Read Users' Comments (2)

Read Users' Comments (0)

The world’s high table now seats only countries belonging to the G-7 and NATO groupings, which acting in concert advance the economic and political interests of the well heeled and economically developed nations of the world. These nations have the common underlying fabric of western European culture binding them together. Japan is the only exception, being non-European. But Japan, way back in the mid 1800’s in the aftermath of the Meiji restoration determined to Westernise, and after its post-WWII resurgence became an “honorary white” nation. Nothing symptomised this better than the fact that Japanese were officially designated just that in apartheid South Africa. And the Japanese were quite comfortable with that status.

The post Cold War era has seen the economic and political rise of a host of nations, Brazil, China and India being foremost among them. Since 2000 and the advent of Vladimir Putin, Russia with soaring oil prices has made impressive economic gains. The new South Africa, based equally on the industrial inheritance of the robust but unequal and exploitative apartheid regime and the bounty of nature, now finds itself as an advancing economic power. Unlike Nigeria which has frittered its oil wealth and has been looted by its native kleptocracy, South Africa has been a relative symbol of responsible government and probity in public life. Each one of these nations is now a major economic player and already has larger GDP than many in the G-7. Together, in the next couple of decades they will outstrip the G-7.

With the advent of new world economic and political powers, logic would demand that the global high table be expanded. But there is an inherent problem with exclusive clubs. Expansion means they become less exclusive and with it goes the attendant risk that some already members will become less important. On the other hand those who get admitted will find that their admittance has made the club somewhat less exclusive. Groucho Marx captured this paradox when he said: “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” If the G-7 were to remain an exclusive and powerful club, then the only way to ensure it would be to relegate some of the present members like Italy and Spain to some lesser league. Similarly, if the UN Security Council were to become a truly representative and powerful body, then Britain and France might have to be seen out and countries like Brazil and India brought in. Neither Britain nor France have the global economic reach of Germany, till this year the world’s leading exporting nation. 

Britain’s global power status is kept afloat by leased US nuclear submarines and missiles.

But this is not happening nor is it likely to happen in a hurry. In the meantime the world is changing. So the countries knocking on the doors are trying new diplomatic combinations, and these are many. On the basis of economic potential, and thanks to Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs head of global economic research who coined the now familiar and catchy acronym, the BRICs, Brazil, Russia, India and China have come together to form a forum called just that. Phonetically BRICs has a constructive ring about it and works well. On the other hand it could have just as well been CRIBs, which in English means a cot for a baby and in the colloquial as discards on a card table.

But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing of binding commonality between these four countries. Brazil is far in the west and is a middle income and middle industrialised country with vast natural resources and a land mass to boot. Like Russia. Russia however is still a colossal military and nuclear power with a global reach. But the Russian main is in Europe and it is largely a Westernised country. China and India are low income Asian countries with gargantuan populations and an entirely different set of problems. But they are the giant economies of the future. Not only do they have not many cultural affinities but also are locked in a difficult territorial dispute. Then China is a totalitarian one party and repressive state, and does not have in place market economy structures with liberal labour laws and stringent environmental regulations in place like the other BRICs. So would these countries ever have come together if Jim O’Neill did not conjure up them as a group?

Now there is a veritable cornucopia of alphabet soups being conjured up. There is BASIC – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – which was very much in the news in Copenhagen as a ginger group that forced the western and industrialised nations, including Russia, to water down their growth constricting agenda. 

India, Brazil and South Africa as democratic, fast growing and non P-5 countries are coming together, presumably to force an expansion of the UN Security Council? China, already in the P-5 is opposed to any new permanent membership of the UNSC which includes Japan. There is already in existence a RIC’s grouping consisting of Russia, India and China that view with askance the meddlesome activities in Central Asia and the blatant partisanship of the USA in the Middle East.

Last week I was in a conference funded by the German foreign ministry for a GIBSA grouping to somehow inveigle Germany into the equation. Of late the new Hatoyama government in Japan has been signalling desire for a life outside the US umbrella and would like to have a grouping built around democratic countries like Japan, India and Australia. Nearer home there is BIMSTEC, or Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Srilanka and Thailand Economic Co-operation. And so it goes on.

Clearly the world is in a churn. The new global players are clearly unhappy with the management of the global system. What we need is a true power shift that reflects the emerging economic, political and military realities. But the multitude of agendas only serves to preserve the status quo – for the foreseeable future. Only when Brazil, Russia, India, China, South America, Japan and Germany, give or take some, come together and determine what the future world system must be, can we expect a new world order.

Source--http://www.groundreportindia.com/2010/05/alphabet-soup.html

Read Users' Comments (0)

WIDENING REACH: For e-learning to be effective, ensuring that the learning process is right is important.
Classrooms without teachers, no textbooks, and learning that could happen anytime, anywhere — this was the promise e-learning started with. But how much of that has been achieved? Education Plus spoke to experts in the field to understand the current scenario of e-learning in India and what the challenges are in adopting it.

A catch-all phrase that included any form of technology-assisted learning, e-learning was poised to revolutionise the process of education. “After the big bang, people expected the big bang to continue,” says Vipul Rastogi, president, Enterprise Solutions (India), NIIT, which offers e-learning solutions, talking about after the initial buzz on e-learning how the journey was expected to be. In place of the big bang, there is a “silent revolution taking place,” he says.

The sectors which are entering the field of e-learning serve as a testimony to the growth of e-learning. Telecom, banking, finance, and government are rapidly moving towards e-learning, he says, adding that the primary driver is not just to decrease cost but also to increase reach. Universities are also looking at e-learning modules to supplement their regular curriculum courses.

In this context, it becomes necessary to understand how effective e-learning courses are. Three to five years ago, e-learning was ‘good to have’, rather than ‘must have’ in universities and corporate houses, says Rajesh R. Jumani, chief marketing officer, Tata Interactive Systems, which offers e-learning solutions.

The focus was on the “look and feel” rather than the learning. More simulation-based training based on games are being incorporated in e-learning. And a high level of acumen is required to develop such e-learning modules.

“The most difficult question to answer is how effective is a training programme,” says Mr. Jumani. The audience has to be understood, says Mr. Rastogi. There is a difference between the way a 10+2 student understands a concept versus the way a professional working for 10 years understands it, he says. Hence, there are two layers to a successful e-learning programme — the technology component and the learning component.

In India, e-learning courses could be made more popular through availability of broadband connections at competitive rates, regional language-based content for technical subjects, two-way interaction for doubts, and performance feedback with students, says S. Giridharan, CEO, EdServ, a education firm.

“The real India, the bottom of the pyramid, still lacks education and guidance to a proper career,” he says.

Read Users' Comments (0)

It has been clear for some years now that India is unable to fully comprehend or address the complexities of a changing Pakistan. Not surprisingly, New Delhi’s policies have floundered, if not failed. Strident debates in the Indian media — frightening in their Manichaean simplicity — reflect a lack of appreciation of the intricacies of the Gordian knot of bilateral relations.

Unlike much of the establishment, however, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — by pinning Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh and then by warning the Chief Ministers of Indian states of the dangers of a terrorist attack from Pakistan-based groups — may have addressed part of the core problem: there are multiple Pakistans all of which demand Indian attention. Robust if differentiated, focussed but flexible, multitrack responses must now define India’s policy towards Pakistan’s fragile and fragmented political and social structure.

Not only the deep cleavages within Pakistan’s society but also — surprisingly — the overwhelming popular desire now for better relations with India are revealed in two recent surveys of public opinion in that country, conducted by Gallup Pakistan and by the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project which included 24 countries (including Pakistan) and the Palestinian territories. The findings should also serve as a warning to New Delhi of the dangers of “outsourcing” its Pakistan policy to Washington.

Three findings from both surveys stand out. First, as expected, is the high level of anti-Americanism among the Pakistanis. In the Pew survey, 68 per cent of the respondents have expressed a negative opinion of the U.S. Only 16 per cent have a positive view, and 64 per cent consider the U.S. more an enemy than a friend. American President Barack Obama receives the lowest ratings in Pakistan among all 25 nations surveyed as part of the Pew project. The Gallup Poll too reveals the all pervasive nature of Pakistani sentiment against the U.S. Fifty-nine per cent consider the U.S. the greatest threat to the country. Not surprisingly, American policy in Afghanistan receives very little support.

Secondly, both surveys suggest that there is a strong public desire for better relations with India even among those sections which consider their eastern neighbour a major threat. The Gallup Survey suggests that only 18 per cent consider India the greatest threat, and interestingly the figure is the highest among those likely to vote for either the MQM or the ANP and lowest among Sindhi speakers. Women are more likely to be anti-American than anti-India. According to the Pew survey, 69 per cent of the respondents do consider India a major threat, but two-thirds believe it is important for relations between Islamabad and New Delhi to improve. Over a third of those polled believe that having good relations with India is very important. Apprehensions about India are the highest in Punjab, where 70 per cent cite India as the greatest threat to the country, while a majority in Sindh and the NWFP consider the Taliban a bigger threat.

Finally, it seems that there is a process of deep churning within Pakistan’s multiple “societies,” which seems to translate, at the moment, into almost schizophrenic responses on key issues of identity. This is most clearly reflected in attitudes towards the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “severe laws” associated with these groups.

instance, in the Pew survey, there is little support for the Taliban and the al-Qaeda. Fifty-seven per cent consider the Taliban and 41 per cent consider the al-Qaeda a serious threat to the country. Forty one per cent in the Gallup poll support military action against the Taliban. And yet there is also considerable support for the harsh punishments imposed by these extremist groups. Seventy-eight per cent favour death for those who leave Islam; 80 per cent support whipping and cutting hands for theft and robbery; and 83 per cent favour stoning adulterers. And yet, 87 per cent of Pakistanis believe that it is equally important for boys and girls to be educated, in contrast to the Taliban’s thinking.

The poll finds that support for suicide bombing remains very low. In terms of credibility of institutions, the army, the media and the judiciary receive high approval while the Inter-Services Intelligence, the police and the national government get much less support.

These findings need to be studied carefully but if they are indeed reflective of real trends, they suggest what has always been intuitively obvious: India’s Pakistan policy has not succeeded because, while remaining a prisoner of past dogmas, it has been unable to respond to the multiple political and social forces in Pakistan that need to be understood and addressed.

The strategic community in India has traditionally been overwhelmingly in support of a policy of aggressively countering Pakistan. These are the Subedars. Only a minority, the Saudagars, has wanted to ignore and benignly neglect Islamabad or integrate it economically. A microscopic few, however, want New Delhi to be proactive in promoting peace, even to the extent of making unilateral concessions. These are the Sufis.

But these strands cannot afford today to remain in opposition to one another. The need of the hour is for the Subedars, the Saudagars and the Sufis to come together and shape a new Pakistan policy. At a time when it has become risky to invoke Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it is still important to recall his original design for the state: Muslim, Moderate and Modern. It is this Pakistan that an Indian strategy must systematically work towards constructing. In the present scenario, Indian policy must have at least the following strands.

First, India needs to build strong defensive and offensive capabilities to deter “asymmetric” attacks by non-state actors which may have the backing of elements of the Pakistani establishment. Nuclear weapons, at the end of the day, will only deter nuclear weapons and, at best, a full-scale conventional war. Doctrines like Cold Start will, however, remain in cold storage until they are able to explicitly demonstrate that diplomatic, political and military benefits outweigh the costs.

Secondly, India must reach out and strengthen all those who have a stake in better India-Pakistan relations and an interest in regional stability through unilateral gestures that do not demand reciprocity. These would include specific initiatives for civil society actors, as well as many others within the business and political community. For instance, New Delhi should consider constructing a preferential trading regime that offers Pakistan’s handicrafts and other local products almost unfettered access to the Indian market. Such a gesture, with some short-term costs, could have far-reaching long-term benefits for India and the region. Similarly, New Delhi could begin by offering a thousand scholarships to young men and women in Pakistan willing to study the humanities or social sciences in India at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Thirdly, India must systematically seek to weaken, delegitimise and isolate those who are enemies of a moderate Pakistan and, by implication, of a stable subcontinent. This can be done unilaterally or in conjunction with allies. It is unfortunate that sub-continental Islam, built on an ethos of multiculturalism and tolerance, has not been projected with the robustness needed in these difficult times. This “soft power” of South Asian Sufi Islam remains the best weapon against extremism.

Fourthly, Indian policies must be carefully distanced from the present American role in Pakistan or the larger U.S. Af-Pak policy. In the Pew survey, more Pakistanis expressed a willingness to trust Osama bin Laden rather than Mr. Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. Ultimately, we need to understand that India-Pakistan relationship, over the last 62 years, has been about almost everything that matters: history, memory, prejudice, identity, religion, sovereignty, ideology, insecurity, betrayal and much, much more. Ironically, a troubled Pakistan, confused about its identity and its place in the world, may offer a real chance to move beyond conflict and towards real reconciliation. It is an opportunity to finally cut the Gordian knot; a chance India cannot afford to miss.

Read Users' Comments (0)

t is a shocking reflection on the flaws in our criminal justice system that less than one out of three people lodged in Indian jails is a convict. The vast majority of the prison population, as many as about 2.5 lakhs or 70 per cent, is made up of undertrials awaiting justice. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices, many of them have been in jail “for periods longer than they would have served had they been sentenced.” The Law Commission of India’s 78th report on the “Congestion of undertrial prisoners in jail,” submitted in 1979, also has a topical feel about it.

The situation today is not unlike what it was then — people languish in jail for the want of resources to seek bail, for the lack of proper legal aid, and the hopelessly sluggish pace at which the judicial system moves. Coupled with this is the presence of a police force that seems less interested in securing convictions than in making summary arrests, effectively using custody as a form of preventive detention.

If the problem of undertrials has proved so intractable, it is because it is a manifestation of fundamental and deep-rooted flaws in the criminal justice system.

The immediate task is to identify those who are eligible for bail and ensure their release. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005, those accused of offences for which the death penalty is not prescribed are entitled to be released if they have been in detention for more than half the stipulated period of imprisonment. Also, the majority of the undertrial population is behind bars for petty offences and, by the Centre’s admission, “is under lock up in the absence of trial.”

Chief judicial magistrates have been asked by Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan to identify such cases and it is imperative that this exercise is carried out expeditiously so that these undertrials can be released on personal bonds. A more serious look at plea bargaining, introduced by the 2005 amendment for cases where the sentence is less than seven years, is called for. This could benefit many undertrials languishing in jails.

However, such immediate measures can address only a part of the problem. The fact that there is such a vast population of undertrials is closely linked to a larger issue — that of the lethargic pace of the criminal justice system, reflected in the world’s biggest backlog of pending cases. Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he urged that “the expeditious elimination of this scourge… should constitute the highest priority for all of us.”

Read Users' Comments (0)

The government’s concerns over high food prices are reflected in a number of recent policy announcements. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who heads the empowered group of ministers on drought, has reiterated that if need be the government will import commodities that are in short-supply. The ban on the export of certain essential items will continue. Although there are enough buffer stocks, the shortfall in kharif production might fuel food inflation. Urgent measures are needed to save the standing crops. Clearly, there is a sense of urgency in not only ensuring food availability but also in moderating inflationary expectations.

Already, food prices are ruling high, as reflected in various consumer price indices — the headline inflation, however, remains in negative territory due to statistical aberration. The appropriateness of taking the wholesale prices-based inflation index as the sole reference point for policy formulation has once again been called into question. From a monetary perspective, it is clear that the traditional policy measures to combat inflation such as varying the interest rates will not be wholly effective in India. Food items that are assigned heavy weightage in consumer price indices are susceptible to supply side shocks due to the monsoon vagaries. That has been amply demonstrated this time.

High food prices have also weighed with the government in determining the minimum support prices (MSP) for paddy and a number of other crops. The MSP for paddy has been hiked by Rs.100 a quintal. However, the new rate at Rs.950 a quintal for “common paddy” — and at Rs.980 for finer varieties — is, in effect, only Rs.50 more than what was paid in 2008-09 if the bonus of Rs.50 is taken into reckoning. This is in contrast to the hefty Rs.125-155 increase sanctioned during the previous two seasons.

The MSPs for other crops that are in short supply, except for a few varieties of cereals, have been frozen. The government’s efforts at balancing the interests of the consumers served through the public distribution system with those of the producers will be particularly challenging this season. A shortfall of 10 million tonnes is expected in the kharif rice output.

Since market prices are bound to be higher than the floor set by the MSP, farmers are more likely to sell their produce to private trade than to the public distribution system. Adding to the government’s woes, the States that contributed most to its stockpile last year — Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh — have had significantly deficient rainfall so far.

Read Users' Comments (0)

The news of the sudden death of Mr. Jinnah will be received with widespread regret in this country. Till barely a twelvemonth ago he was, next to Gandhiji, the most powerful leader in undivided India. And not only among his fellow-Muslims but among members of all communities there was great admiration for his sterling personal qualities even while the goal which he pursued with increasing fanaticism was deplored. For more than half the period of nearly forty years in which he was a towering figure in our public life he identified himself so completely with the struggle that the Indian National Congress carried on for freedom that he came to be as nearly a popular idol as it was possible for a man so aristocratic and aloof by temperament to be. During the last years of his life, as the architect of Pakistan, he achieved a unique authority in his own community by virtue of the blind allegiance which the mass, dazzled by his political triumphs, gave him though the sane and sober elements of the community became more and more doubtful of the wisdom of his policies. In an age which saw centuries-old empires crumble this Bombay lawyer began late in life to dream of founding a new Empire; in an era of rampant secularism this Muslim, who had never been known to be very austere in his religion, began to dally with the notion that that Empire should be an Islamic State. And the dream became a reality overnight, and perhaps no man was more surprised at his success than Mr. Jinnah himself.

Mr. Jinnah was an astute lawyer. And his success was largely due to the fact that he was quick to seize the tactical implications of any development. His strength lay not in any firm body of general principle, any deeply cogitated philosophy of life, but in throwing all his tremendous powers of tenacity, strategy and dialectical skill into a cause which had been nursed by others and shaped in many of its most important phases by external factors. In this he offers a marked contrast to the Mahatma with whom rested the initiative during the thirty years he dominated Indian political life and who, however much he might adapt himself to the thrusts of circumstance, was able to maintain on a long range a remarkable consistency. Pakistan began with Iqbal as a poetic fancy. Rahmat Ali and his English allies at Cambridge provided it with ideology and dogma. Britain’s Divide and Rule diplomacy over a period of half a century was driving blindly towards this goal. What Mr. Jinnah did was to build up a political organisation, out of the moribund Muslim League, which gave coherence to the inchoate longings of the mass by yoking it to the realisation of the doctrinaires’ dream. Two world wars within a generation, bringing in their train a vast proliferation of nation-States as well as the decay of established Imperialisms and the rise of the Totalitarian Idea, were as much responsible for the emergence of Pakistan as the aggressive communalism to which Mr. Jinnah gave point and direction.

We must not forget that Mr. Jinnah began his political life as a child of the Enlightenment the seeds of which were planted in India by the statesmen of Victorian England. He stood for parliamentary democracy after the British pattern and with a conscientious care practised the art of debate in which he attained a formidable proficiency. At the time of the Minto-Morley Reforms, he set his face sternly against the British attempts to entice the Muslims away from their allegiance to the Congress. For long he kept aloof from the Muslim League. And when at last he joined it his aim was to utilise it for promoting amity between the two communities and not for widening the gulf. But Mr. Jinnah was a man of ambition. He had a very high opinion of his own abilities and the success, professional and political, that had come to him early in life, seemed fully to justify it. It irked him to play second fiddle. The Congress in those early days was dominated by mighty personalities, Dadabhai Nowroji, Mehta and Gokhale, not to mention leaders of the Left like Tilak. That no doubt accounts for the fact that Mr. Jinnah gradually withdrew from the Congress organisation and cast about for materials wherewith to build a separate platform for himself. At this time the first World War broke out and the idea of self-determination was in the air. It was not a mere accident that Mr. Jinnah came to formulate the safeguards which he deemed necessary for the Muslim minority in his famous Fourteen Points so reminiscent of the Wilsonian formula.

But in those days he would have pooh-poohed the idea of the Muslim community cutting itself off from the rest of India. He was so little in sympathy with the Ali Brothers’ Khilafat campaign because it seemed to him to play with fire. He was deeply suspicious of the unrestrained passions of the mob and he was too good a student of history not to realise that once the dormant fires of fanaticism were stoked there was no knowing where it might end. He kept aloof from the Congress at the same time. Satyagraha with its jail-going and other hardships could not appeal to a hedonist like him; but the main reason for his avoiding the Gandhian Congress was the same nervousness about the consequences of rousing mass enthusiasm. The result was that he went into political hibernation for some years. But he remained keenly observant; and the dynamic energy generated by a successful policy of mass contact deeply impressed him. He came to see that a backward community like the Muslims could be roused to action only by an appeal, simplified almost to the point of crudeness, to what touched it most deeply, its religious faith. And a close study of the arts by which the European dictators, Mussolini, Hitler and a host of lesser men rose to power led him to perfect a technique of propaganda and mass instigation to which ‘atrocity’-mongering was central. But Mr. Jinnah could not have been entirely happy over the Frankenstein monster that he had invoked, especially when the stark horrors of the Punjab issued with all the inevitability of Attic tragedy from the contention and strife that he had sown. He was a prudent man to whom by nature and training anarchy was repellant. At the first Round Table Conference he took a lone stand in favour of a unitary Government for India because he felt that Federation in a country made up of such diverse elements would strengthen fissiparous tendencies. It was an irony that such a man should have become the instrument of a policy which, by imposing an unnatural division on a country meant by Nature to be one, has started a fatal course the end of which no man may foresee. Mr. Jinnah was too weak to withstand the momentum of the forces that he had helped to unleash. And the megalomania which unfortunately he came to develop would hardly allow him to admit that he was wrong.

Mr. Jinnah has passed away at the peak of his earthly career. He is sure of his place in history. But during the last months of his life he must have been visited by anxious thoughts about the future of the State which he had carved. Pakistan has many able men who may be expected to devote themselves with wholehearted zeal to its service according to their lights. And India will wish them well in a task of extraordinary difficulty. But it is no easy thing to don the mantle of the Quaid-i-Azam. No other Pakistani has anything like the international stature that Mr. Jinnah had achieved; and assuredly none else has that unquestioned authority with the masses. The freedom that Pakistan has won, largely as the result of a century of unremitting effort by India’s noblest sons, is yet to be consolidated. It is a task that calls for the highest qualities of statesmanship. Many are the teething troubles of the infant State. Apart from the refugee problem, which is Britain’s parting gift to both parts of distracted India, the Pakistan Government has by its handling of the Kashmir question and its unfortunate attitude towards the Indian Union’s difficulties with Hyderabad, raised in an acute form the future of the relations between Pakistan and India. Mr. Jinnah at his bitterest never forgot that firm friendship between the two States was not only feasible but indispensable if freedom was to be no Dead-Sea apple. It is earnestly to be hoped that the leaders of Pakistan will strive to be true to that ideal.

Read Users' Comments (0)

The South-West monsoon has proved to be unpredictable, variable, and uncertain this year — with the official announcement that 177 districts suffer from either drought or drought-like conditions indicating the magnitude of the crisis. Little or no rain, late rain, and heavy rain have all been features of monsoon behaviour so far in different parts of India. Officially, the monsoon ends on September 30, 2009 and it is possible that September will witness heavy rain at some places, leading to floods and damage to crops. For agriculture, what matters is not total rainfall but its distribution. In an era of climate change India, which is home to nearly 20 per cent of the world’s poor, must start planning for cyclical droughts and floods long before they occur. It is crucial to formulate these plans on the understanding that such crises hit the poor, especially agricultural labourers and land-poor peasants, the socially underprivileged sections, and women the hardest. Women are badly affected because they do not have equal access to non-farm employment opportunities and are forced to take up jobs involving high drudgery but low wages. The first priority for the National Crisis Management Committee chaired by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee will be to ensure that the drought relief and rehabilitation programmes are pro-poor, pro-socially-underprivileged, and pro-women.

There have already been symptoms of extreme distress and despair in the drought-affected areas. Suicides by farmers are increasing, leading to greater hardship to widows and children. The distress sale of cattle has begun in Andhra Pradesh and Vidharbha in Maharashtra. This is unfortunate since livestock and livelihoods are closely inter-related in most parts of the country, especially in arid and semi-arid areas. The burden of usury is one of the worst aspects of the life of a small and marginal farmer. Agriculture is a life-giving profession and it is tragic that those who help to feed the country are pushed into taking their own lives.

The Pranab Mukherjee committee will of course be looking at short-term, urgent solutions. Effective price control measures must be thought through and put in place. Access to the public distribution system must be made universal, with an enlarged food security basket being provided under the PDS. There must be large-scale provision of employment in the drought-hit areas, with the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme expanded to provide 100 days of work at minimum wages to every working member of a rural household (instead of 100 days of work for the household). But what the committee must also do is to convert the present challenge into an opportunity to fast-track institutional and policy changes that will help insulate the country from serious losses of crops and livelihoods under similar conditions in future. Some of the important steps that need to be taken immediately have been indicated in M. S. Swaminathan’s articles published in this newspaper. They include the launch of a ‘Pond in Every Farm’ movement with the help of NREGS workers; the organisation of Farm Animal Camps near sources of water; a ‘Beyond the Drought’ programme involving the planting of short-duration crops; and a compensatory production programme in areas with adequate soil moisture. The Crisis Management Committee must also plan for short- and medium-term programmes such as the organisation of a ‘Weather Information for All’ scheme based on village level agro-met stations.

Hereafter, the mode of tackling drought and flood must be proactive. This calls for the preparation of drought, flood, and good weather codes designed to reduce the adverse impact of unfavourable weather and maximise the benefits of a good monsoon. Such anticipatory measures will include the building of seed stocks for implementing contingency plans, and water and energy security systems. An important factor behind the relative stability of the prices of wheat and rice is the build-up of substantial grain reserves, which now exceed 50 million tonnes. The government has been wise not to export these grains despite pressure from traders. It is unfortunate that four decades after the beginning of the green revolution, the country has failed to develop modern grain storage structures on a large scale. Professor Swaminathan’s suggestion that the government set up ultra-modern grain storage facilities at 50 locations in the country, with each storage structure capable of handling one million tonnes of wheat or rice, must be implemented without further delay.

In the midst of drought-related crisis management, the challenge of dealing with the impact of climate change on Indian agriculture and rural livelihoods ought not to be ignored. Agreement was reached at the recent G8 Summit held at L’Aquila, Italy that a temperature rise of 2{+0} C over the pre-industrial period cannot be avoided. Even to contain the rise to 2{+0} C, greenhouse gas emissions will have to be reduced by about 40 per cent by 2020. But steps to achieve this goal are nowhere in sight. A 2{+0} C increase in mean temperature will have serious implications for India’s food security system, since the yield of crops like wheat and rice will be reduced. Here again proactive measures must be developed by breeding and selecting crops and crop varieties that can withstand higher temperatures. The initiative of the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation for building genetic resources for a warming India is timely and important. It is these kinds of short- and long-term changes that the Crisis Management Committee must initiate in the context of extreme destitution in rural India, which has serious social and political implications

Read Users' Comments (0)

Centre to tackle naxalism with development, police action

Special Correspondent

Recalling Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s word of caution that Left wing extremism posed the “single biggest internal security challenge,” Home Minister P. Chidambaram on Monday said the Centre’s two-pronged policy was clear — development and police action.

“However, the naxalites are anti-development and have targeted the very instruments of development — school buildings, roads, telephone towers. They know that development will wean the masses away, especially the poor tribals, from the grip of naxalites. Hence, these deliberate attacks on development activities,” he said.

Addressing the Chief Ministers’ Conference on Internal Security, he said the government’s response would focus on police action to wrest control of the territory dominated by naxalites, restoration of civil administration and undertaking development activities.

“We will encourage the State governments to talk to the naxalites — both individuals and local units — on condition that they give up their misconceived ‘armed liberation struggle.’ Let our message to the naxalites be this: we will talk; we will act; we will restore order; and we will undertake developmental activities,” Mr. Chidambaram said.

On the situation in the north-east, he said some State governments in the region allowed themselves to bend before insurgent groups, making the fight against insurgency much more difficult.

The States as well as the Centre shared an onerous responsibility to ensure people’s welfare.

“You [Chief Ministers] have the constitutional power and responsibility in respect of matters relating to ‘public order’ and ‘police.’ However, increasingly, jurists and the general public have emphasised the constitutional duty of the Central government to protect every State against internal disturbance,” he said.

Underlining the need for the Centre and State governments to work together in a spirit of partnership, he said the conference could demonstrate a resolve to overcome the challenges to internal security.

This was the second meeting of Chief Ministers on internal security this year; the first one was held on January 6. Mr. Chidambaram reminded the Chief Ministers that the entire nation was in a state of shock, grief and anger in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.

“Role of police crucial”

Later, at a press conference, the Minister said he drew the Chief Ministers’ attention to the central role of the police in meeting the challenges to internal security and urged them to set up Police Establishment Board and provide a stable and certain tenure to police officers.

“How can an officer provide leadership if his or her tenure is precarious and uncertain? The Police Establishment Board will, in no way, diminish the authority of the Chief Minister or the Home Minister. On the contrary, it will greatly help them in conveying the message of fairness and non-discrimination.” The Chief Ministers could always intervene in exceptional situations.

Mr. Chidambaram urged the State governments to recruit and begin training police personnel at least to the extent of 1.5 lakh vacancies before March 31, 2010. He also argued in favour of raising the strength of police stations to at least 40 personnel.

He said the conference also discussed megacity policing and desert policing and measures to improve police in these areas. More than any other branch of government, it was the police that paid the highest price in terms of human lives that were lost. “In the seven-and-half months of 2009, as many as 303 men and women belonging to the police and paramilitary forces have laid down their lives.”

Modernisation

The conference was unanimous in the demand that modernisation of the police forces should continue for another five to 10 years and more funds should be allocated to it.

There were groups across the border that plotted against India but it did not mean that there was danger of an imminent terror attack. “We must not lower our guard and we shall not lower our guard,” he reiterated.

On the demand raised by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi that the Centre should clear the proposed Gujarat Control of Organised Crime (GUJCOC) Bill, he said the provisions in it were contrary to the last expression of mind of Parliament. “I cannot, therefore, recommend it for Presidential assent,” he added.

Read Users' Comments (0)

Naxal Problem needs a holistic approach
by - Ashok Handoo,Freelance Writer

If the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has been saying it repeatedly that Naxalism is the biggest challenge to our internal security he clearly wants to underline the dangers it has been posing to India, as also the need to deal with the challenge in a most effective way.

Naxalism, which started from Naxalbari area in West Bengal in 1967, ostensibly to champion the cause of small farmers and tribals through violence, was wiped out in 1970. It soon became out of fashion in its homeland West Bengal. But the underground operations of the outfit continued. The problem became more serious after the merger of the Peoples War Group (PWG) and the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in September, 2004 which led to the formation of the CPI (Maoist). Naxalism today holds sway in vast swathes of 10 states in the country, involving about 180 districts.

Recently the Home Minister said in the Parliament that Naxal challenge had been underestimated over the years as a result of which left wing extremism had increased its area of influence. The Home Minster said that they now pose a very grave challenge to the state. Just days before his statement 36 policemen, including an SP, had been ambushed by the Maoists in Chhatisgarh.
It was in this backdrop Mr. Chidambaram urged the Members of Parliament to join hands in facing the challenge. “All sections of the house must recognize that if we must remain a democratic, republic ruled by law, we must collectively rise and face the challenge of left wing extremism” Shri Chidambaram said.

In its status report presented to the Parliament on March 13, 2006, the then Home Minister Mr. Shivraj Patil said that the Naxalite movement continues to persist in terms of spatial spread and intensity of violence. He pointed out that it remains an “area of serious concern”. Naxal violence has claimed about 6000 lives during the last 20 years. The question that arises is why have the Naxals been able to extend their area of influence over the years to become a serious threat to the country’s internal security?

It is encouraging to know that the government is not treating it as a mere law and order problem. The 2006 status report itself made it clear that the Government would address the problem in a holistic manner. That includes

‘political security, development and public perception management fronts’

as well. Surely, the Naxal problem is deeply rooted in the social and economic disparities in remote and tribal areas.
Since the fruits of development have not percolated to these areas, the Naxal outfits are able to exploit the sentiments of the local people. But the outfits themselves have been preventing and in fact destroying, developmental initiatives taken by the government. They destroy roads, railway infrastructure and administrative institutions that are needed for speeding up developmental activities. Not only this, they indulge in train hold-ups, jail breaks and attacks on politicians.
That is proof enough to indicate that they do not have real interest in the development of these areas and their loyalties lie elsewhere. Perhaps, they want to usurp political power which, they think, flows through the barrel of the gun.

At the same time, a lot many measures need to be taken to make the fight against Naxalism effective. On top of this is improving governance in the affected areas by moving corrupt officials who exploit the local people. It must also be ensured that large scale projects in these areas do not lead to displacement of people, who in any case, live a life of penury.

Since law and order is a state subject, the role of State Governments in dealing with the problem can hardly be overemphasized. They too have their share of responsibility to fulfil. A good deal of coordination between the Centre and the States is, therefore, called for. This is particularly true in view of the fact that the Outfits have established inter-state networks. The state police need to be modernized to be able to tackle the Naxal attacks. The Greyhounds experiment in Andhra Pradesh is a case in sight. Actionable intelligence collection and sharing mechanisms need to be strengthened. Funds provided to the States under the Police Modernization Scheme need to be better utilized.

The states also need to go fast with raising India Reserve Battalions, particularly in Naxal affected areas, which besides addressing security concerns, provide jobs to the unemployed youth.

A specially trained police force also needs to be put in place to fight the Maoists who basically are adopting guerrilla warfare techniques. There is also a difference in their targets. While other terrorist groups attack the strong foundations of the country such as democracy, secularism and the financial institutions, Maoists make India’s weak points like poverty and economic disparity as their targets. All this needs to be factored in the strategy to deal with the Maoist problem.

Keeping in view the fact that the Naxal groups have been raising mainly land and livelihood issues, it is important that land reforms are taken up on a priority basis. States have also to focus on physical infrastructure like roads, buildings, bridges, railway lines, communications and power etc. There is no room to brook any delay on this account.

Unfortunately, the several rounds of talks held with the Naxals hitherto and the announcements of amnesties and attractive rehabilitation schemes have not worked so far. Some states like Andhra Pradesh have a good rehabilitation policy and it has achieved some success, but a lot more remains to be done.

The Government indeed is committed to address the Naxal problem in right earnest. It is focusing on improving intelligence set up at the state level, providing help to the states to modernize and train their police forces and accelerate development in the affected areas. What is needed is better coordination both on security and developmental fronts to meet the challenge posed by the Naxals.

Read Users' Comments (0)