Among the several questions that could have been asked at the prime minister's media conference - but weren't - one omission stood out for how interestingly it captures our malleable emotions. There wasn't a single question about Pakistan. 

 

There were questions on the turmoil in Egypt; even on cricket and the World Cup. But no one, it seems, wanted to quiz Manmohan Singh on what led to the resumption of the dialogue process with Pakistan earlier this month in Thimphu, Bhutan. And unlike the forgotten query on the controversy surrounding the appointment of the central vigilance commissioner, the absence of questions on Pakistan appeared to be from disinterest - not oversight. In other words, we are so distracted by domestic concerns that Pakistan is barely on our minds. Of course, the fact that there has been no major terror strike or volatility in the internal security situation has much to do with our lack of focus. But the truth is that if we - the polity, the media and the people at large - were not so preoccupied by the sense of churn within, the resumption of the talks with Islamabad would have invited the same merciless scrutiny as it has in the past. In fact, Pakistan is so off our collective radar that we've barely noticed the exit of the establishment's bete noire: the bumptious, often abrasive, Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

What makes things interesting is that the Pakistani mindspace seems to be just as distracted. As the assassination of Salman Taseer reminded us, Pakistan's internal implosions are, of course, existential challenges. Despite the avowed India-fixation of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, in many ways, Pakistan today seems more at war with itself than with India. With competing philosophies and groups laying claim to the country's future, the cracks along its faultlines are deepening. 

Currently spooked by spy games that Washington is playing in its backyard, the growing domestic controversy over Raymond Davis (an American arrested for shooting two Pakistanis; he claims in self-defence) only underlines the divisions within the country's ruling establishment over how to navigate the minefields on its journey forward as a country.

Some say Qureshi lost his job as foreign minister for asserting that Davis never had the diplomatic status the Americans are now claiming. Others argue that Qureshi is only playing to the growling anti-American chorus with his proclamations, in case there is an early election. The whispers suggest that Davis is a CIA contractor collecting information on the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and a deal has already been struck by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government to pave the way for him to be handed back to the Americans. Either way, Pakistan's media are focused on the turmoil within. Even Kashmir hardly seems to inflame passions in the same way. So much so that Pakistan's annual marking of Kashmir 'solidarity day' on the eve of the meeting between the two foreign secretaries in Thimphu seemed more ritualistic than felt, and passed without much hoopla on either side.

Ironically, this emotional indifference may provide the best opportunity we have had in a long time for a dispassionate review of the India-Pakistan equation. For too long now, both countries have been trapped in a dysfunctional drama that alternates between love and hate. The schizophrenia has resulted in a deep-seated hostility at times and inexplicable bursts of affection at other moments. Remember the roar of applause when the Pakistani contingent marched in during the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games? Too many Indo-Pak meetings feed the subcontinental craving for filmy drama right down to slammed doors and jostling over joint statements that never were.

The best thing the two foreign secretaries did for the dialogue process was to save it from the curious and contradictory love-hate melodrama that has defined similar meetings in the past. The future of the two countries belongs neither to the candle-waving romantics who convene at Wagah nor to the venom-spewing hatemongers who unleash their bitterness online (while, of course, befriending every Pakistani possible on Twitter). It belongs to the 'pragmatics' - to borrow a word from Nirupama Rao - who are able to see Pakistan beyond the Punjabi prism of the painful past.

Almost unnoticed and unacknowledged is the remarkable fact that Kashmir is no longer the main obstruction to peace between the two countries. Pakistan's former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has elaborated on the contours of a Kashmir settlement that had the nod of what he calls "all the principal players". He includes in this category, the present army chief of his country. Interestingly, we have seen neither a denial nor a confirmation of his assertions by our own government, with the foreign secretary only offering a "no comment" in a recent interview. But all other things being equal, a broad philosophical consensus does exist on what a possible solution could be to the longstanding Kashmir problem. And it still borrows from the essential template created by President Pervez Musharraf's four-point formula.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that in many ways the challenge of  terrorism is much more intractable than the Kashmir dispute. The 26/11 strikes had precious little to do with the politics of the Kashmir problem. Violence perpetrated against India, its cities and its people by fundamentalist religious groups is now the primary hurdle to cross for peace to have any real meaning. And many doubt that Pakistan's civilian government has the strength, even if it has the will, to do so. With emotions at an ebb on both sides, it's a good time to find out.

Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, English News, NDTV

Barkha Dutt

barkha@ndtv.com  

Read Users' Comments (0)

He’s been called the “Quiet Revolutionary“. And India’s prime minister-in-waiting. But does Rahul Gandhi, a virtual novice in the rough and tumble of Indian politics, have what it takes for the country’s top job?

He didn’t exactly set the house on fire during his first five years in parliament. And until this election, Rahul’s only USP was that he belonged to India’s first family, the Nehru-Gandhi family which has given the country three prime ministers.

He’s only 39, and has no experience with complex subjects such as Pakistan or the economy.

But after the recent election, Rahul has emerged as a savvy politician, a grassroots activist with a finger on the pulse of the real India.

His strategy of not allying with any of the regional parties in northern India despite pressure from party officials paid off big time.

The Congress party’s decision to go it alone in northern India helped it more than double its seats in Uttar Pradesh.

Initially, based just on his political strategy for this election, there was much speculation over whether he would join the cabinet, and if he did what portfolio he’d get.

Eventually, Rahul wasn’t a part of the cabinet, but he’s still seen as the face of the Congress party from now on — and perhaps prime minister at some point in the future.

But isn’t there a danger he could be sidelined if he isn’t part of the federal cabinet?

Sure, he has age on his side and he can learn over the next five years. Besides, like his father, Rajiv, he appeals to millions of young voters in India.

But he’s not alone in that sense. He is part of a new generation of young parliamentarians like Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia who have a completely new perspective on politics.

So the question many in India are asking is: could Rahul Gandhi be overshadowed by other younger politicians who are in the cabinet?

http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2009/07/01/is-rahul-gandhi-prime-minister-material/

Read Users' Comments (0)

Though the National Action Plan on Climate Change document details objectives, strategies, plans of action, timelines,  and monitoring and evaluation criteria, of the eight missions, some experts believe that its implementation is getting  delayed

GROWING INTERNATIONAL pressure to cut down its overall greenhouse gas emissions led India to come up with a roadmap detailing ways and means to mitigate the effects of climate change. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) was released in June 2008, a year after it was announced.
The action plan addresses eight specific areas, including the optimum utili sation of solar energy instead of fossil fuels like coal in the national energy grid.

Using recycled materials and designing buildings which are more airy and use solar energy, is also part of the action plan. Tapping solar energy for power generation is a highlight of the action plan.

The national action plan aims that by 2017, most of the households in urban areas, industries and commercial establishments should start utilising solar power. Through solar power, the country would bring down its dependence on fossil fuel energy sources like thermal power.

Another area highlighted in the NAPCC is promoting energy efficiency in the residential and commercial sectors, along with bringing down electricity consumption in residential and commercial areas. Estimates are that in a typical commercial building in India, around 60 per cent of total electricity is consumed for lighting, 32 per cent for space conditioning, and 8 per cent for refrigeration. Promoting the use of public transport over personal vehicles is also underlined in the NAPCC.

Another area highlighted is providing adequate water for all through the efficient use of this crucial resource. India wants 20 per cent improvement in water use efficiency through pricing and other measures to deal with water scarcity as result of climate change.

One of the worst hit due to climate change is the Himalayan Ecosystem, including glaciers. With increase in temperatures, glaciers have started melting.This has set alarm bells ringing in coastal areas which could get submerged.Sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem is a highlight of the NAPCC.

Afforestation is also one of the eight NAPCC missions.

The Centre proposes to plant trees in six million hectare of degraded forest land. Trees provide oxygen and taken in CO2.

In the area of agriculture, the national action plan aims to support climate adaptation in the sector, through the development of climate-resilient crops, and expansion of weather insurance mechanisms. The last of the eight missions under the NAPCC emphasises gaining better understanding of climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the challenges that lie ahead.


The NAPCC received a mixed response. Some find in it India's answer to the growing pressure on developing countries to accept binding emission norms. But a criticism is that it lacks urgency.
According to the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the action plan is "fairly comprehensive". But the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People has said the NAPCC lacks urgency and the equity perspective.

The organisation has criticised the Water Mission, saying attempts to push for more big dams, irrigation projects, hydro-power projects, and interlinking of rivers will prove to be futile.

The government, on the other hand, is sanguine about the long-term impact of the eight missions under the NAPCC, and has announced that necessary funds would be available to them.

Though the NAPCC document details objectives, strategies, plans of action, timelines, and monitoring and evaluation criteria, of the eight missions, some experts believe that its implementation is getting delayed.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Read Users' Comments (0)

Following is the text of the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh’s remarks at the Plenary Session of G-20 Meeting at Pittsburgh:

"Mr. President, let me begin by thanking you for the excellent arrangements made for this Summit and for your warm hospitality.

We have discussed the complex challenges posed by the need to revive the global economy. I would like to focus on what this implies for the developing countries.

We all know that these countries were in no way responsible for the crisis, but in many ways, they are the hardest hit. In the seven years before the crisis, the GDP of the developing countries grew at an average of 6.5 per cent per year. In 2009 it will grow by only 1.5 per cent, implying a fall in real per capita income.

Of course, experience varies across countries. Countries in Asia have generally fared much better. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in many other regions have been very badly hit.

India too has been affected but, in common with other Asian countries, we have weathered the crisis relatively well given the circumstances. After growing at 9 per cent per year for four years our economy slowed down to 6.7 per cent in 2008-09. In 2009, despite a drought, which will affect agricultural production, we expect to grow by around 6.3 per cent in 2009-10 and then recover to 7 to 7.5 percent growth next year. This relatively strong performance is partly due to the strong stimulus measures introduced in the second half of 2008-09, which have been continued in the current financial year.

However, the fact that some of us have fared relatively well does not mean that the crisis has not affected the developing world significantly. The fact that the growth of developing countries as a group will fall to 1.5 per cent indicates the extent of the impact.

An estimated 90 million people in the developing world are likely to be pushed below the poverty line. Lower revenues will also lead to lower levels of expenditure on rural infrastructure, health and education. This will not only hurt future growth, but also delay achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Social and political tensions could increase, undermining the national consensus in support of much needed structural reforms and adjustment.

The prospects of convergence, which seemed bright before the crisis, have receded. We must take steps to counter these developments and restore the momentum of growth in the developing world.

First, the problem must be tackled at its root by ensuring the quickest possible return to normalcy in the global economy. This requires a commitment that we will not undertake any premature withdrawal of stimulus. We must certainly plan for an orderly “exit” when the time is right, but that time is not now. The global economy may be bottoming out, but it is not expected to reach 3% growth until the end of 2010.

The depressed state of the global economy translates into a considerable loss of export demand for the developing countries. Exports of non-oil developing countries are expected to decline by about $900 billion in 2009, compared to the previous year. They will remain well below the trajectory earlier projected for several years. This is bound to reduce production, incomes and employment in the developing countries.

The measures taken by the G-20 to increase the flow of assistance will help, and they certainly represent an important achievement in international cooperation. However, the scale of the transfers we have planned will only help the developing countries to manage their balance of payments at depressed levels of economic activity. They cannot counter the effect of the loss of exports.

To resuscitate growth in the developing countries, we have to replace lost export demand by expanding other components of domestic demand. The best option is to expand investment. An obvious area where additional investment is needed in developing countries is infrastructure, including energy, transport and other infrastructure for public services. These investments can be made ahead of requirements and therefore are an ideal form of countercyclical activity.

The World Bank and the other regional development banks can play a major role by financing such investment. They should expand lending for infrastructure development to emerging market countries which have relied on capital markets in more normal times, but will need support in the medium run, till capital markets recover. The poorer, low-income countries had very little access to capital markets. For them, financing on suitable terms may have to be made available for an even longer period.

A strategy of expanding investment demand in developing countries to replace lost export demand will not only help growth in developing countries, it will also contribute to a broader global revival. This is because the import content of investment is typically higher than of exports, which means a significant percentage of the initial increase in demand will spill over into the global economy.

The World Bank has announced that the volume of IBRD lending would be increased to $100 billion over the next three years. This is commendable. However, if the capital base of the IBRD is not expanded, they will have to compress lending at the end of the three year period to less than the pre-crisis level. This is surely not acceptable.

There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for doubling the capital of the IBRD. Similar increases in capital are needed for the other regional development banks also.

I realize there may be hesitation in committing additional public resources for recapitalization. However, we must keep in mind that what is needed for these institutions is small compared to the massive scale of public money used to stabilize the private financial system in industrialized countries. Some additional effort is surely justified to help the developing countries to cope with the spillover effects of a crisis for which they were not responsible.

Finally, Mr. President, a word on trade. The collapse in export markets makes it all the more important that the market access of developing countries is not constrained by protectionism. I recognize that when growth is low, and unemployment is high, it is inevitable that protectionist pressures will arise. It will be a test of the collective political leadership of this Group, whether we are able to resist these pressures in our countries. I am happy to note that the Delhi Ministerial succeeded in reviving momentum for the Doha Round negotiations. I venture to suggest that this is an area where the industrial countries can give a lead to achieve a successful outcome.

We have done a great deal on finance and what remains is easily doable. We need to address the difficult tasks on the trade front which are now more important for the medium term."

Read Users' Comments (0)

India’s National Green Tribunal Bill has evoked much criticism over the issues of accountability, biasness and restricting appeals from rights groups, notes environment and health policy analyst Gopal Krishna. A lot of reform is needed before it is passed by the Parliament, he says.

Read Users' Comments (0)

मंदी: साल बाद भी उबर न पाई दुनिया

नलिन कुमार

बीबीसी संवाददाता, लंदन

लेहमन ब्रदर्स के दिवालिया घोषित होने के बाद अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्त बाज़ार में भूचाल आ गया

अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्तीय व्यवस्था में सितंबर 2008 में आए भूचाल को एक साल हो गया है. निर्यात गिरने और विकास दर घटने के बावजूद चाहे भारत पर इसका उतना बुरा असर नहीं पड़ा है लेकिन अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्तीय व्यवस्था अब भी वित्तीय संकट के असर से उबर नहीं पाई है.

अमरीका से ठीक एक साल पहले शुरु हुए उस वित्तीय भूचाल पर नज़र डाले तो विश्व के अगस्त 2007 से ही नकदी के संकट में फंसते चले जाने के सबूत थे. लेकिन इसने सही मायने में पिछले साल सितंबर में विकराल रूप लिया.


शुरुआत हुई सात सितंबर को होम-लोन का कारोबार करने वाले अमरीकी वित्तीय संस्थानों फ़ेनी मे और फ़्रेडी मैक को सरकारी नियंत्रण में लिए जाने से, और पूरे सप्ताह लेहमन ब्रदर्स के भविष्य को लेकर आशंकाएँ बनी रहीं. अंतत: 14 सितंबर की देर रात लेहमन ब्रदर्स दिवालिया घोषित होने वाली सबसे बड़ी अमरीकी कंपनी बन गई. लेहमन ब्रदर्स के पतन के बाद वैश्विक वित्त व्यवस्था ने एक अनिश्चित राह पकड़ ली, और साल भर बाद भी संकट के बादल नहीं छंटे हैं.

फ़ेडेरल नेशनल मॉरगेज एसोसिएशन यानी फ़ेनी मे और फ़ेडेरल होम लोन मॉरगेज कॉरपोरेशन यानि फ़्रेडी मैक सरकार समर्थित वित्तीय संस्थान है. जिस समय इन पर संकट आया अमरीका के होम-लोन बाज़ार का क़रीब आधा हिस्सा इन दोनों के पास था.

अमरीका में रह रहे अर्थशास्त्री और विश्व बैंक के पूर्व उपाध्यक्ष शाहिद जावेद बर्की ने इनके कामकाज़ के तरीके के बारे में बताया, "ये दोनों संस्थान कॉमर्शियल बैंकों द्वारा वितरित होम-लोन को ख़रीदते हैं. उनको फिर नया रूप देकर बीमा कंपनियों या दीर्घावधि के निवेश में इच्छुक अन्य वित्तीय संस्थानों को आगे बेचते हैं. इस तरह से ये कॉमर्शियल बैंकों के लिए सेंकेंडरी मार्केट उपलब्ध कराते हैं. फ़ेनी मे छोटे होम-लोन को ख़रीद कर उन्हें मिलाकर बड़े निवेश उत्पाद के रूप में बेचता है, जबकि फ़्रेडी मैक बड़े ऋण को लेकर ऐसा ही काम करता है."

सरकारी सहायता

जब अमरीका की हाउसिंग मार्केट में संकट आया और घरों के दाम तेज़ी से गिरने शुरू हुए और बैंकों को नक़दी के संकट का सामना करना पड़ा तो फ़ेनी मे और फ़्रेडी मैक के लिए अपने पैरों पर खड़ा रहना मुश्किल हो गया. दोनों ही बैंक रोज़ाना लाखों डॉलर की दर से धन गंवा रहे थे.

ऐसे में अमरीकी सरकार और अमरीकी केंद्रीय बैंक तुरंत हरकत में आए. तत्कालीन वित्त मंत्री हेनरी पॉलसन ने सरकारी खज़ाने से 200 अरब डॉलर की नक़दी दे कर फ़ेनी मे और फ़्रेडी मैक को दिवालिया होने से बचाने की सरकार की मजबूरी के बारे में कहा था, "ये संकट सीधे-सीधे आम अमरीकी परिवार पर बुरा असर डालेगा. परिवार के बजट, घरों की क़ीमत, बच्चों की पढ़ाई और सेवानिवृति के बाद के दिनों के लिए बचा कर रखे गए धन...ये सब प्रभावित होंगे. यदि इन दो बैंकों को बचाया नहीं गया तो आम अमरीकी परिवारों और व्यवसायों को रिण मिलना मुश्किल हो जाएगा. और अंतत: इससे अमरीका का आर्थिक विकास प्रभावित होगा, बेरोज़गारी बढ़ेगी."

दो बड़े बैंकों को सरकारी जीवन-धारा दिए जाने पर अमरीकी बैंकों और वित्तीय संस्थानों ने तो राहत की सांस ली ही, चीन और जापान जैसे देशों ने भी इस त्वरित कार्रवाई के लिए अमरीकी सरकार की तारीफ़ की थी. दरअसल फ़ेनी मे और फ़्रेडी मैक को सरकारी समर्थन मिले होने के कारण इन देशों ने भी इसमें बड़ा निवेश कर रखा था.

वित्त बाज़ार में भूचाल
लेकिन फ़्रेडी मैक और फ़ेनी मे को बचाए जाने के बाद भी वित्तीय संकट की स्थिति और भयानक होती जा रही थी. अमरीका के बड़े निवेश बैंकों में से एक लेहमन ब्रदर्स के पाँव डगमगा रहे थे. लेकिन पूर्व में बेअर स्टर्न्स बैंक को सहारा देने वाली अमरीकी सरकार ने लीमैन ब्रदर्स को सहारा देने से इनकार कर दिया.

अंतत: 15 सितंबर की सुबह लेहमन ब्रदर्स के दिवालिया घोषित होने की ख़बर ने न सिर्फ़ अमरीका बल्कि पूरी दुनिया के वित्तीय बाज़ार में भूचाल ला दिया. ये सिर्फ़ एक प्राइवेट निवेश बैंक की ही नाकामी नहीं थी, बल्कि इसने पूँजीवाद के सात दशकों से प्रचलित स्वरूप पर ही सवालिया निशान लगा दिया.

उसी हफ़्ते मीडिया में सामने आई जानकारी के अनुसार अमरीका सरकार लेहमन ब्रदर्स को बचाना तो चाहती थी, लेकिन पूरे मन से उसने इसकी कोशिश नहीं की. आख़िर पूँजीवाद के एक प्रतीक को क्यों नहीं बचाया जा सका? ब्रिटेन के क्रेनफ़ील्ड स्कूल ऑफ़ मैनेजमेंट के प्रोफ़ेसर सुनील पोशाकवाले ने इस बारे में बताया, "जब लेहमन ब्रदर्स पर संकट आया तो हेनरी पॉल्सन को उम्मीद थी कि पिछली बार बेअर स्टर्न्स को जैसे अमरीकी बैंकों की मदद से बचा लिया गया था, उसी तरह इस निवेश बैंक को भी बचा लिया जाएगा. लेकिन जब उन्हें अहसास हुआ कि ऐसा संभव नहीं है, तो उन्होंने ब्रिटेन के बार्कलेज़ बैंक से संपर्क किया."

"समस्या ये थी कि बार्कलेज़ संपूर्ण लेहमन ब्रदर्स में नहीं बल्कि उसकी अच्छी परिसंपत्तियों मात्र में दिलचस्पी ले रहा था, जबकि पॉल्सन इसके ख़िलाफ़ थे. इसी तरह ब्रिटेन की सरकार और वित्तीय नियामक संस्थाओं की माँग थी कि लीमैन ब्रदर्स का बार्कलेज़ द्वारा अधिग्रहण की बात आगे बढ़े इससे पहले अमरीका सरकार पूरे सौदे को किसी न किसी तरह की गारंटी दे. दोनों ही बातें संभव नहीं हो पाई, और लीमैन ब्रदर्स का दिवाला निकल गया."

निवेश बैंकों की कार्य प्रणाली

बेअर स्टर्न्स और मेरिल लिंच के दूसरे अमरीकी बैंकों के हाथों में चले़ जाने, और लेहमन ब्रदर्स के दिवालिया घोषित होने के साथ ही, पूंजीवाद के पोस्टर-ब्वॉय माने जाने वाले निवेश बैंकों की कार्य-प्रणाली पर ही सवालिया निशान उठने लगा. आख़िर क्यों बिखर गई निवेश बैंकों की दुनिया? लंदन में एबीएन एमरो बैंक से जुड़े निवेश बैंकर रवीन्द्र राठी ने इस बारे में बताया, "निवेश बैंकों का मॉडल काफ़ी जटिल हो गया था. उनकी फ़ाइनेंसिंग की टाइमिंग भी ठीक नहीं थी. वो अल्पावधि की फंडिंग और दीर्घावधि का निवेश कर रहे थे. इसके साथ-साथ बैलेंसशीट से बाहर ऐसे कई तरह के निवेश थे जिनकी बहुत ही जटिल सीडीओ के अंतर्गत ट्रेडिंग होती थी. इसके भी ऊपर सीडीएस जैसे और ज़्यादा ज़ोख़िम वाले उपक्रम थे."

"कई सालों से जारी कम ब्याज़ दर के वातावरण में प्रचूर मात्रा में ऋण उपलब्ध हो गया. जो कर्ज़ चुका पाने की स्थिति में किसी तरह से नहीं थे उन्हें मनचाही मात्रा में ऋण मिल रहा था. हाउसिंग सेक्टर में क़ीमतों में बेतहाशा तेज़ी आती जा रही थी. निवेश बैंक भी इनमें डूबते जा रहे थे. दोष नियामक संस्थाओं का भी था. या तो उनके पास जटिल निवेश उपक्रमों को समझने वाले लोग नहीं थे, या उनके पास इन सबके लिए समय नहीं था."

भारत पर ज़्यादा बुरा असर नहीं
लेहमन ब्रदर्स के दिवालिया घोषित होने से पूरी दुनिया के वित्तीय बाज़ार हिल गए. शेयर सूचकांक गोते लगा रहे थे. कई शेयर बाज़ारों में तो ऐहतियातन कारोबार बंद कर दिया गया. भारत का सेन्सेक्स सूचकांक भी 3.35 प्रतिशत नीचे बंद हुआ. बैंकिंग समेत तमाम सेक्टर के शेयर ज़मीन छूते नज़र आए.

लेकिन अगले कुछ दिनों में भारत की वित्तीय व्यवस्था पर उतना बुरा असर नहीं पड़ा. मुंबई स्थित बैंकिंग क्षेत्र के विशेषज्ञ विनीत गुप्ता के अनुसार ऐसा भारतीय वित्त व्यवस्था के अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्त व्यवस्था से पूरी तरह जुड़े नहीं होने के कारण ही हो पाया. उन्होंने कहा, "कई अंतरराष्ट्रीय मानकों को पूरा करने के बाद भी भारतीय बैंक कहीं ज़्यादा कड़े नियमों के अधीन काम करते हैं. इस कारण अमरीका, ब्रिटेन या अन्य कई पश्चिमी देशों के बैंकिंग सेक्टर की तरह यहाँ संकट देखने को नहीं मिला."

उन्होंने कहा, "लेहमन ब्रदर्स के दिवालिया घोषित होने के बाद दुनिया के कई देशों में बैंकों के सरकारी शरण में जाने को देखते हुए इतना ज़रूर हुआ कि स्टेट बैंक और आईसीआईसीआई बैंक जैसे भारतीय बैंकों ने अपनी अंतरराष्ट्रीय महत्वाकांक्षा को अभी ठंडे बस्ते में डालना ही उचित समझा है. अब वे बेलगाम विस्तार के बारे में बिल्कुल नहीं सोचेंगे. रिज़र्व ने कुछ नए ऐहतियाती निर्देश जारी किए. ये सब भारत के बैंकिंग सेक्टर के लिए अच्छी बात ही है."

पिछले सप्ताहांत लंदन में ही जी-20 देशों के विदेश मंत्रियों की बैठक में अंतरराष्ट्रीय वित्तीय संकट के एक साल पूरे होने पर स्थिति की समीक्षा की गई. सहमति बनी कि वित्तीय संकट से निपटने के लिए सरकारी हस्तक्षेप की नीति को अभी जारी रखा जाए. मतलब बुरे क़र्ज़ को सरकारी खाते में डालने, बैंकों को धराशाई होने से बचाने और भारी मात्रा में करेंसी छापने जैसे प्रयासों को अभी चालू रखा जाए.

यानी वित्तीय संकट के लगातार कम होते जाने और अर्थव्यवस्था के पटरी पर वापस लौटने के कुछ संकेत दिख रहे हैं, लेकिन मामला पूरी तरह संभले, इसके लिए अभी लंबा इंतजार करना पड़ सकता है.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Method used in breaking up hardpan

How and when to do chiselling?

Forming of bunds

Special soil treatment

Read Users' Comments (0)

अंतिम युद्ध में लाखों लोगों को अपना घर छोड़ना पड़ा.

श्रीलंका के एक वरिष्ठ तमिल नेता ने सरकार से विस्थापित नागरिकों को जल्दी से जल्दी उनके घरों तक वापस पहुँचाने और बसाने की अपील की है.

वी आनंदसांगरी ने शिविरों में रह रहे और युद्ध में बेघर हो चुके नागरिकों की स्थिति को अत्यंत भयानक बताया है.

तमिल यूनाइटेड लिबरेशन फ़्रंट के प्रमुख ने कहा कि लाखों लोग मुश्किल और ग़रीबी का सामना कर रहे हैं.

उन्होंने कहा कि उत्तरी श्रीलंका में तमिल नागरिकों के लिए बने शिविरों में भोजन, स्वास्थ्य और सफ़ाई की समस्याएँ हैं.

संयुक्त राष्ट्र ने कहा है कि पिछले दिनों सरकार और तमिल विद्रोहियों के बीच हुए संघर्ष में क़रीब तीन लाख लोगों को विस्थापित होना पड़ा है.

नागरिकों को विभिन्न शिविरों में रखा गया है जिनमें से ज़्यादातर उत्तरी शहर वावूनिवा के पास मेनिक फ़ार्म में स्थित हैं.

मेनिक फ़ार्म शिविरों को संयुक्त राष्ट्र ने दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा विस्थापन शिविर बताया है. यहाँ युद्ध में विस्थापित हुए क़रीब दो लाख बीस हज़ार लोगों को रखा गया है.

स्वास्थ्य चिंताएं

यूएलएफ़ के नेता वी आनंदसांगरी श्रीलंका के कुछ उदारवादी तमिल राजनेताओं में से एक हैं. उन्होंने विद्रोहियों के ख़िलाफ़ उठाए गए सरकार के रुख़ का भरपूर समर्थन किया था.

नागरिकों ने तमिल विद्रोहियों के कब्ज़े वाले इलाके से भागते वक्त अपनी जान दाँव पर लगा दी क्योंकि विद्रोही उन पर गोलियाँ बरसा रहे थे. अगर सरकार को ऐसे लोगों पर तमिल विद्रोही होने का शक़ है तो दो ज़िलों- किलिनोच्ची और मुल्लेतिवू की सारी जनसंख्या ही तमिल विद्रोही होनी चाहिए

आनंदसांगरी ने बीबीसी से कहा, "शिविरों में रह रहे लोगों से मिली सूचनाओं के अनुसार कुछ क्षेत्रों की हालत अच्छी है जबकि बहुत सी जगहों की हालत भयानक है."

उनके अनुसार, "शिविरों में स्वास्थ्य, पानी और सफ़ाई की स्थिति भयानक है. पानी की कमी की वजह से बहुत से लोग कई-कई दिनों तक नहा नहीं पाते हैं. इससे बहुत से लोगों को त्वचा संबंधी बीमारियाँ हो गई हैं."

उन्होंने कहा, "गर्भवती महिलाएँ और नवजात शिशु शिविरों में तपती गर्मी की वजह से भयानक स्थितियों से गुज़र रहे हैं."

श्रीलंका की सरकार ने माना है कि कुछ शिविरों की हालत आदर्श नहीं है लेकिन कहा कि दूसरे अनेक शिविरों में सुविधाओं में सुधार किया गया है.

सरकार का कहना है कि पूरी तरह से भरे हुए शिविरों से भीड़ कम करने और नए शिविर बनाने के लिए कुछ ज़मीन भी आवंटित की गई है.

संयुक्त राष्ट्र और दूसरे सहायता संगठन भी मानवीय कार्यों को संपन्न कराने के लिए शिविरों तक बेहतर पहुँच की माँग कर रहे हैं.

पुनर्वास की योजना

श्रीलंका सरकार सहायता संगठनों को लेकर कुछ आशंकित है और उसने शिकायत की है कि इन संगठनों ने बीते दिनों में तमिल विद्रोहियों की मदद की है.

श्रीलंका का कहना है कि उनकी योजना छह महीनों के भीतर ज़्यादातर शरणार्थियों का पुनर्वास कराने की है.

तमिल विद्रोहियों के जाने-माने आलोचक आनंदसांगरी ने शिविर के हर तमिल नागरिक को संभावित तमिल विद्रोही की तरह देखने पर भी सरकार की खिंचाई की है.

श्रीलंका ने कहा है कि उन्हें शिविरों में छिपे प्रमुख तमिल विद्रोहियों को खोज निकालने के लिए समय की ज़रूरत है.

उन्होंने कहा, "नागरिकों ने तमिल विद्रोहियों के कब्ज़े वाले इलाके से भागते वक्त अपनी जान दाँव पर लगा दी क्योंकि विद्रोही उन पर गोलियाँ बरसा रहे थे.

अगर सरकार को ऐसे लोगों पर तमिल विद्रोही होने का शक़ है तो दो ज़िलों- किलिनोच्ची और मुल्लेतिवू की सारी जनसंख्या ही तमिल विद्रोही होनी चाहिए."

श्रीलंका के अधिकारियों ने कहा है कि उन्हें तो विद्रोहियों के क़ब्ज़े वाले स्थान से आए लाखों-नागरिकों के अचानक आगमन पर ख़ुश होना चाहिए.

सरकार ने कहा कि उसे युद्ध के बाद पुनर्वास के काम के लिए अंतरराष्ट्रीय समुदाय की मदद की भी ज़रूरत है.

टीयूएलएफ़ नेता ने कहा कि श्रीलंका के सुरक्षा बल विस्थापित नागरिकों के लिए अच्छा राहत कार्य कर रहे हैं लेकिन उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि यह पर्याप्त नहीं है.

उन्होंने कहा, "विस्थापित नागरिकों की संख्या की वजह से सरकार अपने बल पर यह समस्या नहीं सुलझा सकती."

Read Users' Comments (0)

किस मोड़ पर है भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था?

		वंदना बीबीसी हिंदी संवाददाता

विभिन्न क्षेत्रों में विकास दर

भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था के अन्य पहलू

सकारात्मक पहलू विकास दर में बढ़ोत्तरी बढ़ता विदेशी निवेश औद्योगिक और सेवा क्षेत्र में विकास विदेशी मुद्रा भंडार में वृद्धि सेंसेक्स में लगातार उछाल मुद्रा स्फ़ीति काबू में

	भारत आउटसोर्सिंग का बड़ा बाज़ार उभर कर सामने आया है

	कृषि में विकास दर उद्योग और सेवा क्षेत्र के मुकाबले कहीं पीछे है

	खराब सड़कें और आधारभूत ढाँचे की कमी निवेशकों को दूर भगा सकती है

एक ओर होंगे सेवा क्षेत्र और विदेशी निवेश जैसे पहलू जहाँ माहौल सकारात्मक है. दूसरी तरफ़ है मध्यम वर्ग की अर्थव्यवस्था जिमसें अपार संभावनाएँ हैं लेकिन कई तरह की परेशानियाँ भी हैं और तीसरे स्तर पर है एक ऐसा वर्ग जिसका ऊपर के दो वर्गों से कोई लेना देना नहीं है, उनकी समस्याएँ शायद वैसी की वैसी रहने वाली हैं. आलोक पुराणिक, विशेषज्ञ

Read Users' Comments (0)

The power ministry does not believe the capacity addition of 78,700 mega watts (MW) remains a feasible target for the 11th Plan period, without placing particular emphasis on the final 8,000 MW to achieve the goal. As a result of project delays on more than 80 power projects, a shortage of manpower and lack of fuel, power minister Sushilkumar Shinde unofficially revised the target to 70,000 MW during today’s conference for Accelerated Development of Indian Power Sector for 12th Plan and Beyond.

Although the minister said “

we are now on target for the future

With seven months remaining in the 10th Plan period, the power ministry is reporting that only about half of the plan’s capacity addition target of 41,100 MW has been reached. The potential for the Centre, state and private projects to meet this target is bleak. Power players have added just 21,180 MW to the nation’s total generation capacity, which stands at around 151,000 MW, resulting in a shortfall of approximately 20,000 MW. The Centre leads in achievements during the 10th Plan with 13,005 MW added, followed by the states which have managed to add 6,244.64 MW and the private sector with 1,930.6 MW.

“The sector is likely to achieve about two-thirds of the target,” reads a special report issued by CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. “The shortfall is due to overly optimistic targets set by the government.” During the first 100 days of the newly formed UPA government, the ministry had set a target of 5,653 MW. According to Central Electricity Authority data, 1,681 MW has been achieved since June 1. The government will reach its hundredth day in power on August 31.

In its plans to bump power capacity, the ministry holds a drastic 37,700 MW difference between the 10th and 11th Plans. Despite specific initiatives to meet or reach the 11th Plan target, India’s power shortages are likely to remain fairly high in the 11th Plan as the potential for supply-demand balance stretches into the 12th Plan. During the capacity overhaul from the 10th Plan to the 12th Plan, a transition will take place on the matter of sharing the burden of expansion.

Read Users' Comments (0)

From the perspective of the international negotiations on climate change, the most significant outcome of the recently concluded G8 Summit at L’Aquila, Italy, was the acknowledgement in the declaration of the essential scientific fact that global average temperature above pre-industrialisation levels should not exceed 2°Celsius. This has at least brought the United States, a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol in spite of being the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, on board. Hopefully, it will now undertake emission reductions at Copenhagen for the Protocols second commitment period beyond 2012.

However, the Waxman-Merkey Bill (H.R. 2454), recently passed by the House of Representatives, may belie that hope. The very weak caps that it proposes on U.S. domestic GHG emissions by 2050 (17 per cent of 2005 levels, which are themselves about 17 per cent above the UNFCCC baseline of 1990 levels) are a matter of concern. From the perspective of developing countries, however, there are other serious issues that emerge from the various declarations at the Summit. The unwarranted controversy around India signing the Major Economies Forum (MEF) declaration (see The Hindu, July 28) has had the unfortunate effect of the more substantive issues being ignored.

For instance, even as it endorses a global emissions reduction by 50 per cent by 2050, the G8 declaration is totally non-specific about targets for the developed countries (the Annex-1 countries). The espoused reduction by 2050 is only by 80 per cent and that too is non-committal as it speaks only of supporting such a goal. This is significantly lesser than the 85 per cent global cut from the 2000 levels (equivalent to over 90 per cent cut for the Annex-1 countries) that the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for.

More pertinently, the base year has been deliberately left ambiguous. This is significant because world emissions have grown by about 1.1 per cent every year during the 1990s and by about 3 per cent a year from 2000-08. Further, while the IPCC calls for peaking by 2015 and the G8 declaration speaks of peaking as soon as possible, there is no indication of the peaking year. Even as it mentions robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, it has not even specified what mid-term is, let alone targets for it.

According to a recent paper in Nature by Malte Meinhausen and others, with a 50 per cent reduction in global GHG emissions by 2050 (from the 1990 levels), there is a 12-45 per cent probability of exceeding the 2°C warming. An illustrative plausible scenario predicts a 29 per cent chance of exceeding 2°C. A 50 per cent cut from 2000 or present levels would, obviously, mean a higher probability of exceeding 2°C.

For the scenarios considered, the papers method yields a 53-87 per cent probability of overshooting the 2 limit if the global emissions in 2020 are still more than 25 per cent above the 2000 levels. To contain the warming under 2°C with 75 per cent chance, the estimated emission budget till 2050 is 1000 giga (billion) tonnes of CO{-2} and the world has already emitted nearly 284 Gt during 2000-06. The danger of the worlds emissions exceeding the 2000 levels by 25 per cent in 2020 thus remains real unless the Annex-1 countries adopt drastic reduction targets for 2020 and 2050.

Indeed, the G8s failure in stating its mid-term emission targets shows its lack of seriousness in reducing emissions. This failure elicited criticism from none other than the U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. Much more, he said in his statement on July 9, needs to be done if governments are to seal the deal on a new climate agreement in Copenhagen. Welcoming the agreement by the G8 on its goal of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, he added: For this to be credible, however, we need ambitious mid-term targets [of 25-40 per cent below the 1990 levels], and clear baselines … It is disappointing to note that thus far, the mid-term targets announced by the developed countries [of 10-15 per cent] … are not in this range. In fact, the G5 declaration had demanded a 40 per cent cut by 2020 from the 1990 levels.

Also, the approach to achieve the ambitious target of reducing the developed countries emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 is largely through market mechanisms despite the serious imperfections in them. This agenda is elaborated in Para 69 of the statement: We support flexible, economically sound market-based approach to emission reductions … With a view to … facilitate action under the global post-2012 agreement, we commit to … Support the development, reform and enhancement of project, programmatic and policy-based offset mechanisms, including Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) … [and] Work with others to further develop market mechanisms under the Copenhagen agreement to possibly including sectoral trading and sectoral crediting mechanisms, to enhance the participation of emerging economies and developing countries in the market ...

Taking as an illustrative example the proposals mooted by the U.K. to meet the G8 target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, George Monbiot of The Guardian strongly criticised the proposed offset-based emission reductions. Apparently, under its new policy on carbon reduction, the U.K. proposes to meet half of this commitment through offsets. That is, it would reduce domestic emissions only by 40 per cent. If all the Annex-1 countries were to buy reductions to this extent from the developing countries, the latter would end up cutting their current emissions by 60 per cent while the former cut only by 40 per cent, he pointed out. Further, the last part of the above quote is, in fact, indicative of an attempt to push sectoral efficiency and energy intensity (carbon footprint) standards and establish new mechanisms of sectoral carbon credits and trading in them.

Unfortunately, given the visible tendency in China and India to seek maximum monetary inflows through the CDM, and the undue importance India is giving to domestic trading in credits under its mitigation programmes, the G5 declaration has refrained from emphasising the inadequacy of market mechanisms and rejecting the idea of sectoral norms. Considering that the G5 declaration was issued a day before such a position could have pre-empted the G8 statement in this regard. The MEF declaration to which G5 is a party, in fact, has gone further to actually endorse this faulty premise. It says: Financing to address climate change will derive from multiple sources, including public and private funds and carbon markets (emphasis added).

There is also an element of contradiction in the various declarations from the perspective of the developing countries. Take for instance the burden sharing principle of the UNFCCC (Art. 4.7), namely access to and transfer of low-carbon and other renewable technologies, financing and capacity building. While the G5 declaration has stressed this, there is no firm commitment in this regard in the declarations involving the G8. More importantly, in none of the declarations to which the G5 is a party, including the G5 Declaration on Trade, has the key issue of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), which has proved to be the key barrier to the availability and transfer of technologies relevant to climate change, has been flagged. On the contrary, the G8 declaration says: [W]e stress the role of an efficient system of IPRs to foster innovation.

While, surprisingly, the MEF declaration does not refer to the WTO, both the G5 and the G8+G5 declarations have endorsed the WTO regime and reaffirmed their commitment to maintain and promote open markets and reject all protectionist measures in trade and investment that are incongruous to the WTO. This would, in particular, imply acceptance of the TRIPS regime even for low-carbon and renewable energy technologies.

As regards the issue of financing mitigation measures in developing countries, the G5 declaration says: [W]e express our interest in continuing to consider proposal to establish international financing arrangements, including Mexicos Green Fund [MGF] proposal and to set financing goals so that developed countries will contribute a set percentage of their annual GDP, in addition to their contributions to ODA, among others, to ensure adequate, predictable and continuous financial resources …

But in the G8s response there are only platitudes. Its declaration, in particular, mentions the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Banks Climate Investment Funds as the only appropriate funding instruments. The MEF, on the other hand, has only agreed to further consider proposals for … international funding arrangements, including the MGF. In sum, therefore, the G8 Summit has delivered precious little on climate change for the developing countries even as the developed countries have hailed the consensus on the 2°C limit as a major achievement.

The G8 summit has delivered precious little on climate change for the developing countries even as the developed countries have hailed the consensus on the 2°C limit as a major achievement.

Read Users' Comments (0)