1 | P a g e

SELECTED EDITORIALS FOR OCTOBER 2013

2 | P a g e

THE TEHRAN TIGHTROPE

Source: By C. Raja Mohan

India must navigate turbulence of Iran-US and Iran-Saudi Arabia tensions

Every three years, there is much political excitement when the leaders of the non-aligned movement gather in some corner of the world. The hype, however, is rarely matched by the small pickings from NAM summits. At the last two summits, Sharm el-Sheikh (2009) and Havana (2006), the Indian public interest was focused on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s meetings with the Pakistani leaders.

In Havana, Singh’s meeting with the then Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, came after the bombing of the Mumbai suburban trains and New Delhi’s decision to suspend the bilateral talks. Musharraf gave Singh a face-saver in the form of a new mechanism for terror talks and the PM announced the resumption of talks.

At Sharm el-Sheik, the reference to Balochistan in a banal joint statement on the talks between Singh and then Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani generated a big controversy in India and prevented Delhi from a quick resumption of the talks that were in a limbo after the terror attack on Mumbai at the end of November 2008.

This time round, the India-Pakistan talks are moving along at a snail’s pace. Few are willing to bet that a Singh-Zardari encounter in Tehran will produce a major political breakthrough.

Meanwhile, the NAM has long ceased to be an important element of India’s foreign policy. On the multilateral front, India is more interested in smaller groupings like the G-20, where it rubs shoulders with the top world leaders, the BRICS (where it is developing a new international agenda with China, Russia, Brazil and South Africa), and the IBSA (India’s own smaller shop with two other democratic middle powers, Brazil and South Africa).

Even more important for Delhi are the SAARC, the forum to promote India’s interests in the subcontinent, and the East Asia Summit that is a vehicle to strengthen India’s standing in a region of growing global importance.

Despite its general irrelevance, the NAM political theatre in Tehran has generated much international interest, thanks to Iran’s deepening conflicts with the United States and Israel. Washington and Tel Aviv are concerned that Iran will exploit the NAM summit for its own political ends.

As the multilateral United Nations sanctions and the unilateral American and European measures begin to bite, Iran has its back to the wall and unsurprisingly wants to use the NAM opportunity. Whether Tehran will succeed is a very different matter. The NAM is a sack of potatoes; many countries like India have tried and failed to lend it either political credibility or a strategic orientation.

NAM is rather good at empty rhetoric against the West on a range of issues, but has found it impossible to cope with civil wars and regional conflicts within the developing world. While Iran will try and direct NAM’s fire at the West and Israel, it has difficulties in mobilising support for its positions on the widening regional conflict within the Middle East, now centred on Syria.

According to one count, 70 of the 120 members of the NAM recently voted with a recent Saudi sponsored resolution in the UN General Assembly on Syria that Iran opposed.

As the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia deepens and acquires sectarian colours, India has walked the tight rope in the Middle East. India’s economic interests today are concentrated on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf — where nearly six million Indians work and send billions of dollars home.

The Arabian Peninsula will remain India’s main source of petroleum for a long time. While Iran is also a natural energy partner for India, Delhi’s oil business with Tehran has been severely circumscribed by the international sanctions. So far, India has carefully navigated the turbulence generated by the confrontation between Iran and the US by finding a balance between the competing imperatives of its relations with Tehran and Washington.

India has urged Iran to abide by its non-proliferation obligations, cautioned the US and Israel against the use of military force, and stayed on the right side of the redlines imposed by the American sanctions.

3 | P a g e

India’s geopolitical interests in Iran are real and go beyond energy security. Singh’s political dialogue with the Iranian leadership is undoubtedly the most important part of the PM’s visit to Tehran this week. His talks with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will touch on both regional and bilateral issues.

Given the uncertainty over the future of Afghanistan after the US ends its combat role there by 2014, India must necessarily engage with Iran that is an important neighbour to both Islamabad and Kabul. With Pakistan blocking India’s overland access to Afghanistan, Delhi has long explored alternative transit facilities through Iran. There has been much talk, for nearly a decade, of India joining Iran’s development of a new port at Chabahar on its southeastern coast.

Chabahar, not too far from Pakistan’s Gwadar port built recently with Chinese assistance, is aimed at leveraging Iran’s geographic advantages in Afghanistan and inner Asia. If Chabahar fits so nicely with Delhi’s search for access into Afghanistan, there was little movement on India’s participation. At least until recently.

If Tehran opens its territory to a liberal overland transit regime to Delhi and Kabul and allows them effective access to the Chabahar port and the special economic zones around it, India should offer a preferential trade arrangement and substantive financing for the development of the triangular transport corridor with Iran and Afghanistan. The ball, however, is in Tehran’s court.

RADICALS IN RAWALPINDI Source: By: Suhasini Haidar: Indian Express

Kamra’s Minhas air force base is one of Pakistan’s most prized installations — part of a string of bases that guard the country’s north, it is best positioned to launch anti-terror air operations in Taliban-held areas. It houses an air weapons complex meant to build aircraft like the JF-17s, refit F-16s and Mirages, and an avionics and radar factory. If reports are to be believed, it also stores a part of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

It is shocking that terrorists were able to sneak past three rings of security to reach the heart of the airbase, even more so because they didn’t come without warning. On August 10, The Express Tribune reported specific intelligence inputs which said that the TTP had trained two teams to attack an air force base in Punjab before Eid. As officials piece together evidence on how one of their most heavily secured areas could be attacked despite warnings, there are other dots that Pakistan’s leaders, both civilian and military, must try to join.

To begin with, the attack on the airbase resembles the one on the General Headquarters of the Pakistan army in 2009 and the PNS Mehran naval base attack in 2011. Both involved 8-10 militants dressed in uniforms and suicide vests, armed with maps and fairly accurate information on the layout. The attacks coincided with the announcement of fresh offensives in North Waziristan, and the TTP claimed credit for all three.

Officials must also investigate a more sinister link — both the GHQ and Mehran attacks involved radicalised military men. In the GHQ attack, a former member of the army medical corps and a former soldier were sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively. Last year, after the Mehran base killings, former naval commando Kamran Ahmed and his brother were arrested, and naval officer Mohammad Israrul Haq was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. In the Kamra base attack, intelligence received by Pakistan’s agencies said the TTP’s reconnaissance teams had cased the airbase with the “help of personnel inside”. What seems clear is the threat to Pakistan’s army is increasingly from within.

Finally, the common thread could well be al-Qaeda commander Ilyas Kashmiri, reportedly killed in a drone attack last June. Kashmiri was a commando of Pakistan’s elite Special Services Group, before turning terrorist, and became the founder of the “313 brigade”, originally believed to be raised by the Inter-Services Intelligence to carry out anti-India operations. Kashmiri also ran the umbrella terror

4 | P a g e

organisation, Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, sourcing members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and other groups for operations. According to murdered journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad, who interviewed Kashmiri twice, and wrote about it in his book, Inside the Taliban and Al Qaeda: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11, Kashmiri and his men maintained links with “rogue ISI and military elements”, who “outsourced” the plan for the Mumbai attack after they failed to gain backing for it from the Pakistani army’s leadership.

This jihadi element in the armed forces, Saleem concluded in an article days before his death, was also responsible for the GHQ attack and the Mehran naval base attack. Kashmiri was named the planner for both attacks carried out by the TTP before he was declared killed last year. But US and Pakistani intelligence have never confirmed his death, nor has his family ever been informed of it. In March 2012, Pakistan’s The Daily Times reported that Kashmiri was alive, spotted at a meeting in North Waziristan with TTP chief Mehsud. If this is indeed true, it is one more dot that has been joined in this murky puzzle.

Internationally, the Kamra attack has put the focus on the threat of jihadi groups accessing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. For Pakistan’s army, though, it is time to dedicate itself to fighting the demon within its ranks, and to acknowledge that the extremists it once unleashed are now endangering its existence, able to strike at will on all three arms of the military: army, air force and naval bases.

In India, the focus must broaden to take in what the coming together of so many threads of terror could mean. In one of his last interviews, Shahzad told CNN-IBN that the TTP, al-Qaeda, the LeT and Kashmiri’s 313 brigade had a shared objective — sparking off a war between India and Pakistan. Just because they were unsuccessful in 2008 doesn’t mean they won’t try again.

WTO rules hurting poor nations Source: By Martin Khor:Deccan Herald The regulations on agriculture in the WTO favour rich countries while punishing developing ones. A fight taking place in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations towards the Bali Ministerial Conference shows how the rules on agriculture allow developed countries to continue to shell out huge subsidies while penalising farmers in developing countries. Food security is one of the key issues now being negotiated at the WTO as part of its preparations for the Bali Conference in December. For developing countries, food security, the livelihood and incomes of small farmers are top priorities. Reducing and eventually eliminating hunger worldwide is one of the key Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted by governments at the United Nations. In the present negotiations in New York on formulating Sustainable Development Goals in the UN, food security, nutrition and agriculture make up one of the key clusters of issues. Against this background, there is a remarkable discussion now taking place at the WTO as part of the preparations for Bali. Developing countries grouped under the G-33 are asking that their governments be allowed to buy food from their small farmers and stock the food without this being limited by the WTO's rules on agricultural subsidies. Some governments plan to provide food to poor households free or at subsidised rates. However, their proposal is facing resistance, mainly from some major developed countries, especially the United States, whose official position is that such a move would "create a massive new loophole for potentially unlimited trade-distorting subsidies". This clash is an outstanding example of how the agriculture rules of the WTO favour rich countries while punishing developing countries, including their poorest peoples. It is well known that the greatest distortions in the trading system lie in agriculture. This is because the rich countries asked for and obtained a waiver in the 1950s from the liberalisation rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs

5 | P a g e

and Trade (GATT), the predecessor of the WTO. They were allowed to give huge subsidies to their farm owners, and to have very high tariffs. When the WTO was set up, it had a new agriculture agreement that basically allowed this strong farm protection to continue. The rich countries were obliged only to reduce their "trade-distorting subsidies" by 20 per cent but could change the nature of their subsidies and put them into a "Green Box" containing subsidies that are termed "non trade-distorting or minimally trade-distorting". There is no limit to the Green Box subsidies. And several studies have shown that many of the Green Box subsidies are in fact trade-distorting as well. With this shifting around, the rich world's agricultural subsidies have been maintained, or have actually soared. For instance, WTO data show that total domestic support in the U.S. grew from $61 billion in 1995 to $130 billion in 2010. A broader measure of farm protection, known as total support estimate, which is used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, shows that the agriculture subsidies of the developed country members climbed from $350 billion in 1996 to $406 billion in 2011. The effects of continuing developed-country subsidies have been devastating to developing countries. Food products selling at below production costs are still flooding into the poorer countries, often eating into small farmers' incomes and livelihoods. Ironically most developing countries are in a situation where they are not allowed to have the same huge subsidies. The reason is that the agriculture rules say that all countries have to cut their trade-distorting subsidies. So if a developing country has not granted subsidies before, it is not allowed to give any, except for a small minimal amount (10 per cent of total production value) known as ‘de minimis’ support. Most developing countries had no, or few, subsidies when they joined the WTO due to lack of funds. Since 1986-88, global and local prices of food items have increased tremendously. The 1986-88 price is thus obsolete and much too low to be used to determine whether a developing-country government is subsidising its farmers. Countries that are in danger of exceeding its aggregate measure of support or de minimis maximum level include India. Its parliament has just passed a food bill that entitles the poor to obtain food from a government scheme that buys the food from small farmers. But the estimated 20 billion $ the government will spend annually may exceed the allowed AMS and de minimis levels, because India was not a big subsidiser before the WTO rules came into force. Other developing countries that provide subsidies to their farmers and consumers, such as China, Indonesia and Thailand, may also one day find themselves the targets of complaints. For rich countries that are paying a total of $407 billion a year in subsidies to disallow poor countries from subsidising their small farmers is really an especially bad form of discrimination and hypocrisy. Whether this controversy can be settled fairly before the WTO's Bali Ministerial Conference remains to be seen.

A half-baked measure Source: by Rajindar Sachar: The Tribune Both the government and the Opposition in Parliament have shown remarkable comradeship in accusing the judiciary of all ills in society. The occasion was to find a substitute for the present collegium system of appointment of Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. There is a

6 | P a g e

broad agreement in the public and legal fraternity that the collegium system of appointments needs to be improved upon. But then critics must also answer the query raised by the present Chief Justice of India wherein he has pointed out that a fair amount of consultation with the government takes place and the judiciary takes into account any negative facts brought out against the proposed appointee. May I scotch the suggestion invidiously spread by politicians that appointments are based only on caste or personal considerations of the collegium members and merit plays no part? May I scotch this slander by pointing out that there is universal acclaim for the present judiciary’s impartiality and determination in exposing Coalgate, telecom and other scams? The Supreme Court's recent decision to debar convicted legislators from continuing as legislators is a big blow to the evil of politicisation of criminals. Let me emphasise that the appointments of all these judges were made through the collegium system, while the judges who played a disgraceful role in colluding in the supersession case in 1973, and again during the Emergency in 1975 were all appointed before the collegium system. Because of these vagaries, are we justified in the wholesale condemnation of pre-collegium appointees? Certainly not. Since 1950 we have had stalwart judges like Krishna Iyer, Justice Mukerjee, Justice Mahajan, Justice Suba Rao and Justice Sikri. No I am not opposing the desirability of change from the present closed collegium system. But this matter needs to be discussed in a calm leisurely manner, and not by the outgoing discredited legislators and in an atmosphere of suspicion, and half-baked information. Now that the Bill has gone to a standing committee, it is to be expected it will be widely circulated throughout the country so that the legal fraternity, law schools, journals and public men could have time to discuss it at leisure. Frankly, the strategy of the Law Minister to get passed the Constitution Amendment 120th Bill and send it to the states for ratification without the details of the Judicial Appointment Commission being included in it would have been a constitutional monstrosity. Not to include the details in the amendment would be such excessive delegation as to fall foul of the law. It also has sinister implications for future. The proposed Constitution amendment only provides for a Judicial Appointment Commission for Appointment of Judges being mentioned in Article 124A, and 217 of the Constitution but without full details like the composition and the procedure for appointments being included. They are, of course, mentioned in the Bill, but that cannot prevent mischief being done by a future government. As an example, the Bill provides that the commission will be presided over by the Chief Justice of India. But if after approval of the Constitution amendment, Parliament were to amend the Act to say the judicial commission would be headed by the Law Minister, there would be no hurdle because the Constitution amendment only provides for a judicial commission but says nothing about details. In fact, but for the arrogance of the legislators it should have been clear to them that the whole of the Judicial Commission Bill with all its provisions has to be part of the Constitution Amendment Bill, just as at present Article 222, specifically mentions that the Governor and the Chief Justice of a state will be consulted when selecting a judge for the High Court. I feel that the present Parliament lacks moral justification to move such an important Constitution amendment. Elections are due latest by next May, 2014. It is reliably understood that the Election Commission may propose to have elections in four or five phases. If so, the first polling may start by February or March, 2014. It is normal to expect that half the present members of the Lok Sabha will not be re-elected. Is it morally fair and politically honest for the outgoing members to seek to pre-empt the decision which both legally and morally would be the privilege of the new Parliament?

7 | P a g e

Also the Bill has been sent to the Standing Committee. Since the full Bill has to form part of the Constitution amendment, therefore till the Commission Bill is finalised the question of sending the Constitution Amendment Bill to the states for ratification cannot arise. In the Bill for the commission there are serious flaws. At present only the views of the Governor are to be obtained when a High Court Judge is to be appointed. But now slyly the Chief Minister also finds a place in the commission. I feel it is too political and allows partisan appointments — the inclusion of Chief Minister must be removed. The personnel for the selection of Judges include a vague self-serving category of “two persons of eminence”. Pray what is the measure of eminence for selecting judges? Supposing two legislators from Parliament or state legislators were to be included in this ‘category of eminence’ (even not having had the advantage of beyond middle class schooling), none of them would consider excusing themselves because their claim would be that they were so popular with millions of voters and how could they be not considered eminent? Perverse logic, but in the construction of the law, how could you rule it out? Of course, the simplest thing would be to substitute it by “eminent jurists”. This will include a large source, namely “retired judges”, “law Professors”, “eminent senior lawyers (who are no longer in regular practice)”. Their presence will automatically reduce arbitrariness to quite an extent. The exclusion of the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha from the Judicial Appointment Commission is a serious flaw. In such neutral policy matters both the wings of Parliament must be included. In my view the present Parliament could still redeem itself somewhat of all the scams/scandals, if before its term expires, it passes the Women Reservation Bill. No objection on the ground of imminent dissolution of Parliament will apply because one House of Parliament has already passed it, and also the first announcement the Prime Minister made after the 2009 general election was a promise to immediately pass this legislation — the same commitment had been made by previous governments

DIPLOMACY MATTERS Source: By B S Prakash: Deccan Herald The hard work of diplomacy has started in lieu of threats and abuse to resolve the issues confronting Mideast. This was a good one for those who believe in the utility of diplomacy. The US and Iran greeted each other albeit cautiously after more than three decades, Russia and America agreed on a common approach on Syria walking back from the brink of an explosive escalation, the UN Security Council came together on a complex plan to deal with chemical weapons, and India and Pakistan had a matter of fact encounter at the highest level while avoiding a hypocritical embrace. Much of this happened on the margins of the annual jamboree of the UN General Assembly in New York. Even professional diplomats like me regard the UNGA as a ritual and a non-stop talkfest. But to only think of the speeches delivered in ringing tones at the podium is to mistake the form for the substance. Speeches are made for the record and for the TV audiences back home. In reality, New York and the UN serves as the backdrop, an excuse as it were, for leaders and diplomats to run into each other at a neutral place and at a pace of one’s choosing. Thus Obama-Rouhani telephone call, Manmohan Singh-

8 | P a g e

Sharif meeting without frills. Why do I say that diplomacy produced some results? Let us look at where we were and what transpired in New York in one week. The antagonism and mistrust between the US and Iran is long standing and well known. Days are long past, however, when Iran was called as a part of the axis of evil, the US a ‘Satan,’ and it was being recognised that some breakthrough, however minimal, was in the interests of both countries. Iran has undoubtedly suffered under severe sanctions and the thinking people in its establishment were looking for a resolution of its differences with the US while preserving their honour and rights including the right to run an advanced nuclear programme. The US on the other hand was also looking for a signal from Iran that meaningful and calibrated negotiations are possible. The election of Rouhani, with impeccable credentials within the country’s religious establishment, and at the same time with a moderate view and visage compared to his predecessor Ahmadinejad provided an opportunity. The time was ripe for a new beginning. The results are uncertain at this stage, but the hard work of diplomacy has started in lieu of threats and abuse. The value of the direct contact go beyond the nuclear issue. It has the potential to affect many other equations in the middle-east. Horrific war If the telephonic talk between Obama and Rouhani was symbolic, the sitting together of the foreign ministers of US and Russia to craft out an agreement on the Syrian case was hard toil. Without that diplomacy, Syria was about to escalate to an even higher level in its already horrific war. The conflict on the ground is complex enough with the military forces of the Assad government being backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, and the rebels a mix of diverse and some desperate elements including Al Qaeda, with the support of European powers, rich Gulf Sunni states, and Turkey. The bloodletting has been relentless, but a military stalemate had also been reached. Obama was rightly cautious about getting embroiled in this situation and in the process was being dubbed the ‘reluctant interventionist.’ But the use of chemical weapons changed the scenario since it meant Assad defying the widely accepted international norms and red lines. A threshold had been crossed and punitive action against Syria seemed imminent. In this framework, the diplomatic option seized upon by Kerry, and the Russian foreign minister Lavrov was welcome to all except war mongers. As we know now, the understanding reached between them in Geneva about disarming Syria of its chemical weapons under a UN process has defused the alarming descent. There is some hand-wringing in America about America’s loss of power and potency, but for all right thinking people in that country, the diplomatic course has come as a relief. Compared to these developments, the matter of fact hand shake between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan may seem minor, but it was useful. In the hostile and shrill relations that we have, any no-nonsense meeting that did not result in false expressions of camaraderie or excessive acrimony at that level, is to be accepted. It may amount to nothing but to keep the contact going is necessary in itself. Speaking at the UN, Obama, spoke of the US as having a “hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries.” When was the last time that anyone had heard about ‘humility’ of the US, its understanding of its limitations and acknowledgment that it needs to work with others. Many nations at the UN referred to a multi polar world. In a world moving in that direction, diplomatic engagement can and should intensify.

9 | P a g e

Why freeing up of food market is so crucial Source: By Mathew Joseph: The Financial Express Recent developments in India’s forex, capital and export markets have kindled the hope that the Indian economy is on the mend. The good monsoon this year has further boosted sentiments. Industrial output numbers from July have added more cheer to the scene. Have we reached the far end of the tunnel finally? Or is it another false dawn? The proof for whether the Indian economy has made a turnaround depends on the behaviour of inflation in the coming months. The Reserve Bank’s recent surprise move of hiking the repo rate recognises this. India surely has not been able to contain inflation yet. The battle against inflation has been quite a long one starting right back from 2006. The average annual rate of inflation stayed high at about 7% in terms of wholesale price index (WPI) and 9% in terms of consumer price index (CPI-IW) over the last six years from 2006-07 to 2012-13. The truth is that India has had low inflation only once during the past fifty years! And that was during 2000-06 when the average annual inflation came down to about 4-5%. The rate of inflation rose from 2-2.5% per annum in the fifties to 6% in the sixties to 8-9% through the seventies, eighties and nineties. The big risk now is whether we are moving towards the worst situation of the seventies when high inflation came with very low growth. In India, inflation always is associated with high food prices. Therefore, the only durable way to bring inflation down is to contain the rising food prices. Food demand-supply gap The rise in food prices is due to both demand and supply factors. As per capita income rises, the demand for food also rises. With higher incomes, the consumption basket expands from carbohydrates to include more vitamin and protein-rich foods like vegetables, fruits, pulses, milk, fish, meat and poultry. The real per capita income in India rose by 4% per annum in the 1990s and a higher 6% in the 2000s. However, output per capita of cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and sugarcane either stagnated or increased only marginally during this period. The output per capita of vegetables, fruits, milk, fish, meat and poultry increased in India, but by much less than the rise in per capita income. Thus, there has been a widening food demand-supply gap in the country leading to high food inflation except during 2000-06. In a free market system, a price rise elicits larger supply leading to a fall in price eventually. But in India it is not happening for food as we have an extremely distorted food market in the country. The hand of the government is everywhere in food markets ostensibly to protect the farmer and the consumer from the “exploitative” middlemen. But the acute government intervention has resulted in the opposite, leading to really strangulating the farmer on the one hand, and hurting the consumer through high prices, on the other. Food markets in India The current system is farmer-unfriendly in many ways. It denies the farmer of clear price signals to produce the different crops. Although the government announces minimum support prices (MSPs) for various crops, it buys only paddy and wheat (at MSPs) for the purpose of feeding its mammoth public distribution system. MSPs have been raised by 12.5% per annum for paddy and 10.3% for wheat over the last six years. Such large hikes in procurement prices combined with the massive stocking by the government itself have become the major cause of the high food inflation in the country. Besides, with a large increase in cereal prices guaranteed year after year, farmers are disinclined to go in for

10 | P a g e

diversification into protein and vitamin-based food crops whose demand have been rising faster than that of cereals pushing up their prices as well. Instead of an open free market, what we have is a “subsidy-control regime”. Subsidy is handed out by the government through free or cheap water, electricity, and fertilisers to all farmers. This has had huge negative implications on ground-water levels, soil fertility, and production efficiency of both inputs and output of agriculture. Subsidy is also offered to consumers through ultra-low pricing of cereals distributed through the government ration shops. In reality only a half of the foodgrains reaches the intended beneficiaries of the public distribution system and the rest simply leaks out. Government control is exercised not just in pricing of inputs and output of agriculture but also in the marketing of agricultural produce. Very little reform has taken place in the agricultural produce marketing committee (APMC) regulation in various states which stipulates the sale of agricultural commodities only through the government regulated markets called the mandis. The monopsonistic mandis have been exploitative of farmers with their huge presence of intermediaries like the commission agents, wholesalers, sub-wholesalers, etc, and their nontransparent methods of weighing, pricing, payment of commissions, taxes and payments for the produce. An important point to note here is that as the role of government in agriculture went on rising through the spread of the “subsidy-control” system, its role in investment kept on falling. The government’s share of investment in agriculture had been 40% during 1960-90 and that declined sharply in the 1990s to 24% and further to 18% in the 2000s. Food market reform A “root and branch” reform of India’s food markets is called for to enable the Indian farmers to produce enough to bridge the rising food demand-supply gap which is behind the persistent high inflation in the country. The food market reform should start with the revamp of the government procurement and public distribution system. Food subsidy, while it cannot be stopped, should be given only in the form of direct cash transfers, and not through low pricing of foodgrains. The MSP system is fine but should be operative purely for supporting the farmers during price collapses, and should be de-linked from the procurement which has to be at market price. Input subsidies to farmers also have to be administered through cash transfers and not by the low pricing of the agricultural inputs. Besides, these subsidies should be directed towards only marginal and small farmers. Simultaneously, prices of all types of fertilisers, water and electricity should be decontrolled. Furthermore, the farmers have to be given freedom to sell their products either in mandis or to private retailers. This requires drastic changes in the APMC legislation. The recent retail liberalisation “latched with onerous conditions” will not really help, and there should free inter-state movement of agricultural products, abolition of central sales tax (CST), and a more liberal trade licensing for both domestic and foreign retailers. Back to the '70s? There are limits to monetary policy in controlling food inflation which is behind the long-drawn high inflation. But India cannot resume high growth without taming inflation. For that, India has to free its food markets through a radical reform. Else, the economy will be slipping back to the bitter 1970s-level.

11 | P a g e

Unemployment & inequality Source: by Jayshree Sengupta: The Tribune THE Indian economy is faltering even though there are some rays of hope. Exports are rising again due to the weakened rupee and agricultural growth is poised to be higher after a good monsoon. But one bad news is that unemployment has risen in the last one year from 3.8 per cent to 4.7 per cent, according to the Labour Bureau’s survey. This is hardly surprising because there has been a slackening of manufacturing growth to unprecedented levels and it is the manufacturing sector which creates jobs for the semi-skilled labour force. Agricultural growth has not been high either and it is the paucity of non-agricultural jobs that is causing an increase in unemployment in the villages. India's unemployment rate, however, is lower than some of the member countries of the EU, such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and France. In India, even part-time workers call themselves 'employed', so there is always an underestimation involved. Even if unemployment has risen to 4.7 per cent, it is still much lower than the unemployment in European countries, the US or UK. But unlike in the EU, the Indian unemployed do not get any dole. The unemployed youth in India pose a big problem for the future. There are going to be 423 million jobseekers by 2030. Only rigorous skill training of youth will enable them to get jobs. Unemployment, especially in the lower income groups, is a personal disaster and people with meagre savings recede into debt rapidly. One illness in the family can reduce the family to penury and push it below the poverty line. The lack of any kind of social insurance or security is what is lacking in India and has to be corrected. We are wasting millions of rupees on unnecessary expenditure like foreign travel of ministers and dignitaries but we still do not have in place a social safety net that may provide a minimum income to the poorest families to tide over their education and health expenditure. Families with low incomes, and who are without job guarantee or pension, are most vulnerable today, yet no one is talking of a universal social safety net. On the other hand, an increase in unemployment will only widen the income inequalities in the country. Already the inequalities are rising as is evident from an increase in the Gini coefficient (a number between 0 and 1) which has risen in recent years from 0.34 to 0.38 (at perfect equality of incomes, Gini is 0). But according to experts, India's Gini coefficient is not a proper indicator of rising inequalities because it takes into account the expenditure data rather than income data. According to them, the Gini coefficient is much higher at 0.54 when it is measured by income levels. Inequalities are rising because in every sector there is wide disparity between the big players and the small ones. In agriculture, 80 per cent are small and marginal farmers and the disparity of income between the big farmers and the small ones is huge. This disparity is increasing further with fall in agricultural incomes and inflation. Also as has been pointed out, the agricultural subsidies like free power and low priced fertilisers are cornered by big farmers rather than the small and marginal. In manufacturing sector too, most units are small or medium scale. There is a profusion of micro units and the small-scale sector contributes to 45 per cent of exports and employs 60 million people. Their productivity and incomes are low. Around 40 per cent of the employees in the manufacturing sector are in the low-paying food, beverages, textiles, leather, and garment units. The large industrialists have big incomes and capability to invest and earn high profits. Their deep pockets enable them to undersell their products and wean away competitors. In the service sector, too, only 2 per cent are high earners, who are in the finance, insurance or real estate sectors. Most of the service sector

12 | P a g e

employees are in the informal or unorganised sector and are low-income earners. All domestic servants, guards, cleaners, street vendors, construction workers are in the service sector, but the difference in income between the top earners and the bottom ones is huge. This widening income disparity is evident everywhere - in towns, villages and big cities. The ultra-high net worth Indians are growing at the fastest rate among BRICS. They are worth $30 million and their number is at 7,850 in India. Counting in dollars, there are 69 billionaires and 2 lakh millionaires in India who can afford the lifestyle of the richest in the world. There is inequality in every country and Joseph Stiglitz in his book "The Price of Inequality" describes the growing inequality in the US. But in India, the contrast is glaring and unpalatable. People living without basic needs and human dignity are within a stone's throw of big mansions of the rich. The fatalistic nature of Indians enables them to tolerate such contrasts with stoic silence. There are few protests in India, considering the way the poor live and how they are treated. In the past, Indian industrialists were known for their simple living and philanthropic acts. Unfortunately, that era is gone and today only 19 per cent of the rich engage in philanthropic deeds. If we go deeper we find that government policies have been somewhat pro poor since Independence but have been diluted over the years. With the latest food security Bill as an example of equitable distribution, the UPA government can earn kudos for thinking about the poor. But on the whole, the government has not been able to eradicate corruption or establish better governance so that expenditure meant for the poor reaches them. All we hear of is how the middle men have pocketed the food grain meant for the poor or the money meant for the welfare of the downtrodden. Every country has had problems after the global financial crisis but many have tried to provide for the low income population in a humane and efficient manner. Hopefully with the news of rising unemployment there will be some action taken for the benefit of those in the lowest income bracket. Even if GDP growth rises, there will be growing inequalities unless there are strong policies aimed at the uplift of the vulnerable sections and the rich are taxed in an efficient and judicious manner. There should be some insurance against unemployment and sickness which will enable low income families to live with dignity.

Rescue the economy Source: By G Srinivasan: The Statesman As the country faces an existential threat of a slowing economy for the second year in succession, hope is now fastened on the next government to resolve the unfortunate baggage of policy taper and self-inflicted hurdles that led to the macro-economic muddles. India may have the advantage of talented techno-economists including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, the new RBI Governor and of course the Finance Minister who has been credited with possessing the expertise and experience of navigating the choppy waters of the domestic economy for far too long. But save the new RBI Governor, who is yet to acquire the patina of performance in steering the Indian economy, the rest have failed miserably and comprehensively and have landed the economy in the shambles it is today. It would be pertinent to dwell at length on the latest Trade and Development Report (TDR) of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). In its TDR, 2013, released on September 12, this maverick UN body, excoriated by the United States for its anti-capitalist tirades for long, has taken up a sub-theme to its main trope on “adjusting to the changing dynamics of the world

13 | P a g e

economy”. The report’s set of recommendations is too important to be ignored particularly by emerging economies, including India, most of which are sailing in the same boat laden with a host of problems that drag down their performance by causing output gap and associated high inflation, currency concussions, widening current account deficit and unemployment. Calling a spade a spade, Unctad states that the expansion of the global economy built on unsustainable global demand and financing patterns prior to the Great Recession of 2008 was conducive to developing and emerging economies. But reverting to pre-crisis growth strategies can no longer be an option as many developing and transitional economies are compelled to review development strategies that have been overly dependent on exports for growth. For Indian exporters, who enjoyed exceptionally salutary export performance till a year or two ago, but are now clamouring for crutches and soft interest to stay exporting, the message is pellucid but profound. Arguing that it is a not a new insight that growth strategies relying primarily on exports must sooner or later reach their limits when many countries pursue them simultaneously, Unctad says competition among economies based on low unit labour costs and taxes have led to a race to the bottom, with few development gains but potentially lethal social consequences. This is particularly so at the present juncture where growth of demand from developed countries is likely to remain weak for a protracted period of time. The limitations of such an export-led growth strategy are becoming even more obvious than in the past. Hence, it forcefully argues that continuing with export-led growth strategies through wage and tax competition would exacerbate the harm caused by slower growth in export markets and reduce any overall benefits. In these adverse circumstances, developing countries might need to take a comprehensive and longer-term perspective, entailing a shift in development strategies that accord greater heft to domestic demand as an engine of growth. It is time that the mandarins in the Ministry of Commerce, including the Commerce Minister, were a bit circumspect in seeking to articulate the insatiable appetite for more sops from the exporting community as part of the counter-cyclical package to rescue the economy from the doldrums. Unctad states that a re-balancing of the drivers of growth with greater weight to domestic demand, though indispensable, is easier said than done as the road is replete with patches of hitches. These include boosting domestic purchasing power and managing the expansion of domestic demand in a way that precludes an excessive increase in import demand. Besides, it also entails nurturing the inter-relationships between household and government expenditure on the one hand and investment on the other to enable the structural composition of domestic production to adjust to new demand patterns, notably through increased regional and South-South trade. Unctad also underscores the critical importance of domestic demand as a major impetus for industrialization, while seeking greater integration into a rapidly globalizing economy. As growth of domestic demand accounts for about three-quarters of the increase in domestic industrial output in large economies, accelerating domestic demand growth could be highly beneficial for output growth and industrialization in a context of weakening external demand growth. Indian policy-makers should pay due heed to this as industrialization of India remains a task progressing at snail’s pace in recent years with the emphasis shifting to the services sector, while the less said about agriculture the better. Stating that there is a strong inter-relationship between increases in household consumption, private investment and public expenditure, Unctad states that increased consumption of goods and services

14 | P a g e

that could be produced domestically makes producers of those goods and services more willing to invest in their productive capacity. Higher investment is not only a source of domestic demand (even if a large share of the capital goods may have to be imported), but it is also a pre-condition for the creation of employment and for productivity gains that allow wages to grow along with the purchasing power of domestic consumers. Besides, higher incomes of households and firms raise tax revenues, which can then be spent by the government for enhancing public services and infrastructure development, even at unchanged tax rates. Higher public spending, in turn, can create additional income for households and firms and improve the conditions for private investment. Such investment is required for increasing domestic supply capacity and thus for reducing leakages of domestic demand growth through imports. Pertinently enough, Unctad states that while export-led strategies focus on the cost aspect of wages, a domestic demand-oriented strategy would focus on the income aspect of wages, as it is based on household spending as the largest component of effective demand. If wage growth follows the path of productivity growth, it will create sufficient of domestic demand to fully employ the growing productive capacities of the economy without having to rely on continued export growth. It is high time India’s policy wonks woke up to the stark reality before the economy loses the lingering momentum and becomes moribund.

Shutdown victim Source: By Mark Landler: Deccan Herald An ungovernable US is not something that the Chinese want either, given the economic interdependence of the two countries. Debate over the federal government shutdown has tended to focus on those it hurts: veterans, tourists barred from the Lincoln Memorial and Yellowstone National Park, and giant-panda enthusiasts deprived of their publicly funded panda cam. But the shutdown has already produced at least one winner: China. By forcing President Barack Obama to cancel to Malaysia and the Philippines, the impasse with House Republicans is spoiling Obama’s show of support for two Southeast Asian countries that have long labored under the shadow of China. And it is undermining his broader effort to put Asia at the heart of US foreign policy. Obama’s planned itinerary - a mix of summit meetings and good will visits - was carefully molded to reinforce the message to China that the U.S. is once again a central player in the region. But the president’s Asian pivot keeps getting pulled back by two forces that have haunted his presidency: strife in the Middle East and strife with Capitol Hill. For now, the White House is clinging to the two remaining stops on Obama’s tour: a Pacific Rim economic summit meeting in Indonesia, at which he hopes to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and the East Asia Summit, in the sultanate of Brunei, where he is scheduled to meet the new prime minister of China, Li Keqiang. With little sign of a compromise that would reopen the government by this weekend, however, Obama may be forced to scrap those visits, too, sending Secretary of State John Kerry as his

15 | P a g e

understudy. It would be the third time he has been forced to sacrifice an Asia trip because of domestic issues - he postponed a visit in March 2010 because of the battle over the health care overhaul, and delayed it again four months later because of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “Diplomatically, it’s very harmful,” said Kenneth G Lieberthal, a top China adviser during the Clinton administration. “I’m sure there are some in China who say, insofar as the US pivot has China as its bull’s-eye, this prevents them from hitting that bull’s-eye.” Jeffrey A Bader, who was Obama’s senior adviser on China until 2011, said the White House’s attempt to salvage the two meetings, even amid the chaos of the shutdown, was an important sign that it remained committed to the region. But he added, “The mayhem that compelled the decision sends an unfortunate signal to those countries that the U.S. is far away, and that the U.S. political system is dysfunctional.” Clear beneficiary While Obama’s plans are in flux, President Xi Jinping of China has embarked on a tour of Southeast Asia that will take him to Indonesia and Malaysia.China, with its expansionist impulses, is a clear beneficiary of a distracted US. It has clashed with Malaysia and the Philippines over claims to rocky outposts in the South China Sea, which the three countries border. On previous visits, Obama said the US had an interest in resolving these disputes peacefully and in keeping sea lanes open. Critics have long charged that the “pivot” is more talk than reality - a fledgling trade deal and the deployment of 2,500 Marines to the Australian outback, rather than a genuine shift of resources. Administration officials say that contention is unfair, noting that in addition to the trade talks and alliance building, Obama spent hours one on one with Xi in Southern California in June. Still, the turmoil in Syria has reinforced the reality that the Middle East is likely to remain a preoccupation for Obama. In his speech at the UN last week, he mentioned Asia in a single line, noting that it could serve as an economic example. While the president may be no less committed to the region, there is a reduction of Asia expertise on his senior team. Kerry has made the Middle East, and particularly peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, his top priority, in contrast to his predecessor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose first trip in the post was to Asia, and who led the drive to open diplomatic ties to Myanmar. Susan E Rice, the national security adviser, has by necessity focused less on Asia than her predecessor, Tom Donilon, while Treasury Secretary Jacob J Lew has far less experience in the region than his predecessor, Timothy F Geithner. Administration officials counter that Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the US trade representative, Michael B Froman, are both heavily involved in Asia. But among top officials, only Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, whose history in Asia dates to his combat service in Vietnam, seems eager to put the rebalancing at the top of his agenda. Hagel, a former Republican senator, has been harshly critical of his fellow Republicans in the budget fight, telling reporters traveling with him to Japan and South Korea this week that “if this continues, we will have a country that is ungovernable.” An ungovernable America is not something that the Chinese want either, given the economic interdependence of the two countries. But in the diplomatic struggle for influence in the region, a dysfunctional Washington plays to the short-term advantage of Beijing, especially with China having weathered its own domestic political upheavals. “And,” added a senior administration official with bitter humor, “they still have a panda cam.”

16 | P a g e

Challenges in food security Source: by Abhilaksh Likhi: The Tribune The recently enacted National Food Security Act, 2013, (NFSA) is being described as a 'game-changer' to strengthen food and nutritional security in the country. It goes without saying that be it basic staples (wheat and rice) or other foods (edible oil, pulses, fruit, vegetables, milk and milk products, egg, meat, fish, etc) India has been quite successful in ensuring their ample availability to its population. But in addition to food availability, there are two more critical factors in ensuring food security for the citizen's — access to food and its absorption for better nourishment. Despite robust economic growth in recent years, one-third of India's population, i.e., more than 376 million people, in 2010 still lived below the poverty line as per World Bank's definition of $1.25 a day. Besides, the National Family Health Survey of 2005-06 highlighted that amongst children under five years, 20 per cent were acutely and 48 per cent chronically undernourished. These facts underline the relevance of safety-net targeting that makes the poor and vulnerable secure in terms of nutrition, dietary needs and changing food preferences. In this context, the NFSA marks a significant shift from the current welfare approach to a rights based approach. A legal right has now been conferred on beneficiaries to receive entitled quantities of food grains at subsidised prices. This has been supplemented with conferring a similar right on women, children and other vulnerable groups to receive meals free of charge. Such rights have been backed in the Act by an internal grievance redress mechanism that seeks to foster transparency and accountability in the last-mile governance of public delivery structures, i.e. 4.7 lakh fair price shops. The backbone of the Act, of course, is the large-scale distribution of food grains to 67 per cent of the country's population of 1.2 billion. The foremost challenge is to ensure the sustained availability of food grains with public authorities. Self-sufficiency has been achieved in grain production at 257 million tonnes despite the growing pressure on land and water. Besides, a gradual shift in the geographic cropped area has been planned over the years from north-western states to the eastern states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal due to overexploitation of ground water. But despite the record food grain production, lack of marketing and procurement infrastructure in these states has been a cause of distress to the small-holding farmers. A related key issue is the efficiency of the food grain procurement, transportation and distribution chain via the Central pool by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Though this system is applicable to the entire country, it operates primarily in a few surplus states such as Punjab, Haryana, Western UP and Andhra Pradesh. The Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) observes that it would be cheaper to procure food grains from states such as Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, etc, and deliver to neighbouring deficit or remote states in central, eastern and western India. This could also possibly reduce wastage. Besides, maintaining and moving the buffer stocks is another mammoth task. Additional procurement, storage and its distribution by the FCI under the NFSA would require rail head connections for all FCI storage points and increase in bulk wagon availability with the Indian Railways. One aspect that needs immediate attention is reform of the FCI apparatus with allowance for public-private partnerships in the movement and storage of grains.

17 | P a g e

Thus, there is a need during the next three years to enhance strategic investments in agricultural infrastructure, especially in the grain marketing network (as has been done in Chhattisgarh), while we continue to push productivity enhancing technologies in irrigation, power, fertilisers, seeds and post harvest activities. The second challenge is to eliminate leakage and corruption and ensure stringent monitoring under the NFSA at the last-mile distribution points (fair price shops) in states. The provisions under Chapter V of the NFSA envisage a bouquet of innovative reforms that can be effected by the states. The use of fake ration cards in these shops has already been addressed by states such as Tamil Naidu and Kerala by computerisation of databases and using hologram enabled technologies. These states have also experimented successfully with running of cooperative fair price shops. Madhya Pradesh has used the private sector to computerise the Public Distribution System (PDS) and register beneficiaries with the biometric Aadhaar numbers as well as provide food coupons. What we need to achieve is a pan India scale with regard to application of communication technologies under the NFSA, especially covering remote and backward regions/districts with vulnerable populations. Rural banking also needs to be strengthened. To do so, the implementation of 2011 recommendations of the Task Force on IT Strategy for PDS (that details the use of technology in supply chain management and electronic payments) has to be fast-tracked in the coming three years. A related issue is the introduction of cash transfers (as in Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh) in lieu of food grain entitlements, linking it with the Aadhaar number. The idea is to avoid the pitfalls of nationwide stocking, storage and distribution of food grains across diverse agro-climatic regions. While individual states would have the freedom to devise their own systems, the CACP's observations in this context need to be viewed seriously. It suggests that states surplus in cereal production and cities with a population of 1 million or more could straightaway move to cash transfers. It would enable maintaining an optimum buffer stock, ease distribution and storage problems, and bundle cash transfer with health and education initiatives. More importantly, it would prune the estimated US $ 24 billion food subsidy for providing approximately 62 million tonnes of food grains by physical movement through the PDS. The third and long-term challenge is of qualitative improvement in food absorption, especially for women and children, by creating synergies between public health, sanitation, education and agricultural interventions. First, a comprehensive and functional "national nutrition strategy" has to identify local convergences between the Centrally sponsored Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Total Sanitation Campaign, National Rural Health Mission and the Integrated Child Development Program. Creation of quality rural and urban infrastructure through community participation under the above converged programs has to be achieved through effective public-private partnerships. The outreach programs of civil society and NGOs such as Akshaya Patra (that delivers freshly cooked, nutritious meals to 1.3 million children in government schools through 20 locations across nine states) need to be encouraged, scaled and institutionalised.

Kashmir & the Army Source: By Soumitro Das: The Statesman The Prime Minister went to New York and said that the Shimla Agreement remains the appropriate framework for solving the Kashmir dispute. The truth is that the Shimla Agreement is dead as a dodo. Kashmir is no longer a simple territorial dispute between India and Pakistan. It is a matter to be

18 | P a g e

negotiated by the Kashmiri people on the one hand with India and Pakistan on the other. Twenty-four years of sustained Kashmiri rebellion has rendered the Shimla Agreement null and void. One talks about the wishes of the Kashmiri people. How can we be sure of what Kashmiris want? Has there been a referendum or a plebiscite? On the contrary, Kashmir has had a democratically elected government within the Indian Constitution for quite some time and there had even been a fairly successful panchayat election some time back. It seems that tourism is also on the rise or was on the rise until the latest series of attacks. Things were normal for a pretty long spell, until some of these militants managed to infiltrate under the protective military cover provided by the Pakistan Army or so the story goes. So how can anyone be sure of what the Kashmiri people want? Or rather, how can we be sure that the Kashmiri people do not want India? The first thing to be said is that life does not come to a standstill. Ordinary Tibetans are not immolating themselves en masse because of Chinese rule. They go about their business as usual, earning a livelihood and taking care of their families, etc. So that explains why Kashmir goes quiet from time to time. Then there is circumstantial evidence, and lots of it at that, relating to what Kashmiris feel about Indian rule. Firstly Omar Abdullah, no enemy of India, says that he has to sweat in order to gather a crowd of 50,000 National Conference workers on a good day. Whereas, the Hurriyat can assemble a crowd of 100,000 at the drop of a hat. Next, Zubin Mehta holds a “By invitation only” concert in Shalimar Bag. The state government has to provide 3-tier security and ask neighbours not to move out after 1.30 pm. The Bavarian government, for its part, wants to know why the Bavarian State Orchestra was used in a select but quasi-private gathering that had nothing to do with the Kashmiri people. Thirdly, in a talk show hosted by one of our foremost news channels, every Kashmiri Muslim invitee speaks about the injustices and humiliations of what they frankly call “Indian Rule”. And they are all English-speaking middle class people. Fourthly, when India beat Pakistan in the last Cricket World Cup semi-final there was wild celebration in Srinagar in the army barracks. Outside all was quiet and indifferent. When the Prime Minister visits Kashmir, for one futile reason or the other, there is not a soul to be seen in the streets. His motorcade drives through what is virtually a ghost town. This should give you a fair idea of what the mood is like in Kashmir. Even young Pandits, among those who have chosen to stick it out in their homeland, are exasperated by the behaviour of Indian jawans. These guys, one of them said recently on TV, don’t know how to talk to people. They should be trained to handle them properly. What the ordinary Kashmiri suffers is visible only in flashes, but it is sufficient to give us an idea about what is going on. There is an architecture of tyranny in Kashmir buttressed by some very draconian pieces of legislation. To begin with, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act which is the direct desi descendant of the Armed forces special powers ordinance of 1942. This is a piece of legislation that deals with national uprisings. What does this Act say? That a jawan can use force after giving such warnings as he considers necessary, even to kill on mere suspicion and even if the person is infringing the laws that prohibit assembly. The jawan has the right to search without a warrant and destroy any “arms dumps” he may find. What defines an arms dump is left entirely to the jawan concerned. Also he can arrest without warrant on mere suspicion. If there are any abuses committed, sanction for prosecution has to be sought from the Central Government. The Jammu and Kashmir government has applied for permission to prosecute in just 50 cases in the period between 1989 and 2011. No figures are available for how many permissions were given. Similarly, the Army received complaints of roughly 1500 human rights violations in the last two decades, of which it says 972 are false. It refuses to hand over the rest of the accused to the civilian justice process saying that it has its own mechanism to deal with them. In the Pathribal case, the Supreme Court gallantly asked the army if it wanted to court martial the accused since no sanction for prosecution was received. That is not all. There is the Public Safety Act which provides for detention without trial, without even production before the court and can be renewed every six months. Those held under the PSA have no access to a lawyer and cannot challenge their detention in any way. They never receive any

19 | P a g e

compensation for unjust detention and their complaints of torture and ill-treatment are never given any importance. It is natural that with such laws in place, laws that provide almost complete impunity to the jawans of the Indian Army who have a very limited understanding of human rights, atrocities are bound to occur and they occur on a regular basis. The only thing is that the Indian public at large remains ignorant unless it happens to be a particularly egregious case like Pathribal or Machchil. And even there, there is no follow-up. For this state of disinformation, the media is directly to blame. The media, both print and broadcast, are prone to adopting hyper nationalist positions when it comes to reporting from Kashmir. This may be because of the latent censorship that is practised when it comes to anything that the Army is involved in. One of the first things my ex-boss, the redoubtable CR Irani said to me was, Never criticize the Army. And I know that this injunction is repeated right across the Indian media . The Army is sacrosanct. Why? Because they lay down their lives in order to protect our freedoms from our enemies. There are two philosophical points to be made here. If you have been given the right to kill with impunity, you should expect to have a few bullets coming your way from time to time. There is no such thing as a fundamental right not to be killed if you are a soldier on the prowl with an automatic weapon. Secondly, why do I need to be protected against people who, till the other day, I would have counted among my compatriots. But philosophical questions aside, Kashmiris on the Indian side live in a sort of a military dictatorship. There is something called the Unified Command which unites the military and the civilian leadership in Kashmir. Decisions relating to security and public order are taken conjointly. We also now know that the Army secretly sponsors cricket tournaments and other sorts of activities in Kashmir covertly. To stabilize things, as Gen (retd) V.K. Singh put it. To give Army rule a veneer of civilian legitimacy, we say. However, the real challenge to the Indian state will be mounted when the armed fight for Kashmiri freedom comes to an end and people start demonstrating peacefully in the streets. Then, India will have no excuses, or scapegoats to fall back upon (cross-border terrorism first, everything else later). Then India will face up to what it has done to Kashmir.

Watery graves Source: by Sriram chaula: the Asian Age Something is fundamentally wrong with an international order in which forlorn refugees and immigrants seeking safety and dignity keep sinking in boat accidents. The deaths of 300odd Africans fleeing war and human rights abuse in Somalia and Eritrea, just 800 metres off the Italian island of Lampedusa, is a metaphor for how near and yet so far distressed humans are from salvation. The capsized rickety vessel, now at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, is a ghastly symbol of where the suppressed and unwanted belong — in the netherworld. According to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), 25,000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea in the past two decades, en route from West Asia and North Africa to Europe. When humans are driven up the wall by political brutality and economic collapse in their homelands, they vote with their feet and go wherever there is the faintest hope. Some migrants know they may perish along the way but are impelled by despair and lured by unscrupulous human smugglers who paint rosy pictures of protection and employment in advanced economies of Europe. Most have nothing left to lose in their homeland or transit country and believe the boats will either bring deliverance or relieve them through death.

20 | P a g e

Who exactly is responsible for the intolerable living conditions in the countries of origin of these refugees and migrants? Internal chaos and failure of domestic governance in North Africa and West Asia are the obvious primary causes for pushing refugees and migrants towards deadly sea voyages. But one must not forget wider international accountability for destabilisation of these volatile regions. Take the example of Libya, which has been named by the European Union (EU) as the “biggest concern” and the main point of embarkation for migrants and refugees aiming to reach Italy. Libya is today a failed state where heavily armed rival militias rule patches of land with no government in sight. Ever since France, Britain and the United States waged an illegal war to topple the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has been devoured by anarchy and religious extremism. Gaddafi himself had manipulated the migration outflow issue to extract economic and diplomatic concessions from European nations, but in the total breakdown following his fall, Libya turned into a lawless territory akin to Somalia. The summary executions, gang wars and kidnappings, which are the norm now in Libya, triggered recent waves of refugees and immigrants headed for Lampedusa. Western powers which bombed Libya to overthrow Gaddafi cannot wash their hands off the problem by blaming Libyans for what the EU labels as a “non-consolidated and difficult to-govern emerging institutional framework”. If Gaddafi had played tribal politics and divided his country, Western intelligence agencies did the same, but they also weaponised Libya so rampantly that it exacerbated the refugee and immigrant exodus. France, Britain and the US claim to intervene militarily in North Africa and West Asia for grandiose moral principles — the “responsibility to protect”, for example — but there seems to be no Western “responsibility to rebuild” societies after they have been pulverized by aerial attacks. It would be only fair for France, Italy and Britain to absorb Libyan refugees given that these three European states took the lead in destroying Libya during the protracted war of 2011. But instead of opening their doors to people suffering as a direct result of Western military and foreign policies, European states have resorted to a “NIMBY” (Not in my backyard) discourse. Covering up historical and contemporary faults of propping up authoritarian regimes and exploiting natural resources in North Africa and West Asia, European nations are passing the buck from one to the other when confronted with miserable refugees and immigrants crossing the Mediterranean. Italy and Spain blame the rest of the EU for sheltering behind geographical distance from North Africa and West Asia and offloading the full burden on the shoulders of just Rome and Madrid, which are under acute economic crisis. Economically sick Greece has tightened its land borders with Turkey, thereby condemning refugees and immigrants to perilous sea routes. Germany, on the other hand, accuses Italy of financially inducing refugees and migrants who manage to arrive on Italian soil to head north to more prosperous parts of Europe. After the latest boat tragedy carrying Somalis and Eritreans occurred, opinion makers have stressed how disjointed and insensitive the overall EU policy on refugees and migrants is. The absence of a single EUwide regime for refugees and migrants is frequently bemoaned by human rights advocates. But apart from calling for equitable sharing of the tasks of receiving and justly assessing asylum and migration claims among all EU members, the West’s larger responsibility for colonising and later re-colonising Africa and West Asia are rarely brought into the debate. Most “solutions” to the endless crisis of refugees and immigrants drowning in the Mediterranean are technical and administrative, missing the core political problem of Western aggression in and destruction of countries like Libya, Somalia and Syria.

21 | P a g e

Receiving refugees and migrants is a small contribution to make for Europeans and Americans who have sponsored proxy wars and rendered countries in North Africa and West Asia ungovernable. Immigration and refugee inflows are a boomerang effect, if not a revenge, of the colonies. Once European governments and public opinion acknowledge and appreciate this deeper debt, their attitudes to the hapless victims in the Mediterranean would become more humane. The renewed ascent of neo-fascist, anti-immigrant parties across Europe is an additional threat to refugees and migrants caught in limbo. Europe’s ruling parties are politically reluctant to challenge widespread anti-foreigner sentiment whipped up by xenophobic extremists. Hence the phenomenon of “fortress Europe” that is closed to immigrants — an ironic outcome because European countries have abnormally high median ages (mostly above 40 years) and require an influx of young migrants to remain economically viable. Western racism and neocolonialism are the ultimate hurdles to resolving the crisis. Recognising and overcoming these obstacles hold the key to a durable solution for this conscience-tugging tragedy.

Quality is as important Source: By Alok Ray: Deccan Herald Despite the current economic turmoil, most analysts agree that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. They would particularly mention a savings rate of above 30 per cent, self-sufficiency in food grains and the so-called ‘demographic dividend’ meaning a much higher percentage of young working age people in the total population (54 per cent of population below 25 years of age), unlike most other emerging economies and all of the developed world. Thus, the current huge population of India (1.2 billion and projected to exceed China’s population by 2028), feared at one time to be our biggest liability, is now often regarded as a national asset. In addition, population control has become a ‘politically incorrect’ topic. The number of children a family would like to have is treated as individual’s private decision which should be of no concern for the government in a democracy. The government’s job is being increasingly viewed as ensuring that the people are provided minimum food, education, health and other basic needs of life - using tax revenue - irrespective of the size of the family. But can we really afford to be so complacent about the nature of population growth in India? The truth is that the overall growth rate of population is coming down but the worsening quality of population should be a matter of grave concern. In the decade 1950-60, the growth rate of population was 1.9 per cent per year. This went up to 2.2 per cent in the three subsequent decades, mainly because of significant reduction in death rates brought about by access to improved medical facilities including immunisation. But, then, it came down to 1.6 per cent in 2000-2010. This can be attributed to a reduction in birth rates achieved through the spread of education and awareness—especially among women—of the benefits of a small family and the methods of birth control available to achieve it. But the spread of this awareness has been highly uneven. Detailed data are not readily available for total fertility rate (TFR) – the number of children a woman bears over her lifetime -- for different income and education classes. However, casual empiricism by looking at the number of children that my friends and acquaintances - who are all from relatively educated and affluent families - tells me that most of them (in the current generation) have got only

22 | P a g e

one child and the rest have at most two children. In other words, the average TFR for such families is well below 2. But the average TFR for families who are close to the poverty line or have low levels of education or both is clearly much higher to produce an overall all-India TFR of 2.6 in 2011. Roughly constant Note that TFR for China was 1.6, South Korea 1.2, Bangladesh 2.2 and Pakistan 3.4 at around the same time. A TFR of 2 would imply that over time the population would become roughly constant since the children would simply replace their parents. So, the implication is that in India the number of people who can afford to give their children good education and a decent standard of living would be going down while the number of people who, by and large, are not able to do so would be rising over time, worsening the overall quality of the population. The same picture of unevenness emerges if we consider the differences across states and ethnic/religious groups. For 2011, the TFR for Bihar was 3.6 and for Uttar Pradesh 3.4 (two of the most populous, poorest and least literate states) while for both Kerala and Himachal Pradesh it was 1.8 and for Tamil Nadu 1.2. The last three states are among the states with the highest literacy rates for women and the lowest poverty rates in India. While the TFR for Hindus, Sikhs and Christians are all in the range of 2.0-2.1, that for Muslims it is 3.4 and for tribal’s 3.16. Since the average level of education and per capita income is higher for the first three groups than for the latter two, again we see the negative correlation between the birth rate and the level of education and poverty. The first best solution is clear enough. We need to spread education, awareness and health care facilities among the backward sections. High child mortality rate among the poor is one major reason behind their high fertility rate as an insurance against the high risk of subsequent death of offspring’s. Economic growth, by itself, would help by raising income. But the problem is that we cannot afford to wait till the spread of education and economic growth takes care of the problem, however long it may take. In a democracy, we cannot impose a draconian rule – like the Chinese state-imposed one-child policy - with strict penalties for violating the rule. So, along with spread of education, awareness and availability of cheap birth control devices, some other positive incentives may need to be provided to the less educated poor families to opt for a smaller family. One option could be conditional cash transfers. For example, cash subsidies (‘child allowance’) can be provided to poor families on the condition that the parents will have to send their children to school but the subsidies would be limited to, say, only two children per family, of course, with exceptions like twins at second birth or handicapped children.

Bureaucracy in crisis Source: By Swapan K Chattopadhyay: The Statesman Seventeen years after the then Prime Minister made such an observation on the systemic bottlenecks of his own government; there has been no fundamental change. Indeed, complaints about the role of the bureaucracy must be as old as the bureaucracy itself. Indian bureaucracy, which is perhaps the most bloated and most expensive in the world, seems to be sinking in a quagmire. As a result, socio-economic programmes and governance generally are suffering.

23 | P a g e

One of the world’s largest republics was set up after independence. It was a functioning democracy with a multi-party system. A stagnant colonial economy gave way to an economy with a 3.5 per cent growth rate. There was a paradigm shift in the policies and outlook of the government; the bureaucracy was entrusted with responsibility as never before. Sadly, however, Indian bureaucracy failed to respond to the rising aspirations of the national government as it could not shed its age-old habits ~ routine administration, delay in taking decisions and a reluctance to engage in experiments. It developed a negative outlook. In a word, there was no change in the mindset. Apart from the secretariat-level officers who are principally associated with framing of policies and the issue of government orders, there are a large number of front-ranking public service officers and employees of various categories, who have been termed as “street-level bureaucrats” by Michael Lip sky. They function in the district and village levels where the presence of the bureaucracy is actually felt by the socio-economically backward people. The public service personnel include teachers, policemen, welfare workers, doctors, nurses, employees of panchayats and urban local bodies, land reforms officers, inspectors of different departments DMs, SPs, and BDOs that can be added the clerical staffs, who deal with files at the lowest level. A partisan attitude, delinquency, inefficiency, corruption, a tendency to misbehave with people, and pathetic lack of information can impede field operations. This can erode the credibility of the government. In the net, the return on the investment of public money is near-zero. This is exactly what has happened in the case of Indian bureaucracy. Over the past few decades, it has declined rapidly on account of corruption and politicization. A 2005 study conducted by Transparency International revealed that more than 55 per cent of Indians have to bribe their way to get the job done in a government office. In the book, Corruption in India: The DNA and RNA, Professor Bibek Debroy and Laveesh Bhandari have stated that public officials in India may be cornering as much as Rs. 92,122 crore ($ 18.42 billion), or 1.26 per cent of the GDP, through corruption. In their recently published book, An Uncertain Glory, Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen have observed: “Corruption has become such an endemic feature of Indian administration and commercial life that in some parts of the country nothing moves in the intended direction unless the palm of the deliverer is greased.” Referring to corruption in Bihar, NC Saxena, former Secretary to the Union ministry of rural development, once made a scathing remark ~ “It (corruption) is a low-risk high-reward activity. Many civil servants in the state (Bihar) are corrupt and have narrow horizons and a feudal outlook. The lower level of the bureaucracy is even worse and it has become insensitive and hostile to the poor section of the society.” Mr Saxena did not mention certain states, which doesn’t mean that they are untainted. The degree of corruption only varies from state to state. Even the Union government is no exception. In a system where transparency and accountability are at a discount, the objective of public service gets distorted. Immediately after independence, the government could have evolved an in-built system of checks and balances to kill the virus of corruption before the malaise went out of control. But this was not done. “Corruption is fostered and nurtured by the absence of systems of accountability ... Even establishing some kind of super-powerful ombudsman, with draconian powers that are not tempered

24 | P a g e

by judicial procedure (as in some versions of the proposed ‘Lokpal Bill’), can generate more problems than it helps to solve. When a system is faulty, and gives people the wrong kind of incentives ~ to neglect one’s duty and to reap illicit earnings without systematic penalties ~ what has to be amended is the system itself. For example, any system that leaves government officers effectively in sole command ~ or oligarchic dominance ~ over giving licences (say, import or mining licences), without checks and invigilation, can become a minefield of corrupt practices.” (Dreze and Sen, an Uncertain Glory). A former Karnataka Governor, Govind Narain (ICS), once remarked that the Sixties not only marked a watershed in the country’s politics but also in the bureaucracy as far as corruption is concerned. Initially, money was collected through political channels but in the 1960s, political leaders started making money by using the government machinery. Government officials soon got used to their share in the funds and many of them did not perform their legitimate function without getting their share. This habit has gradually become part and parcel of the system. According to BK Nehru who also belonged to the ICS, the country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was responsible for nurturing the seed of corruption among officers when he ordered a reduction in the salaries of the civil servants. He argued that a huge hike in the salary of a civil servant, who has already become corrupt, will not help him come out of the slush. The crisis of Indian bureaucracy has been aggravated by the role of the political masters who tend to use the bureaucracy as a tool to serve their narrow political interests. Random interference with the transfer and posting of the officers of any rank has made the department of personnel almost irrelevant. During the Emergency, a vigorous attempt was made by the government to galvanize the bureaucracy into a “committed” organization. Long and uninterrupted rule by any party or any front of parties with brute majority in the legislature has also harmed bureaucracy through political meddling. The front-rank officers, who are primarily responsible for distribution of foodgrains, financial grants and other benefits are the primary targets of the political musclemen. Even the panchayats are pressured by politicians to fix development priorities. Officers either get bullied or lured into adopting unfair means. In the process, the image of the government gets tarnished. Opportunist and careerist officers take advantage of the situation to the detriment of the system per se and also at the expense of public interests. It would be useful to recall the observations of the Shah Commission, which had inquired into Emergency excesses ~ “The politician who uses a public servant for purely political purposes and the public servant who allows himself to be so used are both debasing themselves and doing a signal disservice to the country.”

Bureaucracy in crisis - II Source: By Swapan K Chattopadhyay: The Statesman Excessive political interference in the administration has led to a state of dichotomy. Faced with a complex situation, many officers cannot choose between the imperatives ~ “to do” and “whether to do.” The most helpless victim of this situation is the police. Most of the officers, with high academic credentials but little courage and sense of values play it safe by not going against the political masters. They prefer to serve as their “yes” man. This has created impediments to effective governance, indeed a sharp decline in public administration.

25 | P a g e

Some officers are only too anxious to stay close to the power-centre. To achieve this goal, they do not bother to go out of the way to get a job done they satisfy their political bosses even in violation of existing rules. This attitude leads to unhealthy competition among officers, thus harming the system. For all its faults, dependence on the bureaucracy is unavoidable. To quote Laski, it is still the permanent strength of the public service. According to JS Mill, the bureaucracy, which performs the government’s actual work, is responsible for providing policy and decision-making feedback to representatives and citizens so they can make better-informed policy choices. But after independence, no serious thought had been given by the government or civil society to identify the reasons for the failure of bureaucracy and to reform the system to make it people-oriented and adaptive to the changed circumstances. The Indian bureaucracy largely consists of highly educated persons with a middle-class background. It has willy-nilly become a victim of an elitist temperament. This has led to a psychological chasm between the bureaucracy and the people. Equally, routine criticism without appreciating the good work done by the officers and the problems the bureaucracy faces in discharge of their day-to-day work has only destroyed the confidence of the administration. The crisis of bureaucracy has seldom received the public attention that it deserves. Debates or discussions on the problems of bureaucracy have rarely been held either at the national level or at the regional level. It is good that the recent cases of Durga Shakti Nagpal and Pankaj Choudhary have deservedly received media coverage throughout the country. Public opinion needs to be built up against the actions of the government. There are many lower-level whistleblowers who have led the crusade against unethical activities of politicians and superiors. Their efforts have received no recognition at all. Steven Rathgev Smith has argued in his treatise, Street-level Bureaucracy and Public Policy, that traditional public management has been criticized as rigid, inflexible, ineffective, and unresponsive to the needs of citizens. To restore the legitimacy and effectiveness of the government, Smith has emphasized the need for a new public management paradigm, which is based on performance, outcomes and greater responsiveness to citizens and their needs. The growing aspirations of the citizens of an independent country on the one hand and the active role of the civil society to generate public awareness about their rights on the other, need to be addressed with utmost sincerity and promptness. Otherwise there may be a mass upsurge against the corruption, partisan approach, and inefficiency of the government machinery. Is the Indian bureaucracy sufficiently geared to respond to the challenge? A glaring example is the West Bengal state bureaucracy which appears to be in a tizzy ever since the present government assumed power. The laidback bureaucracy was not familiar with the work-style that the new government has introduced. The periodic monitoring of the performance of various departments and the bar on bureaucrats to ride roughshod over the public were long overdue. Other states and the Union government may take the cue.

26 | P a g e

Many former civil servants are not particularly optimistic about the future of Indian bureaucracy unless there is an overhaul of the system. Some are also of the opinion that there is no point blaming the bureaucracy alone for its predicament; it cannot be insulated from the socio-political and socio-economic milieu. A respected former civil servant is in favour of reducing excessive dependence on the bureaucracy. The services of NGOs with a good track record can be utilised at the field-level. The recommendation merits serious consideration. We have already entered a digital ambience empowered by the Information Technology Act. Given the increasing trend towards paperless offices, we should not expect much of the Indian bureaucracy in its traditional form. The complex rules and regulations, procedures, noting pattern upon which the bureaucracy thrives need to be simplified and made people-friendly. These tasks ought not to be the exclusive privilege of the elitist few. The Right to Information Act should help the people to challenge the actions of the government on any public issue. Transparency and a humane approach to the complaints of citizens should be the hallmark of the system. To achieve this bureaucrats, especially the front-rank public service staff and the clerical employees, should be brought within the Human Resource Development (HRD) framework. It may sound paradoxical, but only a strong and considerate political will can lead to a digital, active, apolitical, transparent and democratic administrative system.

GMO mumbo-jumbo Source: By Vandana Shiva: The Asian Age After two decades of commercial applications, data shows that GMOs do not increase yields and do not decrease the use of agrichemicals, but have instead created super-pests and super-weeds The debate over genetically modified organisms (GMO) has intensified in recent months. On one side of the debate is scientific evidence that GMOs are not delivering on their promise, and on the other side is ideological propaganda by the genetically modified seed industry and scientists whose careers are locked into the GMO trajectory. The technical expert committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court of India, made up of India’s eminent and independent scientists, has clearly recommended in its report to the apex court a ban on open field trials of genetically engineered crops till a robust regulatory mechanism is put in place. After two decades of commercial applications, data clearly shows that GMOs do not increase yields and do not decrease the use of agrichemicals, but have instead created superpests and super-weeds. It is because of these failures and the fact that GMOs are linked to patents, which translates into royalty extraction and high prices, that GMOs worsen the economic status of farmers.

27 | P a g e

India has witnessed more than 2, 84,694 farmer suicides in a span of 17 years, between 1995 and 2012. According to P. Sainath, a journalist who has covered farmers’ suicides systematically, “The total number of farmers who have taken their own lives in Maharashtra since 1995 is closing in on 54,000. Of these, 33,752 have occurred in nine years since 2003, at an annual average of 3,750. The figure for 1995-2002 was 20,066 at an average of 2,508.” Suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced. Farmers chose Bt cotton not because it was the best alternative but because all other alternatives were destroyed. The seed varieties were replaced. The Central Institute for Cotton Research has not released any public varieties since Monsanto entered the market, and most Indian seed companies are locked into licensing arrangements with Monsanto. Nor is it true that yields have increased. Yields of cotton in the pre-GMO period reached 1,200 kg in good years. After Bt cotton was introduced the yield has stagnated at 500 kg. As the University of Canterbury research team led by Prof. Jack Heinemann has shown, North American crop production has fallen behind that of Western Europe, despite US farmers using genetically modified seed and more pesticide. According to the researchers of University of Canterbury, the main point of difference between the regions is the adoption of GM seeds in North America and the use of non-GM seed in Europe. The failure to control pests has led to an increase in pesticide use. A study published in the Review of Agrarian Studies also showed a higher expenditure on chemical pesticides for Bt cotton than for other varieties by small farmers. Non-target pest populations in Bt cotton fields have exploded; it is expected that this will likely counteract any decrease in pesticide use. In China, where Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of mirid bugs — pests that previously posed only a minor problem — have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any financial benefits of planting Bt cotton had been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat non-target pests. In the US, due mainly to the widespread use of Roundup Ready seeds, the use of 4 herbicide (a group of herbicides) increased 15 per cent from 1994 to 2005 — an average increase of onefourth pound per each acre planted with GM seed — according to a 2009 report published by the Organic Centre. Moreover, the rise of glysophate (the herbicide in Roundup) resistant weeds has made it necessary to combat these weeds by employing other, often more toxic, herbicides. Farmers are being asked to use 2,4D, an ingredient of Agent Orange, the toxic material that was sprayed by US troops in Vietnam. This trend is confirmed by 2010 USDA pesticide data, which shows skyrocketing glysophate use accompanied by constant or increasing rates of use for other, more toxic, herbicides. In Argentina, after the introduction of Roundup Ready soya in 1999, overall glysophate use more than tripled by 2005-2006. A 2001 report found that Roundup Ready soya growers in Argentina used more than twice as much herbicide as conventional soya growers. This is the scientific evidence. Yet, contrary to the evidence, Union agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar stated in the Lok Sabha on August 27, 2013, that farmers prefer genetically modified cotton as it gives higher yields, is more disease-resistant and more profitable.

28 | P a g e

Every claim is false. Bt cotton has not given higher yields. It is not disease resistant. Diseases that never affected cotton, like aphids and jassids, have exploded. The bollworm, which Bt cotton was supposed to control, has become resistant and Monsanto has had to introduce Bollgard II, a higher variety of insect-resistant genetically modified cotton. All this has created debt not profits for farmers. If seed costs jump 8,000 per cent and pesticide use increases 1,300 per cent, farmers’ incomes do not increase. Mr Pawar’s unscientific promotion of GMOs against all evidence is echoed by scientists whose careers are locked into the development of a failed technology. Dr Deepak Pental, a professor of genetics, who has been promoting GMO mustard says, “Transgenic approaches are necessary to tackle yield decreasing diseases. Certain misguided NGOs have specialised in spreading fear, while some scientists are seeking moratorium on testing and use of transgenic crops.” Swapan Kumar Dutta, deputy director-general (crop science) at the New Delhi-based Indian Council of Agricultural Research, who was involved in an unethical clearance of GMO rice trials by his wife, and who has said that India should hand over the 400,000 accessions (a collection of plant material from a particular location) in the national gene bank to multinationals, is very active in defending GMOs in spite of the evidence of its failure. Good science looks at evidence and takes feedback from the real word. Bad science that shuts its mind to evidence and becomes propaganda. Sadly, in the GMO debate, those defending GMOs have only power and propaganda on their side.

Placing hurdles Source: By Devinder Sharma: Deccan Herald What is being considered as a game changer for government – National Food Security Act —faces yet another hurdle at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The US WTO ambassador Michael Punke has launched a blistering attack blaming India for “creating a massive new loophole for potentially unlimited trade-distorting subsidies.” Calling it as a step backward, he said “The new loophole, moreover, will be available only to a few emerging economies with the cash to use it. Other developing countries will accrue no benefit – and in fact will pay for the consequences.” I am talking of the controversial proposal moved by G-33 countries -- a group of countries including China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and others -- that came together to protect food security, livelihoods and rural development thereby seeking amendments in the agriculture text. Knowing that procurement of wheat and rice under the National Food Security bill will raise manifold, India is wanting that the enhanced subsidy outgo for food procurement from small farmers is not seen as trade-distorting. These subsidies, required to meet the food security needs of the hungry population, should be kept outside the maximum limit of ‘Aggregate Measurement of Support’ (AMS) that each country has to adhere to. Food purchased at a minimum support price from ‘low-income, resource poor farmers’ should not be computed in the AMS limit. At the same time, India wants the ‘de-minimis’ requirement for public stockholding – which at present stands at 10 per cent of the total production of wheat and rice that can be procured for meeting the nutritional needs of the food insecure population – be also suitably amended. In other words, G-33 countries want to incorporate provisions in the ongoing negotiations that ensure “food security exists for its entire people, at all times.”

29 | P a g e

In India, the procurement price at which rice is being purchased from farmers has risen by a whopping 24 per cent, much above the 10 per cent limit. Similarly, China, Indonesia, Thailand and Egypt have also crossed the threshold limit prescribed by WTO. Despite Anand Sharma’s behind the scene discussions with the new director general Roberto Carvalho de Azevedo of Brazil, the US continues to harden its stand. It has warned that if India’s new proposal on the table are not rejected “it will hurtle the WTO talks to irrelevance.” India’s food security Act is on the top of the negotiating agenda for the forthcoming WTO ministerial conference slated to be held at Bali in Indonesia in December. Trade facilitation Interestingly, India’s proposals are closely linked with the developed country’s proposal for an agreement on trade facilitation. Trade facilitation actually means setting up the required infrastructure at the ports, and making available appropriate transport and communication facilities that would make it easier for the trade and business to operate. In other words, the developed countries are actually pushing the developing countries to invest on facilitating the trade interests of its corporations and agribusiness giants. This agreement, which has some 600 contentious clauses or what is called as brackets in WTO language, will have serious implications for the domestic agriculture sector in developing countries. Nevertheless, it is important to understand why the G-33 proposal that calls for appropriate measures to ensure food and nutritional security for the poor and needy, is so important. First, let us be very clear that the AMS calculations were done keeping the prevailing prices in 1986-88. Since then, and especially after the 2007 global food crisis, the farm commodity prices have seen a quantum jump. The 1986-88 reference prices, which was a period when prices were very low, no longer holds true and have lost all its relevance. Secondly, the trade distorting subsidies that the US/EU have been providing all these years have not been done away with. On the other hand, in an analysis presented by Jacques Berthelot of France, the angry outburst of the US Ambassador to WTO appears completely unjustified. Accordingly, the average food aid in 2010 that India gave to its 475 million people (65 million families below poverty line plus 10 million above poverty line) to meet their food security needs was to the tune of 58 kg/per person. Comparatively, the US provides 385kg/person to its 65 million people, who received food aid under several programmes like the food coupons, child nutrition programme etc. Moreover, the procurement of wheat and rice from resource poor farmers by India does not mean the grains are being dumped in the international market thereby distorting trade. In reality, Jacques Berthelot has computed that the low global prices of wheat and rice in 1986-88 – the reference period – were because of massive dumping by both US/EU. Given that 53.2 per cent of the global exports of wheat came from US/EU, the role the dumping played in depressing the global prices becomes quite obvious. The reference period of 1986-88 against which the administered prices of 2012-13 are being evaluated therefore becomes meaningless and absurd. If the US/EU continue to oppose the proposal floated by India through the G-33 countries, India will find it difficult to implement the National Food Security Act.

30 | P a g e

Nota Bene Source: By Sam K Rajappa: The Statesman The Constitution mandates adult franchise, giving every citizen the right to vote and elect his or her representative to govern the country or state on their behalf. Reflecting on this solemn, inalienable right, the Election Commission had declared: “We the people through the exercise of our right to vote have the ultimate power to shape the destiny of our democracy by electing our representatives.” The political parties over the last six decades have corrupted the system by selecting candidates with money and muscle-power as long as they had the capacity to win, resulting in criminalisation of politics. The Election Commission’s repeated pleas to the Union government to bring about electoral reforms to cleanse the system had fallen on deaf ears, forcing the Supreme Court to become proactive. In July, the court struck down a provision to prevent disqualification of convicted legislators and barred those in custody from contesting elections. On 27 September, the court held that a voter could exercise the option of negative voting and reject all candidates as unworthy of being elected by pressing “None of the Above” (NOTA) button in the Electronic Voting Machine. The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, framed under The Representation of the People Act, 1951, did have Section 49 (O) providing for the elector not to vote. It was a cumbersome process. The dissenting elector would have to fill in Form 17 A and put his signature or thumb impression in a register kept for the purpose. It denied the voter secrecy of his choice. The Chief Justice, P Sathasivam, said in his judgment, “Giving right to a voter not to vote for any candidate while protecting his right of secrecy is extremely important in a democracy. Such an option gives the voter the right to express his disapproval of the kind of candidates being put up by the parties. Gradually, there will be a systemic change and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people and field candidates who are known for their integrity.” Democracy and elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Our electoral democracy, in part, has been reduced to a goonda-driven one by political parties nominating criminals as candidates. It was Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan who took the initiative first to convert the ‘right to reject’ as a citizen’s charter by appointing a committee in 1977 comprising Krishan Kant, then Chandigarh MP who subsequently became the Vice-President of India, Justice VM Tarkunde and Sidhraj Dhadda, eminent Gandhian. Though the issue was kept alive, it found favour with the Election Commission when TS Krishnamurthy was the Chief Election Commissioner. In a letter to the Union government in 2001, he sought amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules to make, among other things, the right to reject possible. As the government did not heed his request, Krishnamurthy wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2004, saying, “The Commission has received proposals from a very large number of individuals and organisations that there should be a provision enabling a voter to reject all candidates in the constituency if he does not find them suitable. The Commission recommends the law should be amended to specifically provide for negative/neutral voting. For this purpose, Rule 22 and 49B of the Conduct of Election Rules may be suitably amended to add a provision in the ballot paper/balloting unit of a column ‘None of the Above’ to enable a voter to reject all the candidates if he chooses so.” The Prime Minister is yet to give his response. Justice Sathasivam is of the view, “When the political parties will realise that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people.” Under the Representation of the People Act, the returning officer is bound to declare the candidate who secures the largest number of votes as the winner. NOTA is not a candidate. If NOTA gets the largest number of votes, it is not clear what the returning officer will do. He does not have the power to order re-election. Whether the candidates who lost to NOTA can enter the fray in a re-poll is also not clear.

31 | P a g e

Justice Sathasivam is right in saying, “For democracy to survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen as people’s representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved through men of high moral and ethical values who win the elections on a positive vote.” The Election Commission has said in a Press release: “In accordance with the order of the Supreme Court, NOTA shall be printed in a separate panel on the ballot paper below the name of the contesting candidate. This ballot paper shall be affixed on the ballot unit of the EVM. If the voter presses the button next to NOTA, his desire not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray will get recorded in the EVM in secrecy.” The commission said that it would make appropriate changes in Part 2 of Form 17 C used during counting and the result-sheet in Form 20 to separately compile the number of persons who used the option not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray. Whether “men of high moral and ethical values who win elections on a positive vote” will usher in an era of democracy free of criminalised politics remains to be seen, but introduction of the NOTA button in the EVM will certainly send a clear message to the political parties to nominate only sound candidates. On 13 September, the Supreme Court delivered another judgment that no one could contest elections without making a full and truthful disclosure about his assets, educational qualifications and criminal antecedents. Somewhat rattled by the spate of Supreme Court orders relating to electoral reforms, the government on Monday questioned the jurisdiction of the court before a Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and SK Singh. In an affidavit in connection with a plea to bar persons against whom charges have been framed in serious offences from contesting polls, the Law ministry said: “It is a settled position that courts do not interfere in policy matters of the State unless it violates the mandate of the Constitution or any statutory position or is otherwise actuated by mala fides.” The issue, in the opinion of the government, came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature and was covered by provisions in the laws relating to election. Parliament’s standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice while expressing concern over criminalisation of politics, expressed the view that “prosecution in many cases is bound to be influenced by the party in power or by failure of system and in that case there was very likelihood for framing false and mala fide charges against their political opponents.” The Forum for Electoral Integrity says the recent Supreme Court orders are the first steps in ushering electoral reforms to prevent criminals from enacting laws of the country. It is the failure of the UPA government to introduce much needed electoral reforms that forced the Supreme Court to enter into the realm of the legislature. The time has come for Parliament to enact a comprehensive law to completely reform the electoral system.

Burma's long road to democracy Source: By Sumit Ganguly: The Asian Age The International Crisis Group (ICG), a highly respected Brussels based non-governmental organisation, issued a report on the growth of anti-Muslim and anti minority sentiment in Burma. Much of the violence, ironically, stems from Buddhist monks who are scapegoating hapless minorities. The report, intriguingly enough, blamed the bigotry and violence on the years of “frustration and anger built up under years of authoritarianism...“ This explanation, though seemingly attractive and plausible, is a bit too facile. Do we really know that this form of bigotry had been festering all along and the fitful steps toward a more democratic order have suddenly unleashed these lurking passions and deep-seated hatreds? Similar arguments were

32 | P a g e

also made in the wake of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the unleashing of ethnic hatred and fury in the Balkans. There is little question that the Buddhist monks -who have been implicated in the violence that consumed over a thousand lives in Rakhine state -are engaged in a form of ethnic scapegoating of the Muslim minorities. They have also managed to wrap themselves in the mantle of religious legitimacy and Burmese nationalism. However, there is insufficient evidence that this form of ethnic discord and violence is the result of long pent-up anger and frustration, which is now bursting forth. Instead, as two American political scientists, Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield, had argued some years ago that rapid democratisation in plural societies from years of colonial rule may well provide opportunities for unscrupulous ethnic entrepreneurs to stoke crude nationalist sentiments, promote ethnic discord and provoke violence. They can usually get away with these forms of execrable behaviour because of what Mr Snyder and Mr Mansfield referred to as incomplete democratisation. This concept requires some explication. Simply stated it means that while the repressive institutions of authoritarian rule may have weakened, they have not been replaced with others that provide a framework for the operations of a working democracy. Accordingly, while press freedoms may emerge, the media may not have become imbued with the norms of fair reporting and avoidance of rank sensationalism. It may have few internal restraints on the use of inflammatory language when dealing with and reporting on potentially fraught subjects. In the absence of robust norms that guide and undergird a free press, politicians seeking to deflect attention from crucial questions of public policy (as well as policy failures) may well exploit the new openness to castigate, denigrate or otherwise malign political opponents. They may also seek to exploit existing ethnic cleavages thereby creating conducive conditions for spawning political violence. Of course, the newly enfranchised press may lack suitable norms of neutrality in reportage. However, more dangerously, critical organs of the state, especially its coercive apparatus may also come under the sway of ethnic activists. Here the ICG report has indeed highlighted the fact the much of the police, in various parts of the country, have proven to be quite partisan when faced with anti-minority violence. They have shown a marked disinclination to restrain the Buddhist monks and have not displayed much concern about attacks on minority populations. In a functioning democracy, with well-established norms of police neutrality, they would have been expected to stand as a force that would, at a bare minimum, seek to provide some protection to ill-fated minority groups from the depredations of religious zealots. Sadly, they have failed to do so on more than one occasion despite President Thein Sien's professed commitment to a policy of “zero tolerance“ of attacks on minorities. Burma's limited transition to democracy must be lauded. Obviously, it would be callous to suggest that a return to authoritarianism is in order to ensure that ethnic discord and violence does not wrack

33 | P a g e

Burma. However, the evidence that Mr Snyder and Mr Mansfield have gathered on the basis of their theoretical argument as well as large scale analysis underscores the vital importance of building and nurturing certain key institutions that can help avoid some of the potential pitfalls on the pathway toward the creation of a viable democratic state. As the Burmese seek to shake off the long and squalid legacy of authoritarian rule, a neighbouring state, India, which has ample experience in dealing with ethnic disharmony and enjoys, in considerable measure, the benefits of a responsible and free press, can and should play an exemplary role in Burma. Beyond simply highlighting its own successes in containing, though hardly eliminating, ethnic tensions and violence it can also quietly advise the present Burmese leadership of the grave dangers of granting leeway to ethnic entrepreneurs to foment violence. Simultaneously, private press organisations in India can play a vital role in helping train, educate and socialise their Burmese counterparts in the critical role that a free but normatively bounded press can play in a democratic society. Advice and support of this order could be of inestimable value to Burma as it makes a rocky and fraught move toward a more democratic, egalitarian and just political order.

India and SE Asia Source: The Statesman A cluster of events around the annual ASEAN Summit has once more directed India’s attention towards South East Asia. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took part in the India-ASEAN Summit that served to underline the continuous development of relations between these neighbouring areas and has become an important, almost indispensable annual event that reaffirms Indian commitment to the ‘Look East’ posture it adopted some decades ago. India is not alone in looking to, even courting, ASEAN, for this region has established itself as an area of sustained growth and has drawn attention from many countries across the globe. If anything, India was somewhat slow off the mark in reaching out to ASEAN and was not immediately responsive to what the great economic advances in its neighbourhood meant for its own development. It took a prime ministerial visit to the region, that of Mr Narasimha Rao, to dramatise what the India-ASEAN relationship had to offer, and by degree, looking eastward became a preferred direction for India. Relations have never ceased to thrive since those early days. Mr Manmohan Singh's recent visit to the region was one of this regular chain of exchanges that have kept the relationship in good repair and have helped develop a good deal of mutual confidence in their shared initiatives. High level meetings like the recent one in Brunei help put the spotlight on major issues ripe for decision that need only acceptance at the top to be materialised. This time, the focus was on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and ASEAN, an ambitious and far-reaching concept which formed part of the agreed Summit outcome. Once it comes into being, an India-ASEAN FTA would mean that tariff barriers would be progressively eliminated, so as to encourage the greatly enhanced trade that everyone seeks, and bind India more closely to ASEAN. It represents the next step in what is already a well-established commercial relationship. Consider, by contrast, the experience of the regional organisation with which India is most closely associated, SAARC: this body has long been in quest of an FTA that would to unite its members in closer commercial ties but despite frequent high level discussion and a good deal of effort by experts, the goal remains elusive. Evidently, much ground still remains to be covered and significant political decisions taken before such a step can be agreed. Nor can such decisions be kept too long in abeyance: already fresh challenges have taken shape and for ASEAN the next step, as some of its members have been urging, is to advance towards an economic union on the pattern of the European Union. So while SAARC remains slow to evolve,

34 | P a g e

India’s relationship with ASEAN is progressing well and offers widening opportunities for its ‘Look East’ policy. Meanwhile, India has also invested in the setting up of a Nalanda university that will emphasise its shared heritage with South-East Asia, as it is also trying to develop better connectivity with that region. Economic cooperation is ASEAN’s leitmotif but this has always rested on an agreed political sub-structure between the countries comprising the organisation. Without placing undue emphasis on security and political questions, these cannot be ignored, and from the start ASEAN has been concerned to maintain harmony within its region as an essential part of its approach. The organisation took shape at a time when China was beginning to emerge from self-imposed isolation and the cold war still cast a shadow. Amid the uncertainties of the time, there was clear advantage to the region to try to present a common face in meeting the insecurity that affected them all. There were intra-regional problems affecting some of the members and difficulties between some of them and the emerging giant China. It is part of ASEAN’s success story that it has been able to help resolve differences within its region by means other than force and belligerence. Not that all differences have disappeared: indeed, the latest Summit just concluded in Brunei was preceded by maritime incidents, and the Summit itself could not agree on how to deal with rivalries between China and Philippines. But notwithstanding such differences, the dialogue between the parties will continue and no break in relations is feared. Nor is there serious indication of outside powers like the USA becoming involved in regional disputes. Developments in Myanmar demonstrate how ASEAN’s methods can be efficacious in handling regional divergences. India became part of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) some two decades ago, thus joining a forum designed for the discussion of regional political issues. At the time of India's entry, ARF was greatly preoccupied with matters of human rights and political legitimacy in Myanmar. The participants, especially the non-regional ones, were pushing hard for strengthened international action against the military junta in Yangon, which repudiated all demands from outside and remained adamant on its chosen course. Despite widespread disappointment, ASEAN preserved lines of communication with the junta and did not break with it. In course of time when Myanmar’s rulers felt it necessary to change their approach and move towards more representative government, the regional link was there to aid and encourage them. Today Myanmar, once the regional whipping boy, is set to assume chairmanship of ASEAN when Brunei’s term concludes at the end of this year. On his return journey, Mr Singh paid a visit to Indonesia, the most substantial of ASEAN’s members and one that is exceptionally well endowed with nature’s resources. It has a maritime boundary with India that was settled to mutual satisfaction quite some time ago, so this is one neighbour with whom there are no territorial questions awaiting agreement. There have been periods of great togetherness between the two countries, particularly during their parallel and mutually supportive fight against colonialism. Nonalignment was another great shared commitment that brought them closer, and while both continue to adhere to its principles, the nonaligned bond no longer binds as closely as it once did. Yet there are other ideological convergences that are not to be ignored: Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country of the world and is an important example of social and religious tolerance and pluralism. There is obvious community of sentiment and practice with India in this respect and closer understanding between the two countries can be of great benefit to secular sentiments in both. The Prime Minister’s visit has laid special emphasis on economic factors, and Indonesia has been regarded as a key component of ASEAN, which of course it is, but there is a good deal more in the relationship. Mr Singh’s visit should re-start a closer interaction between the two countries for they have much to gain from each other.

35 | P a g e

Nobel pursuit in sand of dead habit Source: By Shiv Visvanathan: The Asian Age Science is part dream, part play, part rigorous work, and to be original it must remain that way... This our science planners did not understand. They created bureaucracies, not nurseries of talent. Indians and the middle class in particular have always been full of aspirations. We are a nation that suffers from prize envy. We have always wondered why a large population such as ours produces so few Olympic medals and even fewer Nobel prizes. Tagore and Raman are conceived as Halley's comets of the mind: spectacular, but few and far between. Of late there have been detailed speculations on policy, institution building and even comparisons between India and China as intellectual nations. One of the most interesting observations was made by Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, who noted that in the decade to come, the Chinese economy will mature, but China, he complained, was too conformist a mindset. Its younger generation still had to be sent to American universities to learn free thought and the comradeship of originality. America as a society has three properties -its democracy, its universities and its policy of an open society -that give it a comparative advantage of the intellect. Indian analysts have also analysed our lack of originality in terms of misplaced policy. Sociologists have analysed our pursuit of relevance and argued for a return to the pure sciences as a way of sustaining originality. Other analysts have shown that our society has encouraged few Ramans, finding their obsessive pursuit of problems an onerous task. A Raman, a Krishnan or a G.N. Ramachandra remains moments of nostalgia, markers that we were once close to the Nobel dream. Our analysis often gets obsessed with university rankings and confuses productivity and creativity. The search for the Nobel, or even a pursuit of originality, remains either a reductionist explanation or too anecdotal a collection of stories to outline strategy. We often forget that a Raman or a Ramanujan are not created by policy. They owe their originality to eccentricity, to moments of serendipity, to roots in a sub-culture that are not easy to replicate. Bibliometrics on research planning is not really the magic wand for such explosion of originality. Originality and creativity do not demand mystical conditions. Their origins and requirements are decipherable as a framework of possibilities rather than as guarantees. Many of the myths of Indian science go back to Raman's laboratory though J.C. Bose's laboratory was as original. Raman's laboratory was a combination of a gurukul and a gharana; it was a community of acolytes and collaborators and a style of research breaking new ground around a new domain: spectroscopy. As a research group Raman's laboratory emphasised two things -a sense of play and a sense of exuberance. Science was a way of life, ascetic but intrinsically rewarding. What made it exciting was the community of conversation and a sense that the group was world-class. Playfulness and sense of originality is central to science, a sense of eccentric wagers which some times turn out to be true. There is something else one notice. It is a kind of exuberant obsessiveness, a blowtorch focus in pursuit of a goal. Pure research is often a wager in the dark, an act of faith, an intuitive hunch that a certain approach will work despite the scepticism of the community. It is the confidence to stand alone, to accept the rules of the game and convince your peers of your originality. Think of the Raman school. There was Krishnan, a legend in his own right, Ramanathan

36 | P a g e

who later created another great laboratory in PRL along with Vikram Sarabhai, Ramdas and Ramasawamy who blazed grounds in tropical meteorology, Ganesan who edited Current Science, G.N. Ramachandran, a legendary biophysicist and younger scientists like Panchpakesan and Rameseshan, all trailblazers in their own right. A style, a problem, a community combined to create a legend, a community with depth, continuity and continuing inventiveness. It was a nursery of legends, all with a common ancestry. There was no immediate emphasis on use as justification. As Raman proudly claimed, he would rather think of one more property of the diamond than worry about its industrial uses. Science is part dream, part play, part rigorous work and to be original, it must remain that way. Originality can only exist in a culture which can absorb failure. A scientist claiming to be original can be right but also wrong and he needs the critical stamina to survive mistakes critically and inventively. Without the generosity to the mistake, originality becomes remote. One must understand there is a cycle to creativity. Groups have to renew themselves, rework problems and abandon old obsessions. Originality needs to reseed itself. Chandrashekhar, the astrophysicist, used to research a new field or problem every 10 years, contributing something original to every domain he entered. Science demands a stamina that even marathoners would envy. Such a culture cannot be created by bureaucratic fiat, through hierarchical chains of command. One seeds the availability of innovation and eccentricity but must realise it is a wager, a statement of hope. This our science planners did not understand. They created bureaucracies, not nurseries of talent which might be antagonistic to hierarchy or academic fiat. It is only such a conception where the eccentric, the obsessive and the oddball have a place that science becomes possible. It is not about investment and equipment alone. A laboratory, like a symphony, has to be a collection of soloists and team players. This India needs to understand. A wager in creativity and a technocratic preoccupation with rankings belong to different worlds. One hopes our science will be allowed to return to such a state. Then Nobel and other medals of science might follow these new wagers of the intellect and a Raman, Bose or Ramanujan return to haunt our imagination in playful ways.

If India has an argument By Rudra Chaudhuri: The Telegraph On August 19, 2013, during a debate on the " Protection of civilians in armed conflict" at the United Nations, Asoke Kumar Mukherji — India's permanent representative to the United Nations — argued that " the protection of civilians is primarily a national responsibility". Hence, he continued, " contribution to national capacity building rather than intervention mechanisms should be the priority of the Security Council". Statements such as these are hardly surprising. Indian representatives have long argued for restraint and caution in matters related to intervention. Yet, in the case of Syria, it would appear that an Indian argument for non- intervention is one shared by Western incumbents ( mainly in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and France), most of whom till recently were all set to let loose the dogs of war. This, of course, does not mean that President Barack Obama, the British prime minister, David Cameron, or President François Hollande agree with, or even recognize, the tenor of India's argumentation, but that they too realize that military intervention has limited utility.

37 | P a g e

In the case of the UK, Cameron had little choice but to place brakes on the urge for war. Surprising those at 10 Downing Street, the British parliament voted against intervention ( 285- 272). President Hollande's once bullish rhetoric that military action will " strike a body blow" to the Syrian regime carries little weight. Apart from the fact that the president backed down — following Britain's inability to commit to international intervention and the US's less- than- sure approach to the same, the French people have spoken out against the use of military force. According to one survey, 37 per cent of those polled believe that any military action will turn Syria into a hotbed for Islamists; 17 per cent are simply not convinced that the Assad regime used chemical weapons; 18 per cent argue that strikes or some form of limited intervention will only invite retaliation against French interests. The US, the mood for war is all that more confusing to ascertain. On September 24, during a speech at the UN general assembly, Obama made clear his intention to use the rest of his presidency to work with Iran — where President Hassan Rouhani has plainly articulated his intention to engage the US and the West more generally — and negotiate a settlement between Israel and Palestine. As for Syria, whilst the president argued that it was " an insult to human reason" to suggest that " anyone other than the regime carried out" chemical attacks, he avoided the question of the use of force in the near future. Instead, he alluded to present discussions with President Vladimir Putin to find a " diplomatic resolution", stressing that Syria's chemical weapons are to be first placed under international control and then " destroyed". To be clear, for reasons of both war fatigue ( Britain and the US want nothing more than to withdraw from conflict, such as in Afghanistan) and electoral preferences ( where Hollande and Cameron find themselves bound by popular and elite opinion), the fighting within Syria attracts little or no attention whatsoever. From the outset, major Western actors seem to have come around to India's position from the start: that military intervention can do little to stem the tide. Yet, the question of intervention, or the metrics used to assess when military intervention is warranted, lingers on. On the one hand, and from an Indian point of view, back- benching the issue of intervention may well suit both bureaucrats and their political superiors. Whilst no doubt a talking point between the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and Obama during the former's visit to Washington, there has been nothing to suggest that the question of ' protection' in armed conflict got a serious hearing. Indeed, those designing the prime minister's visit perhaps saw little value in focusing on contentious debates. Implementing the nuclear agreement with the US and confirming defence contracts quite rightly take precedence. But further, a question that India's policy elite may ask themselves is, why not take the lead in matters related to intervention? Rather than leaving it to the US, Canada, or Britain to formulate arguments with regard to what is popularly known as the doctrine of the responsibility to protect or ' R2P', why not consider new and usable language to define the parameters for intervention or nonintervention as the case might be? The argument mooted in this article is hardly meant to suggest a thirst for intervention. Instead, it simply highlights an opportunity for leadership that may, at first, seem counter- intuitive to Indian interests. In fact, these are hardly at odds with India's purported longing to shape the future — even in some minimal way — of world politics. While the debate around intervention and R2P more specifically has little currency among Indian experts, the fact remains that civil wars and internal strife are likely to remain a dark but real feature of international politics. More and more, the very notion of sovereignty is being challenged by opposing forces from within the State. This, of course, does not mean that opposition to the status quo is welcome ( the current case of Egypt is a clear reminder of the unsettlement that follows revolt and rebellion) or that opposition necessarily leads to regimes being overthrown ( Syria being a case in

38 | P a g e

point). Rather, it is to suggest that the question of intervention will not go away with a settlement — as unlikely as it seems at the moment — in Syria or with various degrees of agreement in recently post- rebellion States like Libya. Arguing for " capacity building" seems less relevant when the population has reached its capacity for torment and subjugation. However, if the Indian argument is to balance the need to work with national regimes with the view to invite concessions to opposing forces in keeping with political processes, then perhaps this needs to be highlighted much more clearly. There are provisions in the R2P structure for assistance and working with governments or investing in early warning mechanisms to detect the potential for violence. A constructive use of India's political space within the UN might be to leverage its standing with almost all members of the Security Council — with the partial exception of China — to find agreeable language to at least investigate pragmatic means to engage conflicts before they erupt. Taking a lead role has its downside: it requires wearing the robe of responsibility. Yet, India today is well placed to take the lead in re- structuring a doctrine that has little credibility among emerging States, most of which view it as nothing more than a mask for some form of imperialism. This is, of course, hardly the case. Looking to the future, India could think of building on its chosen rhetoric around capacity building. Rather than leaving such words to the imaginations of critical audiences inside the UN, it is perhaps a worthy idea to begin investigating how such measures and suggestions could be incorporated in a global doctrine that need not belong to, or be authored by, those away from India. For sure, the US and Britain have lost both the appetite and the desire to engage in a debate that was once thought to have served as an expression of their advance in international politics. It is time for countries like India to take the lead, but to do so India will have to begin to think seriously about leadership.

Reviving the economy Source: by Jayshree Sengupta: The Tribune Recently the shrinking of the trade deficit to $6.7 billion in September from $10.9 billion in August 2013, has cheered the UPA government, which can now claim that its policy of curbing gold imports has been successful. The lowering of trade deficit means that there is hope of lowering the current account deficit in 2013-14 to around $55 billion. The widening of the current account deficit has been one of the reasons why India has got a poor rating by the international investment rating agencies. Now the current account deficit (CAD) could be under control though one month’s trade data is not a sure sign of a long-term solution to the problem. If the trend of lowering of trade deficit continues, it would mean more FIIs and FDI will flow into the country which will ease the pressure on the rupee. The rupee has depreciated by 16 per cent in the last few months and the widening of the CAD is one of the causes. A high trade deficit is usually unsustainable in the long run because it has to be paid for by exports (which are low) and forex reserves. On the other hand, a small trade deficit is a healthy sign of industrial activity because it shows that industry is importing capital goods that would improve the quality of production, especially exports. If imports of important spare parts, components, capital goods and project-related goods decline, it signifies a low level of economic activity and lowering of India’s competitiveness. Imports have gone down by 18.1 per cent in September and between April and August 2013, and machinery imports as well as project goods imports fell by 12 per cent and 38 per cent, respectively.

39 | P a g e

Thus a deeper problem of an on-going downturn is surfacing and it is taking time to go away. The slow industrial growth is a warning and the slackening growth rate of the automobile sector is another indicator. It was the automobile sector which was the driving force behind high manufacturing growth. Now for about a year, the automobile sector has been experiencing a stagnant growth rate. Associated with the growth of the automobile sector is the auto-component sector which is also experiencing a slow-down. It has led to a very low industrial growth of 0.6 per cent in August 2013. Basically such low industrial growth is an ominous trend and it could be due to slow rate of investment and slack consumer demand which has been due to high inflation. The inflation rate as reflected by the WPI was 8.01 per cent in August. But food inflation was at 18.18 per cent and CPI too was high at 9.5 per cent. Since essential items like food grains, milk, edible oil and fuel prices have been experiencing continuous price hike, people have less money to spend on expensive goods. They are postponing buying big ticket items like consumer durables (TV, refrigerators, washing machines etc.) and consumer durables’ growth contracted by 7.6 per cent in August. Gold and silver being non- essential items, most people are now postponing purchases. Demand for oil has also been less in August. People in India and abroad are now watching for signs of economic recovery. Officially, India is not in recession because only if there is a contraction of GDP consecutively for three quarters, a country is supposed to be in recession. But India is definitely undergoing a slowdown since GDP growth sank to 4.7 per cent in the last (third) quarter. Many predictions have been made about the GDP growth on which economic recovery would depend. The IMF has reduced its forecast for India’s GDP growth recently to 4.25 per cent in next one year. Unless manufacturing growth picks up there cannot be recovery. Manufacturing growth contracted by 0.1 per cent in August. Industrial growth in July was however positive at 2.6 per cent. Around 11 out of 22 industry groups in manufacturing sector showed positive growth during July 2013 as compared to corresponding month the previous year. There is a global element too in the reduced demand facing manufacturers which is the continuing economic crisis in the EU which has dampened the demand for Indian exports. Most of India’s merchandise exports have been adversely affected by the economic slowdown in EU and recently even the service sector exports have been affected. Service sector growth is important for boosting GDP growth. Yet it is heartening to note that export growth is up and is in double digit (12.9 per cent). Imports would also pick up when recovery takes place because manufacturers would require more raw materials, capital goods and spare parts for production for domestic and export market. Agricultural growth is also important for the recovery of the manufacturing sector which is dependent on rural demand. Agricultural growth has been sluggish at 1.9 per cent. There is however a bumper crop this year and agricultural growth is slated to be over 5 per cent. How the supplies are managed will be important for controlling food inflation. Reviving the manufacturing sector would require lower interest rates. Unfortunately many of the recent decisions regarding interest rates, vital for lowering the financial costs of companies have not been conducive to promoting a higher rate of industrial investment and growth. The RBI has actually raised the repo rate in its last policy review on September 20th by 250 basis points, to 7.5 per cent

40 | P a g e

and this will affect investors’ sentiments. As has been the experience in the past of many countries, tinkering with the interest rate cannot offer an effective antidote to inflation. There has to be supply - side measures also which will effectively increase the supply of those goods (especially food items) for which there is excess demand. It is also the infrastructure and the high transaction costs that need to be improved to boost exports further. There will have to be easier clearances for trade between neighbouring countries and more jobs could be created on both sides which will lead to greater traction in the demand for goods and services from new wage earners. Fortunately, agricultural demand is likely to go up. Thus we need to be cautious about favourable signs like a reduction of the trade deficit. Because though it is going to reduce one of the disturbing parameters that are slowing down growth, it could also be indicative of slack industrial activity. Reviving the economy should be the first priority of the government now. There is need for a more proactive role of the government in trade facilitation and investment promotion. But with general elections so close at hand, will that be possible? Besides, gold imports have to remain low for trade deficit to decline further.

On a higher trajectory Source: By Gurmeet Kanwal: Deccan Herald The major implication of the pact is that the US will treat India just like the UK, which is an alliance partner. Contrary to most of the commentary that has appeared in the Indian media, the Obama-Manmohan Singh meeting at the White House was unexpectedly successful in setting the Indo-US strategic partnership on the path to a higher trajectory in the long term. The joint statement issued after the meeting and the Joint Declaration on Defence Cooperation endorsed by the two leaders have the potential to perceptibly shape the future contours of the relationship to mutual benefit. The most notable achievement of the summit was in the field of defence cooperation and, more particularly, defence trade. President Obama and prime minister Manmohan Singh called for “expanding security cooperation between the United States and India to address 21st century challenges.” In an unexpected move the two leaders endorsed a Joint Declaration on Defence Cooperation “as a means of enhancing their partnership in defence technology transfer, joint research, co-development and co-production.” They decided to significantly enhance cooperation in combatting terrorism. President Obama appreciated India’s decision to participate in the Rim of the Pacific (Rimpac) naval exercise to be hosted by US Pacific Command in 2014. For several decades, India’s procurement of weapons platforms and other equipment as part of its plans for defence modernisation has remained mired in disadvantageous buyer-seller, patron-client relationships like that with the erstwhile Soviet Union and now Russia. While India has been manufacturing Russian fighter aircraft and tanks under licence for many years, the Russians never actually transferred weapons technology to India. There is now realisation in India that future defence acquisitions must simultaneously lead to a transformative change in the country’s defence technology base and manufacturing prowess.

41 | P a g e

The country has now diversified its acquisition sources beyond Russia to western countries and Israel. From the US, India has purchased weapons platforms and other items of defence equipment worth USD 10 billion over the last five years. Major procurements have included the troop carrier ship INS Jalashva (USS Trenton), six C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for India’s Special Forces, ten C-17 Globemaster heavy lift transport aircraft, 12 Boeing P-8I Poseidon long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft and 12 AN-TPQ37 Weapon Locating Radars. Another six C-130J and seven C-17 aircraft are expected to be purchased over the next few years. Also in the acquisition pipeline are M-777 light artillery howitzers, Apache attack helicopters and Chinook medium lift helicopters. However, none of the recent deals with the US have included transfer-of-technology (ToT) clauses. It is imperative that whatever India procures now must be procured with a ToT clause being built into the contract even if it means having to pay a higher price. The aim is to make India a design, development, manufacturing and export hub for defence equipment in two to three decades. Stumbling blocks This is indeed a landmark agreement that has codified previously expressed intentions. The major implication of this agreement is that the US will treat India just like the United Kingdom, which is an alliance partner, without India having to enter into a military alliance with the US. Also, presumably, India will not have to sign the CISMOA, BECA and LSA agreements that have been major stumbling blocks in the past and about which it has differences of perception with the US. India is hungry for cutting edge state-of-the-art defence technology and this agreement will help to a large extent to fulfil India’s hi-tech requirement. On its part, the US will secure lucrative defence contracts for its leading defence companies. This will give a fillip to the flagging economy and help to create jobs. During his visit to India shortly before the Washington summit in September 2013, deputy secretary of defence Ashton Carter is reported to have offered India a “Defence Trade and Technology Initiative” under which the US will share sensitive cutting edge defence technology with India and to permit US companies to enter into joint production and co-development ventures with India. Subsequently, it was reported that Carter had offered a list of ten key technologies to India. "These include a maritime helo, a naval gun, a surface-to-air missile system, and a scatterable anti-tank system,” Carter said. "We changed our mind-set around technology transfer to India in the Department of Defence from a culture of presumptive no to one of presumptive yes," he said. The Javelin anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) is also a key candidate for joint production though so far the US has been hesitant to offer its seeker technology. India is also looking for high-end counter-IED technologies. In future, the two countries will conduct joint research and development for new weapons systems and the US may offer even nuclear power packs for submarines and aircraft carriers and fighter aircraft engines. Cooperation of such a high order will raise India’s technology base by an order of magnitude and help the country to move several notches higher in its quest for self-reliance in defence production. According to Shiv Shankar Menon, India’s National Security Advisor, the two countries now have a “Full spectrum relationship… the relationship has all the attributes of a strong and comprehensive strategic partnership.” In the years ahead, India and the US are bound to build further on the beneficial achievements of the last decade. Naturally, there will occasionally be some bumps on the highway, but there is reason to believe that the institutional mechanisms that are already in place will succeed in overcoming the obstacles that come up.