|
|
Cancelling
the licences On a
sticky wicket |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nepal’s
Maoist problem
America’s
$4-trillion question
A fly on
the wall
Procurement of
aircraft from the US is welcome, but restrictions that American laws
place on military supplies transcend the armed forces as users, having
strategic ramifications and impinging on national security. Adequate
thought has not been given to the evolving Indo-US military
partnership and a lot of hard work needs to be done to understand and
bridge sensitive differences Focus
more on technical support
|
|
On a sticky wicket
Mr B.S. Yeddyurappa’s continuation as the Chief Minister of Karnataka has become untenable following reports of his alleged involvement in a multi-crore land scam in the state. Ironically, at a time when the Bharatiya Janata Party is in the forefront of the Opposition campaign against corruption, it is applying different standards for the Congress and the BJP. While it is demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into three scams — 2G Spectrum allocation, Commonwealth Games and Mumbai’s Adarsh Housing Society scandal — and asking the Prime Minister to “come clean” about his purported delay in responding to Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy’s petition seeking his sanction to prosecute former Telecommunication Minister A. Raja, the BJP doesn’t see the need to direct Mr Yeddyurappa to quit office on moral grounds. Bowing to mounting pressure, Mr Yeddyurappa’s son and daughter have surrendered their respective plots to the government. These plots were illegally de-notified and then allotted to them. The surrender amounts to admission of guilt by the Chief Minister. While Mr B.Y. Raghavendra, MP, surrendered a 50x80 feet plot allotted to him in the upscale RMV Extension in Bangalore, Ms Umadevi sought cancellation of two acres of industrial land allotted to her near Harohalli by the Karnataka Industrial Development Board. The State Cabinet has also ordered a judicial probe into the allotment of land by successive governments in the state in the last 10 years. What is the BJP government’s intention of ordering a probe that also covers the governments of Mr S.M. Krishna, Union External Affairs Minister, Mr Dharam Singh (both Congress) and Mr H.D. Kumaraswamy (Janata Dal-Secular)? Doesn’t this amount to sidestepping the main issue of Mr Yeddyurappa’s alleged involvement in the land scam? In any case, a free and fair investigation into the scandal is not possible as long as Mr Yeddyurappa is at the helm of affairs in the state. Moreover, if Congress leaders like Mr Ashok Chavan and Mr Shashi Tharoor have quit their respective posts because of the public perception of their roles, Mr Yeddyurappa falls in the same category and hence cannot claim any immunity from action. Surely, the BJP leaders in Bangalore and New Delhi cannot take the high moral ground and preach principles to the Congress while prescribing different standards for their own people. It would only be fair if Mr Yeddyurappa resigns voluntarily and upholds the sanctity of the high office.
|
|
|
Nepal’s Maoist problem
If
the Maoists are to be believed, India is responsible for most of the problems Nepal has been faced with since the end of the monarchy there. Whenever they find an opportunity they accuse India of “intervention” in Nepal. In their opinion, India is also responsible for Nepal’s inability to elect a leader to form a government in Kathmandu. The Himalayan nation has been run by a caretaker government since the Madhav Kumar Nepal ministry resigned five months ago. It must have a democratically elected government soon for peace and stability in the country. But the Maoists seem to be preoccupied with seeing an end to “unequal” treaties like the Nepal-India Friendship Treaty of 1950. The Maoists have made the maximum contribution to the present state of uncertainty in Nepal. The Madhav Nepal coalition government, which had been doing reasonably well, had to resign owing to the unrealistic demands of the Maoists. The failure to find a new leader to head the government has brought the country to the edge of a precipice. Somehow caretaker Finance Minister Surendra Pandey succeeded in presenting the annual budget on Friday despite the opposition from the UCPN (Maoists). The government was on the verge of collapse without any provision for funds to run its affairs. Now the peace accord signed by Nepal’s political parties stands threatened with the Maoists insisting on allowing their armed cadres — members of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) — to attend the November 21 plenary session of the UCPN (Maoists). Besides the caretaker government, the UN peace mission in Nepal has urged Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias Prachanda, to keep the PLA away from the plenum, keeping in view the Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. So far, the Maoists are refusing to listen to any advice. They do not seem to have abandoned their earlier agenda of having a communist dictatorship. As pointed out by India’s Ambassador in Kathmandu Rakesh Sood, they recently gave training to a group of Indian Maoists in Nepal. This shows that the Nepalese Maoists remain a threat to peace and stability not only in Nepal but also in India.
|
|
|
When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property. — Thomas Jefferson
|
America’s $4-trillion question PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s visit to India has been hailed on both sides as a great success, and justifiably so. For the rest, however, he is getting no kudos from his countrymen. On the contrary, on his return home, the United States is seething with resentment against its President’s inability to accomplish anything during his stay in Seoul, especially at the G-20 summit. Not only did South Korea refuse to sign a trade agreement with him but also the G-20 “rebuffed” him on more counts than one. It “shunned” a US plan to “reconcile” the divisions over trade imbalances and exchange rates, and even refused to heed his request to sharpen its criticism of China for keeping the exchange rate of its currency artificially low. Ironically, countries like Germany and Brazil rubbed in that the infusion of $600 billion in the US economy by its Federal Reserve was nothing short of “competitive devaluation”. Even more hurtfully, his major domestic difficulties hounded him through his Asian journey. At a Press conference in the South Korean capital he tried to deal with at least two of these. The first was a report that a bipartisan commission presented during his absence on how to reduce the burgeoning budget deficit. Some of its recommendations have evoked a howl of protest. For instance, the recommendation for higher taxes on high-income groups and abolition of deduction on mortgages above a certain limit are anathema to the Republic Party that has just won the control of the House of Representatives. The reaction to the suggestion for increasing from 65 to 69 the age at which social security becomes operational has also been hostile. The commission’s idea of adding 15 cents a gallon to the tax on gasoline has predictably proved highly unpopular in a country that practically lives on wheels. President Obama pleaded with the American people not to reject the commission’s bipartisan findings out of hand but to give them fair consideration in their entirety. After all, the commission had also recommended a $100-billion cut in defence expenditure, reducing farm subsidy by $ 3 billion and lowering of corporate tax. However, the bipartisan Deficit Commission’s report is something that would be discussed by the two Houses of the US Congress for months, if not much longer. What is hurting the Obama administration the more is an extremely difficult yet emotive issue that has to be resolved within the next four weeks or it might not be resolved at all. It is the future of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, and the Americans rightly call it the $4-trillion question because that is its cost over a decade. Mr Bush’s tax cuts to everyone, including the richest, would end on December 31, if they are not extended beyond that date. Since well before the mid-term elections President Obama’s position has been that tax cuts of all middle-class households earning less than a quarter million dollars a year and constituting 98 per cent of the tax payers be made permanent but those given to the richest families should be abolished. But the Republicans firmly demand that all tax cuts be made permanent. This, argues the President, would “bust the budget” The Republicans waved it aside contemptuously during the elections and are deriding it now. Because they have surged to power in the legislature, they think they can get what they want. Mr Obama is, therefore, on the horns of a difficult dilemma. If he succumbs to the Republicans dictate, he alienates a great many of his core supporters. If he digs his heels in, he could sink deeper in the morass. For, come January 1 and all middle-class Americans would lose their tax benefits and thus be plunged into greater misery than the economic recession has already heaped on them. To save them from this fate, the future of the Bush tax cuts must be decided by the Lame Duck Congress in which the Democrats have a majority. This Congress will go out of business when its last session ends just before Christmas. Unpredictability about the new Congress has escalated the anxiety of the overwhelming majority of the people. This should explain why at his Press conference at Seoul, as in his first Press conference at the White House after the stinging defeat, Mr Obama spoke of his willingness to “compromise” with the Republicans during the last session of the Lame Duck Congress. But the real question is what kind of a compromise would be feasible? Quite clearly, the President and his party cannot agree to making the tax cuts of the rich permanent though they may be forced to extend them temporarily. In that case the Republicans, assuming that they are inclined to compromise at all, would almost certainly insist that all extensions should be temporary. Interestingly, a number of non-partisan individuals have strongly urged that all the Bush tax cuts be extended for a two-year period at the most and the whole issue be reviewed well before the expiry of the new deadline. That means that the controversy would be at its height during the 2012 Presidential poll. The American concern for the super-rich is surprising. So much so that those who argue that the rich should forgo the tax cuts because this would mean only a “small hit, not a body blow”, are usually shouted down. Nobody bothers that the money thus saved from letting the high-end tax cuts expire — estimated at $40 billion in 2011 and more later — could be used for creating new jobs, the most pressing need of the hour. The context in which the rich are being coddled is no less than staggering. When the Bush tax cuts came into force in 2007, the top 1 per cent of the Americans — “the uppermost of the upper crust” — were claiming almost a fourth of the total national income, their highest share since 1928. Remarkably, when Ronald Reagan ushered in the brave new era of “modern conservatism” the share of the top 1 per cent was “one-tenth”. It is fashionable to claim even in this rather troubled era of globalisation that rapid economic growth has a “trickle down” effect that should be welcome to the poor. In the words of an American economist, all the fruits of government policy since Mr George Bush evidently “trickle upwards, to the top, mostly to a tiny sliver atop the
top”.
|
||||||
A fly on the wall WOULD you like to be a ‘fly in the ointment’? A ‘bee in the bonnet’? A ‘snake in the grass’? A ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’? I’m sure not. Neither have I ever desired to join the animal ilk. But of late I am being driven by an unknown compulsion to be a fly on the wall. Let me assure you it has nothing to do with being an animal-o-phile in general or a fly-o-phile in particular. Nor does it have anything to do with a ‘karma’ dependent human-animal reincarnation. It also has nothing to do with any Freudian voyeuristic compulsions (thank God!).Why then was a happy human suddenly gripped by a desire to be a fly on the wall? It all started some years back. I was given an assignment which involved representing cases in the tribunal. After the arguments in court in a couple of big cases, I was convinced that the cases would be adjudicated in my favour. But to my utter disbelief the decisions were contrary to my expectations. I gathered from informal sources that the ‘other party’ had taken some out-of-court pleas that had swung the cases in their favour. At such a time how I wished I was privy to the all-important pleas. How I wished I was a fly on the wall. At another time, I was working ‘busy as a bee’ in my workplace, in the happy expectation of being granted a coveted field assignment. But one fine day as I entered my office ‘bright-eyed and bushy-tailed’, I was told that a junior colleague had been given the assignment in my stead. How had this unhappy state of affairs come about? Was it my work? Or was it some extraneous consideration? How could I find out? Simple. By being a fly on the wall. With the passage of time the compulsion slowly faded but only to raise its insistent head at important times in my life. When my beloved jade figurine went missing. When my interview for a coveted assignment was being rated. When a cyst was being examined for malignancy. Oh how I wished at times like these that I was a fly on the wall and witness to all that was happening behind closed doors. Many of my friends disagree and righteously point out that being privy to existential or other secrets would take the zing out of life. That it is the inaccessibility of the shadowy depths of the world that add excitement and interest to life. And to be a fly on the wall would take away that extra ‘zing’. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are
not.
|
||||||
Procurement of aircraft from the US is welcome, but restrictions that American laws place on military supplies transcend the armed forces as users, having strategic ramifications and impinging on national security. Adequate thought has not been given to the evolving Indo-US
military partnership and a lot of hard work needs to be done to understand and bridge sensitive differences Proposing
a National Aeronautical Policy in 1994, then President of the Aeronautical Society of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, had stated, “Aviation is one of the most significant technological influences of modern time and empowers the nation with strength for international partnership. It is a major tool for economic development and has a significant role in national security and international relations”. Not surprisingly, one of the high points of the recent visit of the US President to India, which was as much to promote US exports as fostering next steps in strategic partnership, was a single deal for procuring ten C-17 Globemaster III strategic heavy-lift aircraft worth about 4.1 billion dollars. Earlier, the IAF had signed for six C-130J Hercules transport aircraft modified and equipped for special operations and three Boeing-737 business jets for VVIP duties. Besides, Indian Navy is procuring eight P-81 long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. The first two procurements are through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, involving direct government-to-government dealing. Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) procures the equipment on behalf of India and charges a commission. The Boeings and P-81s went through the direct sale route, though these are subject to “End Use Monitoring Agreements”. The Defence Procurement Procedure-2008 makes exceptions to the open tender route in cases involving imperatives of strategic partnerships or major diplomatic, political, economic, technological or military benefits. The above procurements fall under this category and to the IAF, which often falls victim to decision-making processes lasting decades, this quick procedure will be welcome. To the bureaucracy still recovering from the Bofors syndrome, government-to-government deal also makes for smoother decision-making, as the specter of agents and scandals does not haunt the process. For long, the IAF has had on its wish list, weapons and platforms of US origin for reasons of superior technology, high operational performance and very competitive life cycle costs, but geopolitical considerations have come in the way. In lieu, the IAF has made good with procurements from other countries and frequently modified them to maximise operational capability. This has had two beneficial fallouts. First, successfully integrating weapons and systems from varied sources, thus producing a unique operational system, and secondly, gaining valuable knowledge and expertise in integration, testing and certification of complex airborne systems. It would be fair to say this techno-operational approach to achieving flexibility with weapon systems is now part of IAF psyche and it would be loathe to surrender it. Future procurements should preferably be in tune with this philosophy. The sting in the FMS tail, to which little attention has been paid, is the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) mandated by US law that is far more intrusive than mere monitoring end use. Pentagon’s Security Assistance Management Manual also stipulates specific conditions under which FMS equipment can be used limiting it mainly to a self-defence role. It also inhibits any non-original equipment manufacturer integration. CAG in its scrutiny of the purchase of the landing dock ship, USS Trenton, now INS Jalashwa, had also commented on both these constraints. It also observed that binding the navy to support only from the original equipment manufacturers created permanent dependence. It has recently been reported that the army has expressed unhappiness with the support to their Weapon Locating Radars procured in 2002 through FMS, resulting in poor serviceability. In the world of complex geopolitics where one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, self-defence for one can easily be viewed as offence to another. Some restrictions that US laws place on military supplies through the FMS route hence have strategic ramifications that transcend the armed forces as users and impinge on national strategic autonomy itself. If the armed forces are unhappy with FMS conditions, they are justified. It is likely the US industry, which used considerable political capital to support the Indo-US nuclear deal, pressured US State Department to resolve the EUMA issue with India in order to gain access to the lucrative Indian aeronautics market. This was an important agenda on Secretary of State Clinton’s visit last year and she appears to have convinced the Indian government, albeit with some cosmetic giveaways. Whilst the aforementioned aircraft purchases relate primarily to support functions, India has issued an open tender for Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which once implemented, will be the single largest defence deal in the Indian history. Amongst the six contenders are two US manufacturers. All contenders have been evaluated by the IAF and the report is with the MoD. Respective governments will actively lobby for a programme of such vital strategic-cum-commercial implications. To the operational, technical and economic aspects of the decision-making will now be added diplomatic and strategic elements. One hopes that our tenders have clearly spelt out conditions that are acceptable. If, in spite of this the US contenders remain in the running, it can only be good news for the IAF and the aeronautics sector, as it implies the US military aeronautics market will remain open through the normal commercial route minus strategically crippling conditions. All this, however, is in the realm of speculation and hope. India has been criticised for not having a strategic culture. Whether or not one accepts this thesis, it is clear that adequate thought has not been given to the larger canvas of our evolving strategic partnership with the US in the realm of defence procurements considering various US laws mandating such sales. First there was debate on the EUMA and now India is hesitant in signing the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA). Under US laws, both pacts need bilateral confirmation to ensure sensitive technology control transfers. Failing agreement, India will be denied advanced avionics and communication equipment on all the above projected aircraft sales. The same would possibly also apply to the MMRCA. These are critical limitations and should have been resolved prior to entering into sale agreements. Today, it is not just the flying platforms, but avionics and systems that confer on aircraft potent operational capability. Minus such sensitive technology and systems, some of these platforms will be severely limited in their capability. Limited by FMS agreements the IAF and IN will not even be able to upgrade them with systems from other sources. US laws on sale of defence equipment are not India specific, but apply to all their customers. But the US, by virtue of its being a technology and economic powerhouse, has only sold weapons to alliance partners and client states. India, on the other hand, is just emerging from its non-aligned mindset and such conditions will rest uneasily with its people and the armed forces. If the two countries are to exploit the power of technology towards mutual economic benefit and to enhance the evolving strategic partnership, hard work needs to be done to understand and bridge these sensitive differences. The writer is a former AOC-in-C of South-Western Air Command
|
|
Focus more on technical support Indian
Air Force, by any standards, is an ageing force when one looks at its fleet. Its fighters are over 25 years old. The Jaguars, Mirages and MiG-29s were procured in mid-80s. Same is the story with the transport fleet of AN-32s, IL-76s and helicopters. IAF, for almost a decade, has been operating without a genuine Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) aircraft. There have been many reported deals, which include 10 billion dollars for procuring Su-30 aircraft, 964 million dollars for upgrading MiG-29s and another 10.4 billion dollars for medium multi-role combat aircraft. Procurement of transport aircraft, attack helicopters and trainers is also on the cards. On a conservative estimate, IAF will invest 40-50 billion dollars for modernising its fleet. Amidst purchases to retain the cutting edge in the battlefield, the IAF has also initiated a Rs 375 crore ($85 million) programme for modernisation and refurbishment of its Base Repair Depots (BRD) and Equipment Depots (ED). The programme, to be executed on a turnkey basis, shall be covering 27 locations across the country. The projects will be completed within the next 3-5 years. The process of short-listing companies is over and 12 out of original 31 bidders have been selected. The contracts are to be awarded in 2011. BRDs and EDs play a pivotal role in keeping the flying machines operational. Though routine maintenance and minor repairs are carried out in flying units, much more is required to keep the aircraft airworthy. Spares and other materials like fuel, oil, lubricant, gases and weapons are held by the EDs. Needless to say, these EDs must have proper storage facilities, material handing equipment and above all fool-proof accounting systems in place. Most of these requirements are lacking today. BRDs are primarily involved in the overhaul of equipment in addition to carrying out major modifications and defect investigation of equipment, which are tasks beyond the capability of the units operating these systems. There are eight BRDs dealing in aircraft, missiles, avionics and communications. Two at Kanpur and one at Nasik deal with fighter aircraft and their engines. The one at Chandigarh, biggest of all the BRDs, deals with helicopters and its engines. The BRD at Pune deals with radio equipment and the one at Delhi look after radar and communication equipment along with power generation and air conditioning equipments. In a BRD, the aircraft is dismantled and stripped down to its last component. Each component is visually inspected, then checked with gauges and instruments and finally tested for performance, leading to three options: First, if the component is beyond economical repair, it is discarded and replaced. Secondly, the component may be worn out and require re-work. Thirdly the component may still be within permissible limits and hence can be fitted back after cleaning, greasing and other routine operations. It is the second option that is the most demanding. The work required to refurbish a component to original design condition involves many steps like degreasing and cleaning in salt/oil baths, machining, electro-plating, heat treatment, painting and testing Tthese need special purpose machines and equipment. All BRDs were set up over 40 years ago when they were supposed to overhaul simpler aircraft. Though old machinery has been replaced from time to time, it has been a piecemeal exercise akin to fire-fighting. Major facilities in most BRDs are vintage, needing replacement. The current modernisation programme envisages procurement of machines, machine tools, electronics and electrical test equipment, general purpose measuring equipment, calibration and test equipment, refurbishment of electro-plating and heat-treatment processes. The project includes installation of material handling, packaging and allied machinery, besides upgradation of existing hangars which require proper lighting, flooring, pressure pipelines, mechanised doors, earthing pits and bird proofing. Bays and labs attached to hangers require modular equipment, air curtains, installation of gantry and lift, fire alarms and electro-magnetically shielded cabins. The modernisation programme is no doubtlaudable, yet akin to a drop in the ocean. The required work, to say the least, is enormous but the funds earmarked are meagre. Spending Rs 375 crore amongst 27 depots means the biggest depot may get Rs 40 crore or so at the most. The replacement of antique test bed at 3 BRD itself would consume more than half of that amount. Therefore, the budget for this programme, which amounts to just about 0.2 per cent of the expenditure on fleet modernisation, needs enhancement. Another vital area that needs a look into is manpower. It is said that a machine is as good as the man behind it. Every operation in a BRD demands highly trained technicians. Alas, there is no dedicated training programme for technicians posted to BRDs as is the case with technicians posted to a squadron, who undergo a special course at designated “Type Training Schools”. There is another linked issue. Once a technician develops expertise, which takes two-to-three years, he is posted out just after another two years or so. This is highly deplorable. There is a need to have a policy that 70-75 per cent of the trained manpower at any BRD should remain there till retirement. It is not a tall order in today’s world where there is a high premium on highly skilled and professional technicians. The writer is an aeronautical engineer and has served in Base Repair Depots
|
|
|
| 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 | |
