The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Insurgency in Northeast
Factors behind its decline

Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi has claimed that during his 12-year-long rule in the state, activities of militants have come down by 75 per cent. He argues that this has been possible because of the arrest of several senior Maoist leaders in Assam. Those engaged in insurgency have become virtually leaderless which led to a sharp decline in their destructive activities, so goes his argument. However, the Assam Director-General of Police, J N Choudhury, stated on January 24 this year that ethnic militants and Maoists had become stronger and posed a serious threat to peace and stability in the region. As against this, the influence of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) had declined considerably, as Choudhury pointed out. The situation may be a little better today than what it was earlier as the factors responsible for growing insurgency in the entire Northeast have weakened.

In March when the Lok Sabha was told that Northeast insurgents were getting the supply of sophisticated weapons from China via Myanmar, Minister of State for Home M Ramachandran denied it, stating that China as a matter of policy was no longer interested in fuelling militancy in India’s Northeast. That is not the whole story. The Myanmar government is also not allowing its territory to be used for insurgency in India because it wants to improve its relations with New Delhi. The change in Myanmar’s policy is basically preventing Chinese arms and ammunition from reaching India as much as it did earlier. This can also be seen as one of the benefits of India’s Look East policy.

Besides Myanmar, Northeast militants have been using Bangladesh territory to promote their activities in India. But the situation changed in Bangladesh with the Awami League of Sheikh Hasina capturing power there. Immediately after establishing her government she declared that the territory of Bangladesh would not be allowed for indulging in insurgency or militancy. The situation that prevails has demoralised the Maoists and others engaged in militancy. The claim that Gogoi has made may be true but not entirely because of his goverrnment’s efforts. The change in the policies of the countries in India’s neighbourhood has also helped considerably.

David Beckham
Celebrity footballer-endorser

David Beckham’s celebrity status completely dwarfed his footballing excellence, which, to be honest, was not good enough to match the best players of his own generation, let alone the previous or the next one. He was not quite in the class of Ronaldo, Bergkamp, Zidane, Roberto Carlos, Zidane, Rivaldo, Batistuta, Figo, Henry, Rondaldinho, Kaka, Christiano Ronaldo or Messi, to name just a few of his greater contemporaries. Yet, it’s quite likely that Beckham’s legacy would outlive that of all these excellent players. Beckham — a wonderful player, though not a great one — was a global superstar of the sport, but one whose appeal was much greater off the football pitch than on it. One reason was that he made a very fortunate marriage -- being the spouse of Victoria Caroline Adams, the Posh Spice of the Spice Girls, magnified his popular and commercial worth immeasurably. His excellence on the field, his marriage, his endorsement deals made him a global figure, the highest-earning footballer in the world despite not being the best one.

Beckham did win national titles in clubs in four different countries; he won six Premier League titles with Manchester United, for whom he made 264 appearances, scoring 62 goals. He played 116 times for Real Madrid, scoring 13 goals, and 98 matches for Los Angeles Galaxy in which he scored 18 goals. For the England national team, his record is less stellar -- his 115 appearances fetched him 17 goals, only three of them in the World Cup. Beckham has been largely irrelevant in the England scheme of things since 2006, but not elsewhere. His good looks, his marriage to Victoria, their enormous fortune and endorsement deals meant that the Beckham legend did not diminish despite him going into the footballing wilderness of the United States.

Beckham did serve football well in the United States, though more in the capacity as a brilliant marketing ploy than a great player. That’s what the Americans wanted, too, and marketing the sport was the specific reason he was hired for. The cost of doing so, around $250m, was split up between the 14 Major League Soccer teams. It can be argued that Beckham did his job well — when he left the US, there were 18 instead of 14 teams, and the sport was much more popular than before. That could be said of his worldwide legacy too — in retirement, he leaves the sport more popular worldwide, though not necessarily better on the pitch.

Thought for the Day

A friend may well be reckoned the masterpiece of nature. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

ARTICLE

India’s interests in Iran
Significance of Chahbahar project
by Harsh V. Pant

THE visit of the External Affairs Minister, Salman Khurshid, to Iran recently once again brought into focus India's changing role in West Asia where it has significant stakes which are rising by the day. India made known its desire to enhance its energy engagement with Iran as it sought joint exploration and joint investment in infrastructure. Tehran has reportedly made offers with regard to joint exploration and a production sharing agreement in an oil block which New Delhi has indicated will be of interest. There are also plans to bring together some countries like Iran, Indonesia and India under the rubric of the Non-Aligned Movement to manage the deteriorating situation in Syria. But the biggest splash was created by India's decision to participate in the upgradation of the strategically crucial Chahbahar port and invest around $100 million in the project at the initial stage.

It is another matter as to why New Delhi could not have taken this decision earlier, especially as it helped in the initial setting up of this port almost a decade back. Whether China's proactive role in Gwadar now is one of the reasons why India is taking this decision is a moot point. But Chahbahar was important for India's Afghanistan and larger Central Asian policy in 2002 and it is even more important now as regional realities unfold at a rapid pace.

India's relationship with West Asia as a region is dramatically different than a generation ago, when from 1947-1990 India was too ideological toward the region, as was reflected in its subdued ties with Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Today, however, it is these three states around which India is developing its new West Asian strategy, with New Delhi recently taking special care to nurture all these relationships and pursue its substantial regional interests. And now with a democratic Egypt emerging as a new player in the region, India is re-negotiating the terms of its engagement with the region.

India's policy toward West Asia has often been viewed through the prism of Indo-Iranian relations. The international community, the West in particular, has been obsessed with New Delhi's ties to Tehran, which are actually largely underdeveloped, while missing India's much substantive simultaneous engagement with Arab Gulf states and Israel.

A close examination of the Indo-Iranian relationship, however, reveals an underdeveloped relationship despite all the spin attached to it. India would like to increase its presence in the Iranian energy sector because of its rapidly rising energy needs, and is rightfully feeling restless about its own marginalisation in Iran. Not only has Pakistan moved ahead with the pipeline deal with Tehran, but China also is starting to make its presence felt. China is now Iran's largest trading partner and is undertaking massive investments in the country, rapidly occupying the space vacated by Western firms. Whereas Beijing's economic engagement with Iran is growing, India's presence is shrinking, as firms such as Reliance Industries have, partially under Western pressure, withdrawn from Iran and others have shelved their plans to make investments.

Moreover, there is little evidence so far that Iran would be a reliable partner in India's search for energy security. A number of important projects with Indian businesses and the Indian government have either been rejected by Iran or have yet to be finalised due to last minute changes in the terms and conditions by Tehran. To date, Iran accounts for only about 8 per cent Indian oil imports and that too is declining under pressure from western sanctions. Moreover, both of the major energy deals recently signed with great fanfare, and raising concerns in the West, are now in limbo.

India's position on the Iranian nuclear question is relatively straightforward. Although India believes that Iran has the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy, it has insisted that Iran should clarify the doubts raised by the IAEA regarding Iran's compliance with the NPT. India has long maintained that it does not see further nuclear proliferation as being in its interests. This position has as much to do with India's desire to project itself as a responsible nuclear state as with the very real danger that further proliferation in its extended neighbourhood could endanger its security. India has continued to affirm its commitment to enforce all sanctions against Iran as mandated since 2006 by the UN Security Council, when the first set of sanctions was imposed. However, much like Beijing and Moscow, New Delhi has argued that such sanctions should not hurt the Iranian populace and has expressed its disapproval of sanctions by individual countries that restrict investments by third countries in Iran's energy sector.

The crucial regional issue where India and Iran need each other is the evolving security situation in Afghanistan. If Washington were to abandon the goals of establishing a functioning Afghan state and seeing a moderate Pakistan emerge, that would put greater pressure on Indian security. To preserve its interests in case such a strategic milieu evolves, India has reason to coordinate more closely with states such as Russia and Iran as a contingency. And this brings us to Chahbahar where after a decade of neglect, India will be once again focusing its energies as it becomes clear with every passing day that post-2014 regional environment for India would be extremely troublesome unless New Delhi takes immediate ameliorative measures. But not much should be expected of a government beset with domestic contradictions so profound that for the last four years foreign policy has been left to a risk-averse bureaucracy with the result that not only has India's stature taken a nose-dive around the world but the country has also found it difficult to protect its vital national interests.

The writer teaches at King’s College, London.

MIDDLE

Kings and pawns
By Jupinderjit Singh

I do not have many bright memories of Khalra, my ancestral village. It is just 11 km short of Lahore and is situated right on the Indian side of the Radcliffe Line in old Amritsar district.

I relate more to Patiala. I was born and brought up there. Unlike most kids visiting their native village and growing up on unbridled love of maternal and paternal grandparents (the daadke and the naanke), my visits were brief. But can one escape one's roots? Often during discussions about one's family, I talk about Khalra and how it is perched right on the border and how border pillars were located right on our land in the pre - fencing era of the '70 and the '80s.

Not many know about the village. I often have to bracket it with Bhikhiwind, a larger village located not far away. It is a small town now. When people still don't show much recognition of the village, I educate them about the valour of Amritsaris. I narrate lofty tales of how Bhikhiwind-Khalra was a place known for its martial race.

Other than hardened farmers, the place is known for courageous soldiers, cops and also infamous terrorists. Amritsaris have been known for their fighting skills , their sense of humour, their uncontrolled eating habits and especially their short temper.

Bhikhiwind- Khalra being on the border does not remain much in the limelight, which made it difficult for me to tell people where it was. The place had three major events, to the best of my knowledge, in the last several decades. It was known all over when the late jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra was put under arrest in a guest house ( I don't know forest or PWD guest house) there during the peak time of militancy. Khalra also remained in the news for being the native place of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra. Bhikhiwind had been in the limelight due to the exploits of a family which fought militants for nearly two decades from their highly fortified house, which militants could never break into.

Today, Bhikhiwind is known the world over. Sarabjit Singh, who hailed from Bhikhiwind and was killed a few days ago in a Lahore jail, was accused of being an Indian spy and a terrorist. I feel proud at his martyrdom. As I read about him straying by mistake into Pakistani terrirtory, I recall how in the late 1970s it was no big deal for area residents to venture into a Pakistan area despite the three wars fought by the two countries. I have hazy memories of how a group of youths made me step into Pakistan's territory by mistake on a visit to the Indo-Pak border. The young boys even challenged each other on how many steps they can go across the border, which was nothing but an imaginary line between the pillars.

Once a youth drove his tractor around the border pillar much to the amusement of others. Men of the Pakistan Rangers and BSF soldiers were located at quite a distance and not much notice was taken. I was fear-struck the first time he did it. I was an urabanite grown on the history of hate between the two countries and had seen the border line on the maps. Soon, fun overtook the fear. I too strayed into "enemy" fields on a few occasions on foot and on the tractor. It was fun. It was sheer adrenaline.

To get more attention of people not knowing Bhikhiwind -Khalra, I often narrate such experiences on the border. Sarabjit may have done this several times in his life. On that fateful day he seemed to have gone too far. And it was no longer "cool" for anyone to cross over like that after the 1980s.

Sarabjit is a true martyr for us. It doesn't matter if he was a spy or not. He suffered as an Indian. By my small experience of reporting on spying and the life in border villages right from Rajasthan to Kargil, I am very sure that Pakistan must have tried to lure him into becoming a double agent. It is so common among spies. But he didn't. He stood his ground. And that is what makes him a martyr.

But does the story end there? Would he be the last one sacrificed at the altar of Indo-Pak hatred and animosity for each other?

OPED Agriculture

Diversification policy: old wine in old bottles
The Punjab report on diversification is still focussed on yield enhancement even in new crops and market orientation, which is much needed, is lacking though it talks of demand-driven agriculture also.
Sukhpal Singh

THE committee to formulate agricultural policy for Punjab submitted its draft report to the state government and it was published by the State Farmers’ Commission last month. Since the document is yet to be finalised and formalised, it is important that adequate public discussion takes place and the various stakeholders in the sector are able to provide inputs.

The dairy sector is often suggested as a strategy for the diversification of income since it is growing well. File photo: Himanshu Mahajan

The report is still obsessed with yield gaps. It views diversification in terms of new crops being grown the old way which is not a desirable thing. The report recommends intercropping only in agro forestry. Why it is not possible in mainstream crops is not explained. Barley is missing from the list of new crops when neighbouring states are doing well on it with many companies, including MNCs, buying directly or undertaking contract farming. Further, the most important production risk management strategy -- crop insurance -- is not even mentioned. The report forgets to recognise that the two pressing problems of farmers generally are production risk and market risk.

Interestingly, the report talks of the need and plan for diversification but does not touch upon the previous experience of this mechanism and why it failed during 2002-2007 and how it will be done differently now. The last attempt at diversification during the Congress regime (2002-2007) could not go beyond 0.25 million hectares against a target of diversion of one million hectares from that under paddy despite all kinds of perverse incentives and schemes. Now, the report targets 1.6 million hectares diversion away from paddy without any specific mechanisms. It still asks for assured markets and prices for new crops which may not be possible and may not be good for the long term. That is the MSP culture. The MSP and procurement is already there for many alternative corps but how can it be done for perishables?

Sustainability issues

The report talks of the Systems of Rice Intensification and other such well-known techniques but not about the Systems of Wheat Intensification as wheat will remain a large acreage crop in Punjab even after diversification. This is a serious neglect. It misses many upcoming and innovative methods and technologies on water saving like khet talavadis (farm ponds) and micro irrigation systems and does not learn from other states like Andhra Pradesh or Gujarat. It is still shy of sustainable agricultural practices like organic and mentions lack of organic matter as the reason for not recommending organic practices. This, despite the fact that a private agency has been helping the state in going organic for the last many years and there is a council set up for that since the previous Congress regime.

The report is still in the farmer co-operative mode and not even aware of producer companies provision and other institutions like Joint Liability Groups and Multi-State Co-operative Societies or Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies which can be set up at the local level with plenty of support from central institutions. NABARD has a fund for the promotion of producer organisations. Similarly, the Small Farmer Agribusiness Consortium has launched many programmes to promote farmer producer organistions (FPOs) which are essentially producer companies, which can be made use of. In the 2013-14 budget, it has been given Rs. 50 crore to provide matching equity grants to registered FPOs up to a maximum of Rs.10 lakh per FPO to enable them to leverage working capital from financial institutions. It has also been allocated Rs. 100 crore for a credit guarantee fund for farmer producer organisations.

On promoting more affordable farm mechanisation, it sticks to only agro service centres for machinery, managed largely by Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies. What about producer companies, Self Help Groups, agribusiness centres and private entrepreneurs like Zamindara Farm Solutions, with the latter already doing a good job in this field and promoting the co-owner model? It talks only of farmer income and not of landless labour and recommends mechanisation which can hit the labour interest hard. The large subsidies given on paddy transplanters and other equipment in the recent past are not even mentioned. Today, even value chains talk of labour interest for sustainability. Then, how can a state policy on a sector ignore farm and allied labour interest?

Matter of size

The report talks of tenancy laws and the size of land holding constraint, forgetting that Punjab has the largest size of operated holding in India (four hectares against one hectare in India). It fails to recognise that it is not the size of land but what you do on it which matters -- small can be prosperous and there are thousands and millions of such small and prosperous farmers in India. It recognises the poor state of small farmers, but does not say anything specific to them in recommendations. Rather, it talks of promoting large corporate dairy farms, which are already happening due to Punjab government policy and are not good for small farmers as there will be exclusion of small farmers even from the (co-operative) dairy sector.

In extension, no new models are proposed. There are public-private partnerships and franchise models in operation in India which should have been studied for their value and relevance while planning for high value crops. Just relying on the existing public extension mechanisms may not do. The report proposes the creation of an agricultural research development fund by charging it as a cess from farmers at the time of sale of their produce. If so far, the largest gainers from agricultural business/trading have been non-farmers i.e. traders and processors, why should not the technology fund cess be charged from buyers and arthiyas instead of farmers? This is so as farmers are in dire crisis already whereas the other stakeholders are doing well and should not mind paying it. If farmers are being asked to fund their own technology development, why support other sectors with public funds?

Investment vs subsidy

The report recommends in great detail the promotion of the dairy sector as a strategy for the diversification of incomes since it is growing well, but asks for a milk price stabilisation fund. If that is the state of affairs in the co-operative dairy sector after a few decades of its existence, and in the presence of MNCs in the milk sector, then where is the sustainability of the sector? The report basically makes the same demand as the state government has been asking of the Union Government i.e. provide Rs. 5,000 crore for adjustment of the cropping pattern (the Johl committee report). But that is subsidy, not investment. Demand-driven agriculture should be investment based, not subsidy based.

Surprisingly, the report is completely unmindful of the central government schemes which can be leveraged for the diversification and change in practices or institutions. More recently, of the Rs. 500 crore allocated in the 2013-14 budget for diversification, Rs. 200 crore is meant for Punjab alone. Besides, there are many schemes like the National Horticulture Mission which can be profitably leveraged for diversification.

The report recommends that the state APMC Act be amended. But the state has seen contract farming practices for 20 years and has already passed the Regulation of Contract Farming Act, 2013. But that leaves out two important aspects of the APMC reform -- direct purchase and private wholesale markets. The report should have examined the contract farming Act and the experience of contract farming in the state in various forms for the last two decades to make specific suggestions to leverage contract farming for demand-driven diversification. But that requires a hard analysis! Similarly, it recommends apni mandis (farmers’ markets) but does not mention or analyse why they did not work in the past as Punjab was the pioneer in this innovation. The report does not even seem aware of the Food Safety Standards Authority of India framed standards in the food sector which are mandatory for all operators in the food chain and very important for quality improvement in the food sector.

The report recommends genetically modified (GM) crops and technology, which anyway are not in the domain of the state government. On the other hand, what is in the domain of the state government i.e. foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail is not even mentioned in the report.

Finally, the report says that the policy paper aims at achieving two objectives: “faster and sustainable agricultural growth and an increase in real incomes of farmers by increasing productivity, lowering the cost of production and adoption of high-value crops and value addition”. These should be the objectives of policy, not of the paper. The latter should analyse the issues and show the way forward. In fact, the report is short on analysis and long on recommendations. The report also lacks inputs on how to achieve various recommendation/objectives.

The writer is the Chairperson, Centre for Management in Agriculture, IIM, Ahmedabad.