal swabs of the victims during the 27 days chain of events before these arrived at the Central Forensic Laboratory could raise doubts.

The SIT sent the blood samples of four policemen for DNA profiling to the FSL, New Delhi, to check for a match with the DNA profile of the slides of the vaginal swabs of the victims. It came to the conclusion that the vaginal swabs did not belong to the victims. The role of the policemen also came under a cloud.

The Muzaffar Jan Commission recommended on July 7 the suspension of four police officers and two doctors for fudging evidence. But it did conclude that the girls were murdered and raped. Its failure to specifically identity the culprits was a subject of criticism.

The CBI ruled out rape and murder and held that they died due to drowning. It did not find any evidence against four police officers indicted by the Jan Commission and instead filed a charge-sheet against five lawyers of the Shopian Bar Association, six doctors and two civilians for fabricating evidence. These lawyers were pleading the case on behalf of the relatives of the victims. Thus the CBI made prosecutors as the accused.

The two civilians included in its charge-sheet were shopkeepers near the bridge on Rumbiara nullah where the bodies were found. They had told the Jan Commission that they had seen on May 29 men in khaki on a police vehicle Tata 407 trying to silence two women who were crying.

The CBI has exonerated both of them and held that they made their statements to the Commission under the influence of the lawyers. Who could have influenced them more – lawyers or the police, which kept them in custody for one month?

Justice Muzaffar Jan quotes an executive engineer, floods and planning,
who deposed before the commission that the water level in the nallah on May 27 was 0.45 metres in which nobody can be drowned.

There is no security force like the Army, the BSF or the CRPF near Rambiara nallah as the police lines and all the evidence points the needle of suspicion to the state police for suppressing, destroying and fabricating crucial
evidence in the case. The state government, the Jan Commission and the high court, therefore, concurred on suspending the police officers. The CBI exonerated them.

The Shopian tragedy has also a lesson for the political parties. Those who added the demand for the withdrawal of the Central forces from the state, draconian laws which gives impunity to them and other aspects of the Kashmir problem, must realise that however legitimate their demands may be, they are not directly related to the Shopian tragedy.

The Chief Minister should not have rushed to the conclusion that the two women were drowned soon after the incident on the advice of his security adviser, who was later sacked and he also retracted his statement.

Thankfully the CBI’s report is not the last word on the subject. It is being examined by the state high court. Its Chief Justice, Justice Brain Ghosh, has said, “the report is not a gospel and should not be taken as sacrament”.

Change your life with Confucius
by Rob Sharp

YET since it was launched in China in 2007, the self-help book Confucius from the Heart has sold more than 10 million copies there. A simplification of the Analects of Confucius, a collection of the great mind’s most famous writings, the sagacious tracts have been rendered digestible by Yu Dan, a 42-year-old professor at China’s Beijing Normal University.

The book began in 2006 as a series of lectures by Yu Dan, broadcast on Chinese Central Television, and rapturously received. Now the it’s been translated and is available across the globe, and is about to be published here in paperback. So how has a book of 2,500-year-old philosophy, subtitled “Ancient Wisdom for Today’s World”, hooked in such a great number of modern readers (and in the process trounced its critics, who argue it is a perversion of an ancient wisdom)?

The book focuses on clear, simple advice for our day-to-day lives. We are encouraged to be kind to our friends but stand up for ourselves. We are advised to set achievable goals, manageable waypoints on quests towards great goods.

Our ultimate aim, we are told, is becoming a “junzi”, someone who doesn’t crave favours when financially out of pocket or spout arrogance when raking in yen. Intermittently, Dan injects modern anecdotes. There is an almost truistic joke about a self-doubting professional at the doctor’s, where the GP suggests the patient goes to see a locally famous comedian; “I am that comedian,” replies the patient, in sombre overtones.

While some find its vignettes facile (there are no dates, times or locations) it’s little different from self-help bestsellers such as the Chicken Soup for the Soul series, the US collection of books pitched at everyone from mothers to chocolate lovers.

American psychotherapist Richard Carlson’s 1997 bestseller Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff...and It’s All Small Stuff told us that in moments of great crisis we tend to have a built-in coping mechanism; it’s just things like queues and work colleagues that get us down (we accept things like bereavement as an inevitability, whereas sneezes on a bus can drive us insane).

Similarly, Confucius from the Heart generates a much needed reminder of life’s important truths; a perspective shift that has allowed China’s farmers and rickshaw drivers – in a country in which just one per cent of the population attend university – to reconsider their lives. It also must be noted that nowhere does Dan write: “accept censorship and human rights abuses, as they, too, are the chosen path”.

“The book deals in what is called perennial wisdom, chunks of ancient knowledge that are as relevant today as they ever were in the past,” says David Purves, a consultant psychologist and head of the Berkshire Psychology Service. “It delivers statements like, ‘A man who enjoys work never works a day in his life,’ which is the ultimate goal for many people. What is so good about these kinds of statements is that in our busy lives we forget to pay attention to life. We are working, we are paying bills, taking the kids to school. A well-constructed statement, if it is put together well, can strike a chord with something you feel is more fundamental.”

Dan’s argument would no doubt be that Confucius was doing little more than delivering an early form of self-help – something the masses can enjoy. Carlson, for example, says we are more likely to find solace through embracing the boredom in our lives; so is a dose of banality all that bad?

“There really is a huge market for these all-encompassing pithy statements,” concludes Purves. “They have a ring to them, like a strong line of poetry. It’s like the words to ‘Rule Britannia’. They give you that tingle of realisation.”

— By arrangement with The Independent