|
|
|
|
|
Judges’ appointment
Angry Turks |
|
|
Plagiarism
Slowdown in GDP growth
Not a lasting commodity
What’s holding up arms indigenisation?
Restructuring the DRDO
|
Judges’ appointment
Law
Minister Kapil Sibal has stressed that the executive must have a say in the appointment of Supreme Court and high court judges. At present the judges are selected by the Chief Justice in consultation with senior judges and their choice is binding on the government. There is a growing opinion against the present system of selection through a collegium, which came into being following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Second Judges Case delivered by the late Justice J.S. Verma in 1993. Subsequently, Justice Verma himself admitted that the collegium system had not worked properly, though he did not say it had failed. He had suggested its replacement in the form of an independent national commission. The collegium system is criticised every time there is a controversy about the selection of a particular judge. A few influential persons of questionable merit and integrity have occupied key positions in the higher judiciary. The country has witnessed cases like the one dubbed “cash-at-judge’s-doorstep”. Though the present system allows the withdrawal of a recommendation of doubtful merit, this is often not done in practice. Besides, there is no transparency in the existing process and appointments are often delayed inordinately. There are valid arguments against the prevailing practice, but is it the right time and is this the right government to bring about judicial reforms? The UPA government is currently in the dock, being embroiled in several scandals. To its embarrassment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly passed strictures on its functioning. In the coal scam its observations led to the resignation of Ashwani Kumar as the Law Minister. In this context, any move to change the process of selection of judges may be suspect. Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir is strongly in favour of the collegium system and has publicly defended it. An executive-judiciary standoff should be avoided. A Bill on judicial accountability a clause of which bars judges from passing verbal comments against any constitutional authority during an open hearing is pending in Parliament. A wider debate on these issues is required before a legal shape is given to them.
|
|
Angry Turks
Turkey
has a government headed by a person having an Islamist past. This is one reason why Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) commands widespread support among people in the rural areas and conservatives. But most people remain as devoted to secular values as they have always been since the days of Kamal Ataturk. They have provided fresh proof of their dedication to secularism by taking on the government through widespread protests over the plans for an Ottoman era barracks housing shops and apartments in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, known for political protests. The defiance of the government demonstrated by the protesters for the past few days has shaken it by its very foundations. In a televised speech, Erdogan has admitted that excesses have been committed on the protesters. “There have been some mistakes, showing extremism in police response”, he said while promising legal action against the officers who used excessive force to handle the protests, which were held not only in Istanbul and capital Ankara, but also all over Turkey. The Turkish Prime Minister, however, asserted that his government would go ahead with its redevelopment plan for the Gezi Park area near Taksim Square. The AKP government was formed in 2002 after its victory in the elections in Turkey. At that time also the Turkish army had given clear indications that any deviation from the secular path chosen by Turkey of the post-Ottoman era would not be tolerated. Prime Minister Erdogan had then promised to maintain the secular and democratic character of the country’s constitution. But most Turks did not feel comfortable with the credentials of the party that won the polls. That is why there were protests in Turkey when the AKP government began to support the pro-democracy elements who challenged the dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. The secular Turks fear that religious forces would capture power in Syria in the name of establishing democracy there. They call such people as “divisive elements” who, the secularists suspect, are working to change the character of the system in Turkey too.
|
|
|
Plagiarism
Rudyard
Kipling, true to his reputation of a controversial literary genius, added more connotations to the word “plagiarism” by practising it. People before him used euphemisms like “work inspired by” or “influenced by” to avoid harshness of using the word “plagiarised”, but Kipling put it more obliquely, “helped myself promiscuously from other stories,” wrote he in a letter penned in 1895. He knew he would never be accused of promiscuity of a literary nature. Alas! His promiscuous writing made him admit to this seemingly innocent act in a letter. This confessional document of his forays into plagiarism may earn an auction house 2500 pounds. Had the youngest recipient of the Nobel Prize been alive, he would have been accused of literary theft, a punishable crime under the copyright infringement and cyber crime laws. Kipling is not alone in committing literary promiscuity. A number of iconic writers keep him company. Shakespeare is accused of stealing most of his historical plots directly from Raphael Holinshed. Laurence Sterne and Samuel Taylor Coleridge were also accused of plagiarism. The extent of Coleridge's plagiarism has been debated by scholars since Thomas de Quincey, himself an accomplished borrower, published an exposé a couple of weeks after Coleridge's death. Oscar Wilde, too, repeatedly faced the allegation of having indulged in plagiarism. Ambitious artists and writers often suffer from acute self-doubt. They think by stealing other people’s writings they can better an idea and its expression. Iconic authors plagiarised before the age of the Internet, but were caught rarely. In the age of WWW copying has become more promiscuous and is exposed equally fast. One such case is of 17-year-old Kaavya Viswanathan who was accused of plagiarism in her debut novel. All this shows how deeply insecure writers can be. Paul Gauguin once observed that art is either plagiarism or revolution. In the age of the Internet, it kills creativity too. It’s an accepted way of life that can be easily
plagiarised.
|
|
|
Yesterday's the past, tomorrow's the future, but today is a gift. That's why it's called the present. — Bil Keane
|
Slowdown in GDP growth The
news of India’s GDP growth slowing down to 5 per cent is already creating problems in stock markets. According to this fiscal year’s fourth quarter’s results, various sectors are slowing down and even though many experts think that the downturn is bottoming out and once again a high growth rate of 8 per cent can be attainable, there are various issues that need to be looked into. At this juncture, the RBI Governor’s recent cautious speech may be in the right direction. While the WPI inflation has come down to 4.8 per cent, the Consumer Price Index inflation is still high at 9.3 and food inflation is at 10.4 per cent. The main problem seems to be the flagging demand, and even the robust automobile industry is facing a slowdown. Only the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) industries seem to be doing better (soaps, toothpaste, etc) and the rest of the industries appeared to have registered rather meagre profits after tax (PAT) of 10.4 per cent and net sales growth of 7 per cent. India is not alone in facing a slowdown. After all, the European Union is a big buyer from the Asian region and its massive unemployment is something which is dampening the demand for goods and services from the developing world. China too is facing a slowdown in GDP growth (it is not going to be double digit any more but around 8 per cent) but now it seems to care more about other problems than just pushing for higher GDP figures. China has already had three decades of high double digit GDP growth and it has reduced the poverty level to 1 per cent of the population which is really remarkable. There is no absolute or abject poverty in China today, only relative poverty. In India, on the other hand, a higher GDP growth rate will help in faster poverty reduction because it still has a high poverty ratio of 26 per cent. India even now has millions of people below the poverty line — whichever way one calculates it. What is most distressing about the latest set of data is the slowdown in agricultural growth to 1.4 per cent which is a dangerous sign because 52 per cent of the population still is dependent on agriculture. And 77 per cent of India’s poor live in rural areas. Thus, a higher agricultural growth is the most important criterion for poverty reduction. For the first time, however, an increase in rural population in India has been less than the increase in urban population. It shows that migration from villages to towns has picked up. But migration brings with it some associated problems — slums coming up and human deprivation in urban spaces as well as problems in the villages where women have to look after farming and children. Having visited China recently, I found that it is also facing a whole series of new problems related to rapid migration and the fast disappearance of arable land and farms. China has 20 per cent of the world’s population but only 7 per cent of the world’s arable land. It is facing severe problems in the quality of agricultural produce and safety of its agro-products. A lot of farms have problems with the soil due to too much pesticide use and irrigation with water that is released from chemical factories and mining areas. Such contaminated water is causing serious problems in the produce. Traces of heavy metal have been found in rice and other agricultural products. Also farmers are using arsenic to cure animals of certain diseases and these types of dangerous chemicals are transferred to humans through the consumption of their meat. All this is creating a lot of anxiety in China and there is a serious discourse on the subject everyday in the newspapers. China is not so much interested in export-led growth anymore and it is more geared towards increasing domestic incomes and thereby the demand. Most importantly, they are aiming at balanced growth between its villages and the cities. China is very worried about migrants who are living often in cramped and inhuman conditions because this has led to a very unstable labour force. Food security is a problem not only in India but in China also. Though Chairman Mao Zedong had wanted China to be self-sufficient in food, today China has to import huge quantities of soybean, corn and rice. Its own food exports which had been growing in the past are now facing a stumbling block in terms of anti- Chinese propaganda in the West. People are scared of eating food produced in China. Thus, China is facing a different kind of problem and many people think that the best way out is to focus on food safety and to import safer food for the Chinese population. Migration is creating another set of problems in China which is related to the one child policy followed by the government during the last 30 years or so. The usually one (pampered) child leaves for the nearby town or city and settles down with his or her family and does not visit the elderly parents often. The parents who live by themselves in the village often feel lonely and depressed and this is leading to a high rate of suicides among the elderly. The Chinese government is very concerned about this and there are academic papers being written on how to control and stop this terrible human problem. Though GDP growth in India may be less than China’s, there are not so many problems that the government is facing except perhaps the latest problem of accelerated insurgency by the Maoists. Like China, which is more interested in the distributional aspect of economic growth, India should also be worried about reducing the glaring inequality of incomes and balanced development between the rural and urban areas. If some areas are left totally underdeveloped and are also more or less ungoverned, there will be problems. India like China will also face a depopulation problem in the countryside and congestion in the cities. China is trying various reforms so that the urban migrant Chinese get the same benefits as they got in the villages. India is far behind China in giving the poor complete social security coverage and so the first step is to have more effective poverty alleviation schemes so that all are under some safety net. Thus, India Inc will recover sooner or later, but in the end it has to depend on the rural demand in a big way. Reforming rural India and agricultural production will actually contribute to India getting out of the trough of the slowdown
quicker.
|
||||||
Not a lasting commodity Love and passion hold the bottom of the world, while genius paints its roof. Human heart is an incubator of dreams, desires and longings. But for the emotion of love, the world would have been deprived of some of the finest poetry and literature. As a poet said, ‘Ulfat main taj bane (Taj Mahal)/ Ulfat mein taj chhoote’ (The King of England gave up his throne for his Lady Love.) Shakespeare wrote about the ‘face’ which ‘Launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Troy’. Nelson Mandela at the age of 80 fell in love and married Grach’a Machael, who was 50. Love is like measles which comes late in life. Gillian Gas, member of a jury at the age of 43, fell for Peter Gill who was facing trial before her. She spent one and a half years in prison and was on a year’s probation for obstructing justice. She confessed, “It was a matter of heart; I am guilty because of my heart.” Love culminates in marriage. Love rarely proves to be a lasting commodity. The bloom of romance fades. The number of divorcees is rising along with the number of washing machines. It is happening in affluent, upper middle class families which have seen too little of life but want too much of it. They are high on life and low on information. The smugness of a lover becomes the malice of a husband. An Indian male wants relationship with his wife like that of a man and God, from the heart but fearful. Marilyn Monroe described a husband as “chiefly a good lover when he is betraying his wife”. Getting married is easy, straying married is difficult. Staying happily married for a lifetime ranks among the fine arts of the world. After some time marriage becomes a suffocating leash. Men get bored and women get disenchanted. Hollywood actress Mae Wast said, “Marriage is a great institution, but I am not ready for an institutor, not yet”. Abraham Lincoln called marriage a “purgatory”. Familiarity is comfortable, but it is also deadening. In marriage it is the overwhelming sense of familiarly which makes it a mundane and dull affair. Every marriage has a private hell. Most of the marriages stagnate in the turgid waters of life and they rot. The products do not live up to the packaging. Love is a chemical affinity which loses its strength after a certain period. It is holding hands in the street. Marriage is holding arguments in the street. Love is blind, but marriage is an eye open-opener. It starts with a young man looking lovingly at a young girl. With the passage of time, it turns into a fat woman glaring at a balding man. But marriage brings with it
stability.
|
||||||
What’s holding up arms indigenisation? In the early 1940s, barely a few years after Tata Steel had set up its central research laboratory in Jamshedpur, the company was asked by the then British Indian Government to develop and make armour plate steel for the war effort. Not only did the company develop the highly specialised steel within a year but also used it to make infantry combat vehicles called Tatanagar, which earned a lot of praise for their performance from the Allied troops fighting in the Middle East. Today, seventy years later, we are looking to import infantry combat vehicles from a European country. That is the sad tale of independent India’s search for self-reliance in defence equipment.
About 75 per cent of India’s weapons purchases came from imports during 2007-11. In his recent presentation of the union budget for the next financial year, the finance minister, P. Chidambaram, expressed grave concern about the worsening current account deficit (CAD). But India’s military machine is in urgent need of modernisation which may cost as much as 100 billion US dollars in the next 10 years. With the tight foreign exchange availability, achieving this modernisation will be almost impossible if we stick to the 75 per cent imports model of the past. Arms imports have a whole slew of harmful side effects. Corruption is not the only fallout, although the noise made about kickback scams by the media seems to indicate that. There are worse evils such as high levels of profiteering in spares and services by the foreign equipment suppliers. Since equipment imported is not the same as technology acquired, the importing country is not in a position to develop forward technology and its armed forces are left ultimately holding a lot of obsolete equipment. This is very true about India. Then there is the ever-present danger of denial of crucial supplies by the exporter country in times of conflict if its foreign policy dictates such a course. Impediments to indigenisation Therefore, there is no alternative to indigenisation. So what is holding it up? Historically, the first big impediment placed was the placing all the development and production eggs in the single basket of the public and ordnance factory sectors. Burdened by poor work and management cultures and handicapped by government diktats, these entities were short on productivity, innovation and anticipation. They rarely met delivery schedules for equipment involving well-established technologies. Their achievement in delivering equipment with new technologies was much worse. This pushed our armed forces to import and plug the supply—demand gap. The private sector, which had done such a commendable job in meeting the demands of the Allied forces during the Second World War, was largely ignored. The second major impediment to indigenisation came as a result of easy and cheap access to arms from the Soviet Union in the early sixties. Although this flight to succor by the USSR came as a knee-jerk reaction to the debacle with the Chinese in 1962, the dependence rendered us technologically lazy. Even some brave and briefly successful efforts at self–reliance were given up. A prime example of this is the dismantling of the fighter aircraft design team in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) which had been built up with considerable effort by Kurt Tank, Ghatge, Rah Mahindra and others and which had come up with the HF--24 Marut jet fighter all on its own in the fifties. The pursuit of indigenously designed fighters was given up in the sixties just because the USSR dangled before us the carrot of the cheaper and supersonic MiGs. If that design team of HAL had been kept and strengthened over the years, perhaps we would have made a much better job of developing the fourth generation fighter than the sorry tale that the LCA project has been. India’s dependence on Russian arms technology has been so addictive that even today, though the Soviet Union is no more, over three-quarters of our defence equipment imports are still from Russia. The third crucial obstacle to increasing self-reliance in our defence equipment has been, ironically, the very institution tasked with increasing indigenisation — the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Formed in 1958 from the amalgamation of 10 existing defence laboratories, it is today a network of more than 50 laboratories manned by over 5,000 scientists and about 25,000 support staff conducting research and development on a range of topics from spices to missiles. By and large, the DRDO has failed to deliver, barring perhaps in the areas of food, radar networks and missiles. Even in the case of missiles, perhaps it was the strong base technology acquired from our successful space programme that enabled the development. In many critical areas like light arms, ammunition, artillery, tanks, aircraft, submarines, electronic systems and others, its performance in developing new products has been characterised by inordinate delays, incompleteness resulting in unexpected problems in series production and inability to incorporate latest technologies. The result has been a scramble for imports by the defence establishment. A committee set up in 2007 under P. Rama Rao, former secretary, department of science and technology, to recommend restructuring of the DRDO, had suggested setting up of a Defence Technology Commisssion, merging the labs into seven clusters and creating a commercial arm to spin off products and technologies for civilian use. Frankly, this does not deal with the basic problem that there is a wide credibility gulf between the defence manufacturing units and the DRDO labs.
Encouraging private sector It is time to seriously consider merging the DRDO labs of similar domain into the production units, as for example, Laser Research and Development Establishment into Bharat Electronics Limited and National Aeronautical Laboratory into HAL. At least then, we will see more synergy and symbiosis between R&D and production. The proposed Defence Technology Commission could then become like the DARPA in the USA and direct grants for advanced technology development to our technical universities which are starved of both funds and meaningful research projects. A succession of defence ministers have, over the decades, rendered lip service to the cause of defence equipment indigenisation but not much action was taken on the ground by them. The latest to mouth the self-reliance slogan is the current defence minister, A.K. Antony, no doubt spooked by the kickback imbroglio involving the Augusta helicopter deal. He has promised to again revise the Defence Procurement Procedure, the latest version of which was released as recently as 2011. He wants to create conditions for the private sector, particularly the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to play a greater part in defence production. Antony would be well advised to first consult some of those SMEs who have supplied components to the defence sector in the past. He might be unpleasantly surprised by the flurry of criticism he receives about the long delays in inspection and payments for the supplies made. Even large private enterprises which have taken up big projects for developing defence equipment have come up against the stone wall of indifference from the concerned customers in the defence sector. The noises being made by the defence ministry about encouraging private sector involvement in production and the policy of compulsory 30 to 50 per cent offsets of local purchase against value of imports has enthused a few major Indian groups to invest in manufacturing facilities for defence equipment. However, they still have to tie up with foreign producers to access the technology. Foreign companies would be more inclined to such joint ventures if the FDI limit is liberalised beyond the present 26 per cent. Perhaps Antony would do well to set up an Indigenisation Commission, under an entrepreneur–bureaucrat, with members drawn from private sector companies, both large and small, which have actually developed and supplied arms in the past. This commission could be tasked with identifying obstacles to the indigensation process and suggesting methods to eliminate them.
|
|
THE key measures to revamp the Defence Reseatrch and Development Organisation (DRDO), some of which are in the process of being implemented, include the establishment of a Defence Technology Commission, de-centralisation of DRDO management, making it a leaner organisation by merging some of the DRDO laboratories with other public funded institutions with similar discipline, revamp of the entire HR structure and establishment a commercial arm. The decisions also include continuation of Aeronautical Development Agency for design and development of combat aircraft, continuation of the Kaveri aero-engine programme, development of Arjun Mk-II and Akash Mk-II and selection of industry partners by DRDO through a transparent process by evolving a suitable mechanism. These were recommended by the committee set up on February 8, 2007, chaired by former secretary, department of science and technology, Dr P. Rama Rao. The committee was mandated through its terms of reference to review the present organisational structure and to recommend necessary changes in the institutional, managerial, administrative and financial structures for improving the functioning of DRDO. The committee submitted its report to the government on February 7, 2008. The recommendations of the committee together with DRDO's views and report were extensively deliberated upon by the three services and the defence ministry. The defence minister subsequently constituted a committee on June 25, 2009 under the chairmanship of the defence secretary, to consider the responses and suggestions made by the stakeholders and to arrive at a set of acceptable recommendations. This committee met five times to finalise its recommendations. The decentralisation of DRDO management will be achieved through formation of technology domain based centres or clusters of laboratories headed by directors general. Seven centres will be created based on functionalities and technology domains. It will be the responsibility of the Directors General to ensure timely execution of major programmes and encouragement of research in laboratories. DRDO will also ensure full autonomy to all laboratories as far as science and technology initiatives are concerned. Further, the present director general of DRDO would be redesignated as chairman, DRDO. Directors general at centres and chief controllers will report to chairman, DRDO, who would head the DRDO Management Council having seven directors general and four chief controllers at headquarters and an additional financial advisor (R&D) as members. Financial advisors at the appropriate levels would report to directors general and laboratory directors to ensure accountability.
—
|
|
| 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 | |
