|
|
|
|
|
Will Maya, Mulayam help?
GM crops on trial |
|
|
|
Delivering Aakash A promising new model IT began with a dream of equipping students all over the nation with tablets that would cater to their basic computer needs. These tablets would have to be affordable, and to get these within the reach of lakhs of students, the government would subsidise them. The dream soured a bit when the first Aakash tablets were delivered; the company got bogged down in a dispute and the device got a negative reception.
Business of intelligence
To Sir with love!
Win elections, stay in power
Political parties have evolved into fiefdoms, owned and controlled by a single individual or a coterie of persons
|
Will Maya, Mulayam help? IN his efforts to ensure a smooth sailing for the UPA government during the coming session of Parliament, beginning on November 22, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh interacted with the heads of UP’s two principal political parties last week --- first with Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party (SP) and then Mayawati of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Both are supporting the Congress-led ruling coalition from outside and this means they are free to differ with the government on any issue that comes up for discussion in Parliament. How they come to the rescue of the UPA coalition remains to seen when the Trinamool Congress of Mamata Banerjee tables its threatened no-confidence motion against the government over the issue of FDI in retail. Differences over the issue led to the Trinamool Congress parting company with the UPA coalition, necessitating the drive to seek the support of the SP and the BSP. Both Mayawati and Mulayam Singh had, in fact, been waiting for such an opportunity to ensure the Centre’s support for their own agenda to keep their vote banks intact. The way they have reacted after their separate meetings with the Prime Minister shows that they are keeping their cards close to their chest. It is not easy for the Congress to keep both the SP and the BSP happy at the same time, but, luckily for the Congress, the two parties need it as much as the Congress requires their backing for meeting the threat posed by the Trinamool Congress. The government may find itself in difficult straits when issues relating to the Lokpal Bill, the National Food Security Bill and the Judicial Accountability Bill are raised. Social activist Anna Hazare has threatened to go on fast again if steps are not taken to get an effective Lokpal Bill passed in the coming session of Parliament. Several powerful NGOs have also declared that they will oppose tooth and nail the Food Security Bill in its present form. The Opposition, particularly the BJP, is anxiously waiting for the session to corner the government on the issue of black money stashed in foreign bank accounts, as highlighted by Arvind Kejriwal of the India Against Corruption. The UPA government has troubled times ahead even if it does not have much to worry about its survival at this stage.
|
|
GM crops on trial THE issue of genetically modified (GM) crops has come up before the Supreme Court, which is hearing a PIL (public interest litigation) petition seeking a ban on their field trials. The court has appointed a technical expert committee of its own to look into the issue. In its interim report the committee has recommended a ban on field experiments of GM crops. A joint parliamentary committee had earlier urged the government to impose a moratorium on the release of fresh GM crops until the regulatory measures suggested by it are put in place. The general concern of all is the safety of human health and the environment. GM foods and crops are opposed on these grounds chiefly. Former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh shelved the release of Bt brinjal in February 2010 after NGOs raised a hue and cry about it. It was interesting to see Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati arguing in defence of GM crops before the Supreme Court, taking a position contrary to that of the former Environment Minister. There are strong arguments in support of GM crops. First, these have been embraced, among others, by the US which is known to follow strict standards with regard to human health. In India, crop yields are stagnating and the Green Revolution has run its course. Biotechnology can help raise food output, farm productivity and profitability. The success of Bt cotton in Punjab is an example. There is the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the government-appointed body of scientists, whose task is to conduct proper field trials before recommending the release of a GM crop for mass cultivation. Besides, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and agricultural universities in states are experimenting with GM crops. An arbitrary blanket ban brings their hard work to a halt. On the other hand, there are NGOs and opponents of multinational companies who conduct media trials on issues that should best be left to experts. Unfortunately, they manage to influence government and court decisions.
|
|
|
Delivering Aakash IT began with a dream of equipping students all over the nation with tablets that would cater to their basic computer needs. These tablets would have to be affordable, and to get these within the reach of lakhs of students, the government would subsidise them. The dream soured a bit when the first Aakash tablets were delivered; the company got bogged down in a dispute and the device got a negative reception. Yet, it did not die. Even the lack of success of Aakash, in its first incarnation, showed that it was possible to deliver the tablet at a price that left the world wondering. The basic decisions regarding software and hardware were fine but it needed a boost. With the help of IIT Mumbai, the company behind it delivered Aakash 2 that was launched by President Pranab Mukherjee on National Education Day. The new device, with the latest (almost) Android operating system, a good screen, a capacity to expand its memory and four hours of battery life, is what was expected of the original Aakash and more. Soon it would be in the hands of some college students and, as production ramps up, lakhs of them. The device is not cutting edge, but then it is inexpensive, largely because the HRD Ministry buys it from the manufacturer at Rs 2,263 per tablet, and sells it to students at Rs 1,130. The not-for-students commercial version of the tablet comes at Rs 3,500. India stands very low internationally in internet penetration figures, even as recent numbers have shown an increase in the rural sector. For Indian students to be truly a part of the global village, both cheap Internet devices like the Aakash tablets as well as good Wi-Fi connectivity are imperative. Former HRD Minister Kapil Sibal took the plunge, his successor must take it forward so that young Indians who lack the means to buy computers and laptops are not only acquainted with the cyber world, but also use it for improving their future prospects.
|
|
|
Come forth into the light of things, let nature be your teacher. — William Wordsworth
|
Business of intelligence Undoubtedly
a flat statement, but intelligence analyses must address credible threats to national security. And that is where the problem arises. Which threat is ‘credible,’ and which threat is fanciful lies in the eyes of the beholder. More clearly, in the eyes of the decision-making elite charged with managing the defence effort; they must balance the need for ensuring territorial integrity and national sovereignty with the challenging requirement to provide for economic development and inclusive growth to insure against internal unrest. The current controversy in the United Kingdom over the replacement of its four Trident submarines—the crown jewels of its nuclear deterrent—illustrates this dilemma. Briefly, its fleet of four Trident missile-armed submarines is to be retired in 2020 and replaced by four Vanguard-class submarines. These would be acquired in addition to Joint Strike Fighters, Type 26 frigates, unmanned aircraft, and armoured vehicles. With the national budget under severe strain, stagnant growth, rising unemployment and a dismal economic future staring the UK in the face, how will Whitehall pay for the Vanguards estimated to cost more than $30 billion? The LibDems (Liberal Democrats), junior coalition partners of the Conservative Party in power, have dubbed the Trident “a Cold War relic,” and have proposed opening a debate on how best to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent in the modern age. They have proposed two alternatives to address this problem. Either build only three instead of four vessels, or abandon the Trident option altogether in favour of nuclear-armed cruise missiles based on the existing Astute-class submarines. These options were rejected by Prime Minister Cameron declaring that the UK must have a credible deterrent, “otherwise there is no point in having one at all”. All this rhetoric can, of course, be dismissed as theatricals, since uneasy political partners are jockeying for advantage within the British “coalition dharma”. The more urgent issue, however, is the referendum in Scotland coming up in 2014 on its continuance within the United Kingdom. Should Scotland vote for secession, the first item on its agenda would be closure of the Trident home ports in Faslane and Coulport. The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has strongly urged this policy, arguing that the consequential loss of some 520 jobs could be easily created from savings by removing these weapon systems. Critics also argue that the strategy of having one boat on patrol at all times is excessive. Desperate problems beget desperate solutions; so the UK is giving serious thought to basing the Trident submarines somewhere else in the UK or even in the United States since “Trident is effectively an American weapon.” But the more urgent issue needing debate is why the UK needs to replace its Tridents and sustain its nuclear deterrent. Who does it need to defend against and deter? During the Cold War the UK made the case with great difficulty that it needed to deter Moscow. But the UK never had any credible military capabilities against the Soviet Union, and had always sheltered under the nuclear canopy of the United States. After the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1990, the relevance of the British deterrent became questionable. However, British Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has argued, “You can’t say with any certainty today who will be threatening us in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years’ time,” suggesting that the UK must hedge against an uncertain nuclear future. But this makes the perfect case for all nations to acquire nuclear weapons to hedge against their uncertain futures! So, what are the lessons here for Indian intelligence? Both RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) and IB (Intelligence Bureau) are focused on Pakistan and its efforts to destabilise India by cultivating local militant groups. Pakistan is unlikely to rein in its chief instrument— the Lashkar-e-Toiba— which has since become a support arm of the ISI and the Pakistan Army for continuing its war against India by other means. Indeed, Pakistan has added a new dimension to the strategic theory by using insurgency and terrorism as the weapons to further its national interests under the rubric of nuclear deterrence. Much greater efforts and resources need to be devoted, therefore, by India to address the internal threats to its national security, which prominently includes left-wing extremism that has begun infiltrating into urban areas. The threat from China is no less significant and derives from its “all-weather” friendship with Pakistan buttressed by nuclear technology and conventional arms transfers. China is expanding its military presence in Tibet, Xinjiang and the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan to augment its overall policy to confine India within South Asia. China’s growing cyber warfare and satellite surveillance capabilities are designed to enhance the PLA’s anti-access and area denial operations, heralding a marked change from its earlier defensive to an offensive strategy. The intention is to “fight and win local wars on its borders” by enhancing the PLA’s ability to launch mobile operations in the Tibetan plateau, using all its elements of power, which has obvious implications for India’s security. Simultaneously, a larger role is being assigned to its air and naval forces. China is also placing a new emphasis on maritime security by according greater attention to its territorial claims in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. China’s puzzling activism in the South China Sea is explicable by its desperate need for fossil fuel resources. But its alarmed Southeast Asian neighbours have banded together and sought the countervailing power of the United States. Indian intelligence needs to assess, therefore, the fuller implications of the US ‘pivot’ or ‘re-balancing’ towards Asia to pursue its national interests in this deteriorating situation. There is good reason for India to shed its timid policy of inactive neutralism, and see where its advantage lies in this emerging Asian disorder. Naturally, India must sustain its burgeoning trade relations with China while reducing the growing deficit between its imports and exports, but it cannot ignore China’s inimical actions either. Like the UK, India must review its old orthodox beliefs regarding national security, and think more innovatively about pursuing its best national interests in a rapidly changing
world.
|
|||||
To Sir with love! IT was a women’s world indeed. Being an all-girls school, my alma mater had only women teachers and the supporting staff. So, when the only male teacher joined, many eyebrows were raised. However, with his erudition, witty style and tips for success in life, he soon became very popular. His one-liners often used to become quotable quotes. Sample this, “If there are one hundred teachers in the school, sir feels like a lone woman among men.” His affectionate reminder to talkative girls calling them “anti-social elements” was always greeted by girls with a grin. He used to repeat that “sir is the only sir in the whole of this girls’ school”. In our school, we had a very mischievous girl with weak eyesight. One day Sir was scolding girls for not coming prepared for a particular lesson. Having poor eyesight, this girl, trying to fix her gaze at the black board, ended up making funny faces. This was enough for Sir to come up with another gem saying that children these days try to scare teachers. At a reunion years later as we friends met, we went down memory lane and recalled what Sir had instilled in us. The trait of confidence came to us most naturally because he groomed us to be perfect girls. Students at times can unknowingly and unwittingly be cruel to each other and to teachers. They can have attitudes. Sir used to laugh off our mistakes. He taught us the value of patience as he helped students facing a mental breakdown. He was always willing to keep explaining, knowing that eventually it would make sense. Sir had a true compassion for students and cared about us as individuals. He had understanding of how to teach with no rigid technique but a flexible style. He had the ability to look at life in a different way and to explain a topic differently. Sir always wanted the best from his students and, as such, encouraged thinking out of box and sharing of ideas. He believed that we all can do well and was willing to shower extra attention. I remember how he used to take pride in our achievements but at the same time never singled out the best students either. He was not only interested in his domain but also passionate about many other things. He had a verve that almost made him glow and made everyone emulate him. We learnt from him that there is always a reason to keep going. Things will get better no matter how much they appear to be stuck at that moment. Thanks to him, today we have the power to take on this world, strength to carve out a niche and zest for life to spread happiness and love. From him we learnt the true meaning of education and life. Like Francis Bacon, studies for him were meant to “serve for delight, for ornament and for ability”. Sir continues to spread light at the school while we are pursuing different disciplines in different institutions. However, when we friends meet, we remember Sir with
love!
|
|||||
Win elections, stay in power Sibal: "Clearly between 2010 and today, all issues raised in Parliament were not at the instance of the principal Opposition party. In fact, the BJP has no agenda. It has no issues to raise. It is obvious that it paralysed Parliament in the last session without debate with an eye on elections in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh." Prasad: "The Congress strategy is very clear. First, deny the allegation, then abuse one who exposes corruption. In this even a constitutional body like the CAG has been condemned in the most abusive terms by Congress leaders, including ministers. The last part of its strategy is to cover the flanks and shield the corrupt. Accountability is brushed aside with impunity. This is the true record of the Congress." Why do our political leaders behave like this-running the other down, all the time? This question can of course be best answered by political leaders themselves but some speculation may be in order in the absence of explanations from the "horse's mouth".
Next poll on mind The first explanation that comes to mind follows from what political leaders think is the purpose of political parties. All actions of political parties seem to indicate that the only purpose for which political parties exist is to win elections, acquire state power, and then start working to win the next elections. As a matter of fact, a supremo of one of the very important regional parties gave this advice to Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal on August 16, 2011 when Anna Hazare was arrested, "My suggestion to these people is that they should form a political party, contest elections in 2014, satta mein aayaen, aur phir jo marzi karein (Come to power and then do whatever they like)." The thought that one of the purposes of "coming in to power" is to govern or administer, does not seem to be a matter of concern to our political parties! Even when some sections of the political establishment do think of governance, there seems to be a very serious disconnect between what the citizens expect from governance and what the political establishment expects from it. A common expectation, as reflected on the Wikipeida, says, "A reasonable or rational purpose of governance might aim to assure, (sometimes on behalf of others) that an organisation produces a worthwhile pattern of good results while avoiding an undesirable pattern of bad circumstances. Perhaps the moral and natural purpose of governance consists of assuring, on behalf of those governed, a worthy pattern of good while avoiding an undesirable pattern of bad. The ideal purpose, obviously, would assure a perfect pattern of good with no bad."
Good and bad outcomes Following this, citizens expect that governance by elected parties will lead to "good" outcomes for them; the citizens, and "bad" outcomes will be avoided. However, political parties which come to power as a result of elections seem to think that the essential purposes of "governance" are (a) to stay in power as long as possible, and (b) take all steps necessary to ensure winning the next elections. Since given the overall political and electoral climate in the country, the most important requirement to win elections seems to be only larger and larger amounts of money, the sole purpose of winning elections and coming into power, for all political parties seems to be to make as much money as possible by whatever means possible. The parties that do not win the election and consequently do not come to power, feel that they have nothing to do with "governance" and their sole purpose seems (a) to prevent the so-called ruling party from governing, and (b) to get the government to fall, so that a fresh election can be held, giving them a shot at whatever governing is. Sometimes a situation develops when the so-called opposition party while trying to prevent the so-called ruling party from governing, does not really want to topple the government in power. The cause of this unusual phenomenon is that the Opposition is not confident that it would actually get elected and acquire power if a fresh election is held. On the contrary, it is seriously doubtful of being elected. This is the situation that currently prevails. Given this understanding of political parties, we can bid good-bye to that evasive entity called national interest. Unless the understanding of political parties changes, partisanship and parochialism would prevail, Parliament woud not function, governance would not happen, and political parties would continue to do as they like. It is for the governed, for whom a worthy pattern of good is not emerging and an undesirable pattern of bad continues, to change this by making the functioning of political parties subject to some form of check.
The writer is a former Professor, Dean, and Drector in-charge of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
|
|
Political parties have evolved into fiefdoms, owned and controlled by a single individual or a coterie of persons Given the increasing clamour against corruption in the recent years, and it being traced to the political system in the country, a question often asked is: what, if anything, can be done to correct the political system in the country? One possible response is to set up a new political party and then attempt to change the system by example, by putting pressure from within the system. This is the route chosen by a section of the Anna Hazare movement. Such attempts must be lauded and encouraged but the chances of their success are debatable as they amount to swimming against the current, the current being the existing system. There can, however, be another approach, that of putting pressure from the outside of the existing political system. Recognising that the most fundamental building block of the political system in a representative democracy such as India, consists of political parties, it is quite possible that if the behaviour and functioning of political parties can be improved, or corrected, the entire political system would also start functioning in a way that is productive for national and public interest. The main reason political parties tend to overlook national interest in their narrow, self-interest is that they neither consider themselves as public institutions nor do they behave like public institutions. The root cause of this behaviour is the evolution of parties into fiefdoms, owned and controlled by a single individual or a coterie of persons. Given this structure and constitution, it is no surprise that the interest of a particular individual or group of individuals takes priority over everything else, including national interest.
Being a public institution This is also why the mere concept of being a public institution is an anathema to all political parties. It became clear, yet again, when in a recent hearing in the Central Information Commission, all political parties, except the CPI, argued spiritedly that they are not public authorities for the purposes of the RTI Act. Even the CPI, who had earlier sent a letter saying, "Yes, we are a public authority under section 2 (h) (d) (ii) 'non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government'," took a somewhat different stand in the hearing. One of its prominent leaders argued that while political parties do have a moral obligation to be accountable and answerable to the citizens, technically they should not be covered under the RTI Act. The solution to this doublespeak by political parties -- when they say one thing and do its exact opposite, as when all of them claim to be the champions and defenders of democracy in the country while being completely undemocratic in their internal functioning -- is to make them internally democratic by law. The Law Commission of India suggested this in 1999 in their 170th report, in the following words: "It is therefore, necessary to introduce internal democracy, financial transparency and accountability in the working of the political parties. A political party which does not respect democratic principles in its internal working cannot be expected to respect those principles in the governance of the country. It cannot be dictatorship internally and democratic in its functioning outside" (Para 3.1.2.1). Since it is the representatives of political parties in Parliament who make laws, the trickiest part is getting Parliament to enact such a law. That is where the citizens need to put pressure on the political system.
— J. S. Chhokar
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | E-mail | |
Before