EDITORIAL 20.11.10

Please contact the list owner of subscription and unsubscription at: editorial@samarth.co.in 

 

media watch with peoples input                an organization of rastriya abhyudaya

 

Editorial

month november 20, edition 000683 , collected & managed by durgesh kumar mishra, published by – manish manjul

 

Editorial is syndication of all daily- published newspaper Editorial at one place.

For ENGLISH  EDITORIAL  http://editorialsamarth.blogspot.com

THE PIONEER

1. A STRANGE SILENCE
2. ORGANS NOT FOR SALE
3. TIBET ISN'T KASHMIR - CLAUDE ARPI
4. INDIA'S ELUSIVE UNSC SEAT- SWARN KUMAR ANAND
5. SHORT CUT IN LONG ROAD AHEAD? - DILIP LAHIRI
6. INDIA DOESN'T DESERVE VETO RIGHT - RICHARD GRENELL

THE TIMES OF INDIA

1. OF COMMONERS AND KINGS
2. SAVE CAPITALISM FROM PROTECTIONISTS - JEAN-PIERRE LEHMANN
3. THEY APPEAL TO BASE INSTINCTS - JAY KUMAR
4. THE SHOWS ARE DEMAND DRIVEN

HINDUSTAN TIMES

1. WHO'LL CUT THIS GORDIAN KNOT?
2. STILL A SCORCHER - GOPALKRISHNA GANDHI
3. GENTLE FOLK, RENAISSANCE MEN - PRATIK KANJILAL

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

1. HAZY WATERSHED
2. FAMILY MATTERS
3. AAM AADMI VS SAB CHOR - SHEKHAR GUPTA 
4. GO BACK TO THE TEXT - A. FAIZUR RAHMAN 
5. NEW TAX ON THE BLOCK – RUCHIKA TALWAR 
6. IRELAND CAN BARELY COMPREHEND ITS DEBT
7. THE AMATEURS IN CHARGE - KSHANKARBAJPAI 
8. A MARRIAGE OF MANY MINDS - COOMI KAPOOR 

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

1. YEDDY MUST GO
2. BRAND SUCCESS
3. INNOCENT OF THE LAW - SUNIL JAIN
4. FACEBOOK'S NEW FACE - CARL SCHRAMM
5. EAVESDROPPER
6. ANTIMATTER

THE HINDU

1. FLAWED PROCESS, FAILED OUTCOME
2. TIME UP FOR YEDDYURAPPA
3. LIGHT AT THE END OF IRAQI TUNNEL - M.K. BHADRAKUMAR
4. AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I WAS BOTH PRISONER AND MAINTENANCE WOMAN - JACK DAVIES*
5. STUXNET WORM WAS PERFECT FOR SABOTAGING CENTRIFUGES - DAVID E. SANGER AND WILLIAM J. BROAD
6. POWER SHIP TO SUPPLY ELECTRICITY-STARVED PAKISTAN

THE ASIAN AGE

1. HEED TRAI, START THE CLEANUP NOW
2. TOLERATING INTOLERANCE - FARRUKH DHONDY
3. ENCASH OBAMA'S UNSC CHEQUE - DILIP LAHIRI
4. MONITORING MINDS - SHOBHAA DE

DNA

1. MIND YOUR MANNERS - AKSHAYA MISHRA

THE TRIBUNE

1. CANCELLING THE LICENCES
2. ON A STICKY WICKET
3. NEPAL'S MAOIST PROBLEM
4. AMERICA'S $4-TRILLION QUESTION - BY INDER MALHOTRA
5. A FLY ON THE WALL - BY RACHNA SINGH
6. DEFENCE DEALS: STING OF THE US LAW - AIR MARSHAL B.D. JAYAL (RETD)
7. FOCUS MORE ON TECHNICAL SUPPORT - WG CDR D.P. SABHARWAL (RETD)

MUMBAI MIRROR

1. VISVESARAYA'S SECOND CANDLE

BUSINESS STANDARD

1. SOLUTIONS EXIST
2. T N NINAN
3. FINANCIAL ENGINEERING - DEEPAK LAL
4. RIGHT FACTS, WRONG ARITHMETIC - ALAM SRINIVAS
5. MAY DELHI KEEP SHINING - SUBIR ROY
6. OF FRENEMIES AND COEPITITION - DEVANGSHU DATTA
7. SALMAN RUSHDIE'S MAGIC CARPET OF STORIES - V V
8. AIR INDIA'S SWEET SECRETS - SUNANDA K DATTA-RAY
9. THE BARE AND SIMPLE FACTS - RAMA BIJAPURKAR

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

1. THE PM'S CHALLENGE
2. STIGLITZ HAS A POINT
3. MEGA PERKS
4. COMPETITION LAW & INCLUSIVE GROWTH - MADHAV MEHRA
5. 'LET'S GIVE A BETTER DEAL TO FARMERS' - RAMKRISHNAKASHELKAR 
6. CANCUN MUST NOT REPEAT COPENHAGEN - MUKUL SANWAL 
7. PRAYER CHANGES NOTHING BUT YOU - TEJINDER NARANG 

DECCAN CHRONICAL

1. HEED TRAI, START THE CLEANUP NOW
2. TOLERATING INTOLERANCE - BY FARRUKH DHONDY
3. CHINA, GERMANY, GOP BULLYING FED - BY PAUL KRUGMAN
4. EUROPE, US ALIGNED FOR THE FUTURE - BY BARACK OBAMA
5. MONITORING MINDS - BY SHOBHAA'S TAKE
6. ENCASH OBAMA'S UNSC CHEQUE - BY DILIP LAHIRI
7. ENCASH OBAMA'S UNSC CHEQUE - BY DILIP LAHIRI

THE STATESMAN

1. BENGAL'S SORROWS 
2. GOOD QUESTION  - IRISH STEW 
3. FURIOUS FLOODS - BY BHARAT DOGRA
4. 'STRIKES MORE POLITICAL THAN LABOUR-BASED'
5. ON RECORD
6. 100 YEARS AGO TODAY

THE TELEGRAPH

1. THE FIRST MINISTER
2. APPAMS ARE YUM

DECCAN HERALD

1. PERVASIVE CANCER
2. HUNGER CRISIS
3. WINGLESS DREAMS - BY M K BHADRAKUMAR
4. AWARD DRAMA - BY KHUSHWANT SINGH
5. A PARADISE IN PUNNATHUR - BY MAYA JAYAPAL

NEW YORK TIMES

1. OPT-OUT ILLUSION
2. HONORING LIU XIAOBO
3. THE UPROAR OVER PAT-DOWNS
4. MR. PATERSON AND THE (LATEST) CASINO
5. THE ZOMBIE JAMBOREE - BY GAIL COLLINS
6. LET'S RESCUE THE RACE DEBATE - BY CHARLES M. BLOW
7. HIDING FROM REALITY - BY BOB HERBERT
8. A FALSE TARGET IN YEMEN - BY GREGORY JOHNSEN

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

1. POLITICAL TEMPERATURE RISING STEADILY
2. ATTEMPT TO SHIFT BLAME ON SAUDI ARABIA
3. US GIVES SECOND THOUGHT TO UNSC SEAT FOR INDIA
4. FALSE MORALITY IN MIDST OF IMMORALITY - M D NALAPAT
5. KASHMIR DISPUTE REMAINS ON UN AGENDA - MOHAMMAD JAMIL
6. EXPANSION OF INDIAN AIR FORCE - AIR MARSHAL AYAZ A KHAN (R)
7. MISUSE OF TV IN PAKISTAN - BURHANUDDIN HASAN
8. AXIS OF DEPRESSION - PAUL KRUGMAN

THE AUSTRALIYAN

1. KEVIN RUDD: HERE TO HELP
2. SEX AND THE WHOLE DAMN THING
3. OVERLAND'S CRITICISMS OF RAID STORIES WERE HOLLOW

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

1. A LONG, HAPPY LIFE, AND ONE OTHER THING...
2. WHERE'S THE BROOM WHEN YOU NEED IT?
3. RESERVE BANK IGNORES BRIBERY ALARM BELL
4. SPYING ON EMPLOYEES HAS NO PLACE IN THE WORKPLACE

THE GUARDIAN

1. NATO SUMMIT: START MUST NOT BE STOPPED
2. WORLD CUP: FIFA'S OWN GOAL
3. UNTHINKABLE? A NEW SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE

THE JAPAN TIMES

1. TOO CLOSE TO THE DEATH PENALTY
2. GLIMMER OF HOPE FOR MYANMAR

THE JAKARTA POST

1. SERVING THE NEEDY
2. PUBLIC TRUST
3. THE ETHOS, PATHOS AND LOGOS OF OBAMA'S SPEECH - SETIONO SUGIHARTO
4. MADE IN INDONESIA – SOLD AROUND THE WORLD - ASHISH LALL
5. FAUZI FAILS TO DEVELOP BUSWAY, PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN JEOPARDY - DARMANINGTYAS 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE PIONEER

EDITS

A STRANGE SILENCE

PM MUST SPEAK BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

The constantly expanding contours of the 'Great 2G Spectrum Robbery' make it what it truly is: A stunningly shameful and shocking scandal. Worse, the scandal now threatens to scorch, if not taint, an accidental politician-turned-Prime Minister whose sole asset till now has been his unimpeachable integrity. Nobody is suggesting, nor should anybody even think of it, that Mr Manmohan Singh was in any manner involved with l'affaire Raja which, according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, has cost the public exchequer a mind-boggling `1.76 lakh crore. But it is increasingly becoming obvious, through assertions made under oath in the Supreme Court and the publication of official letters, including in this newspaper, that Mr Singh failed to take a stand when he should have — both as primus inter pares, the man who heads the Union Cabinet, and the custodian of the values on which our Republic is founded, namely, the Government shall be constantly mindful of the interests of the people it governs. When Mr Dayanidhi Maran, as Telecom Minister, sought to keep the auctioning of 2G Spectrum out of the purview of the Empowered Group of Ministers, a mechanism that was devised to ensure transparency and prevent bending of rules, Mr Singh should have bluntly rejected the demand of the Congress's ally in Government. Integrity and probity cannot be — indeed, must not allowed to be — held hostage to the so-called compulsions of coalition politics. That would trivialise governance itself and make a mockery of the basic principles according to which the Cabinet as a collective entity and Ministers as individuals are supposed to function. It was not for Mr Maran to decide what he should or should not be allowed to do, but for the Cabinet to take a collective view. Sadly, that was not done, nor did the Prime Minister exercise his executive authority.

Similarly, Mr Singh failed to respond adequately to the shenanigans of Mr A Raja after he took over as Telecom Minister from Mr Maran. The disgraced Telecom Minister's rant in self-defence need not be taken seriously, but he is not being entirely untruthful when he says that the Prime Minister was aware of the entire affair at every stage. There is documentary evidence to prove this point, as also to demonstrate that despite such knowledge Mr Singh did not even wag his finger in admonition. Instead, he stood aside, as if by distancing himself from the scam as it unfolded would give him immunity from being held accountable. Mr Singh was morally obliged to stand between his Telecom Minister and fly-by-night operators and do the right thing by scuttling the conspiracy to defraud the nation. He failed to do so — some would even say that he chose not to do so. More importantly, as Prime Minister he should have been more receptive to information that was forwarded to him from time to time, alerting him about the mischief afoot in Sanchar Bhavan. Once again, he did not bother to take note of the information — or, as others would say, he chose to ignore it. It would be facetious to suggest that on both counts he was found wanting because of the 'compulsions' of coalition politics. It would be equally facetious to suggest that he has redeemed himself by getting rid of Mr Raja: That happened because there was no other option left. 

 

***************************************

 

THE PIONEER

EDITS

ORGANS NOT FOR SALE

CURB ILLICIT TRADE WITH HARSH PUNISHMENT

The news about Moradabad police busting an international smuggling ring in the city engaged in an illegal human organs trade has once again brought to the fore the shocking plight of the poor and disadvantaged who are duped and fleeced by unscrupulous people, including doctors, for a fistful of money. That the racket was being run by Government doctors in collusion with the police — together they would lure vulnerable labourers and illiterate people and deprive them of their organs — will not surprise many as organised crime in this country is not an exception but the rule. A couple of years ago, we were witness to the multiple crimes of a Gurgaon-based doctor's kidney transplant racket. He and his men tricked poor people to part with their kidneys which would then be transplanted on foreigners willing to pay a fortune. A similar racket was unearthed in Chennai where a doctor was arrested for selling kidneys to patients from Gulf countries. What is most disconcerting is that lawkeepers jump into action only when such cases are exposed and feign to act only till the heat is on. While dealers in human organs deserve no mercy and should be given exemplary punishment, little is known about what happened to the doctors running their flourishing illicit trade in Gurgaon and Chennai. Were they punished? Are they on bail? Or have the cases been buried through the expedient means of greasing the right palms? 

Poverty, no doubt, contributes to the illicit trade in human organs. Hunger forces men and women to sell their kidneys, often for a pittance. It is also poverty that makes parents offer their children for organ trade. Illiteracy and ignorance are equally responsible for this pathetic state of affairs. The tragic reality, as it has once again unfolded, this time in Moradabad, can be tackled only if authority decides to crack down on illegal organ trade, simultaneously launching a massive mass awareness campaign to alert the poor and the illiterate, especially in our villages and urban slums, about the dangers of trading their vital organs for a few hundred rupees. But that would only serve half the purpose. The other half would necessarily be served only through strict enforcement of the law of the land and punishing those who violate it swiftly, mercilessly and demonstratively. There is no percentage in pretending the hideous crime of illicit organ trade does not exist in our country; not only does it exist, but it flourishes. An ostrich-like attitude is not going to help curb this criminal enterprise. Nor should State Governments be allowed the privilege of claiming that tackling this crime lies in their domain: The Union Government must assert itself, if necessary by amending laws. Anything less is unacceptable. 

 

***************************************

 

THE PIONEER

EDITS

TIBET ISN'T KASHMIR

BEFORE EQUATING THE 'KASHMIR ISSUE' WITH THE 'TIBET ISSUE', CHINA SHOULD THINK TWICE. UNLIKE JAMMU & KASHMIR, TIBET HAS NO AUTONOMY

CLAUDE ARPI

To the surprise of many people, External Affairs Minister SM Krishna recently told his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi that New Delhi expects Beijing to change its position on Jammu & Kashmir by reciprocating the way India has handled Chinese "core issues". 

It is the first time that India has equated Jammu & Kashmir with Tibet. This happened during a 70-minute bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Russia-India-China trilateral conference.

After the meeting, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao was more explicit: "Our Minister referred to the need to show mutual sensitivity and that the Chinese side needs to be sensitive to our concerns in Jammu & Kashmir like India has been sensitive to Chinese concerns on Taiwan and Tibet." 

This issue started when China began issuing stapled visas for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. Apparently, by doing so China wants to make a point: Beijing does not recognise Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of India. As former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal says, "This would suggest that the Chinese now consider India's presence in Jammu & Kashmir as lacking in legitimacy." 

Later, China denied a visa to Lt Gen BS Jaswal, chief of the Northern Command, to attend a scheduled defence meeting in Beijing. To make matter worse, the Chinese Embassy stated that the General was serving in the "sensitive location of Jammu & Kashmir" and "people from this part of the world come with a different kind of visa".

Interestingly, the position of Beijing has historically been quite clear: China wanted Pakistan and India to solve the 'Kashmir issue' bilaterally (even though Beijing's favours have always heavily tilted towards Islamabad).

The recently declassified transcript of a meeting between Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and the Pakistani Ambassador to China, Ahmed Ali, in February 1957, offers a good historical perspective. During the discussion, Zhou Enlai repeatedly asked the Ambassador, "Is there a danger of conflict breaking out over the Kashmir issue?" The Pakistani Ambassador wouldn't reply even after Zhou Enlai clarified, "The two countries of Pakistan and India are sister countries; if a conflict occurs, it is not only disadvantageous to the two countries, it is also disadvantageous to the peace of Asia."

When Zhou drew a parallel with Taiwan, the Ambassador retorted, "The Taiwan issue and the Kashmir issue are different. We hold that Taiwan is a part of China, and that this issue will eventually resolve itself. But the Kashmir issue is a point of contention between two independent countries." 

Zhou answered, "Of course the Taiwan issue and the Kashmir issue are different in nature. (But) we have always hoped that the two countries of Pakistan and India can peacefully resolve the Kashmir issue."

In another interesting historical document, Zhou Enlai told another Pakistani Ambassador just a few weeks before the October 1962 attack on India: "(About our) attitude towards Kashmir, we have repeatedly demonstrated that China holds a neutral stance: (We) have not stated that Kashmir belongs to (this or) that side, but have advocated seeking a resolution for this issue through peaceful negotiation. We also listened to India's opinion, but did not express any preferences. We respect the two sides' resolution reached through negotiation."

The Chinese Premier continued, "During my second visit to India (in 1957), Nehru repeatedly hinted about this issue (Kashmir). He deliberately invited a Kashmiri prince (Karan Singh) to a banquet; I did not take any notice of it. We adopted an extremely objective attitude."

This has remained Beijing's policy for decades, but since a few months things have changed. China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was ambiguous in his response to Mr SM Krishna. Could it be otherwise? Today it is clear that it is not Mr Yang Jiechi who decides China's foreign policy. However, the use of the 'Kashmir card' by Beijing is new, at least in this open and deliberate manner. How else can it be explained? 

To understand the issue one should look at a larger perspective. India is not alone to face a problem emanating from China. In recent months, Japan, Korea and other neighbours of China have encountered Beijing's change of mood. 

Most China watchers agree that it is due to the increasing interference of the People's Liberation Army in that country's foreign policy, sometimes in opposition to the 'civilian' State Council's positions (the theory of the 'Peaceful Rise of China' seems, for example, to have been forgotten). 

These developments are quite worrying. The Wall Street Journal published an article last month affirming "China's Army Extends Sway". The Wall Street Journal's correspondent Jeremy Page wrote: "The Chinese military's political clout is expected to grow as the Communist Party's ruling Politburo Standing Committee repares for China's change to new leadership in 2012." 

Page added, "It is unclear to what extent the PLA is unilaterally expanding its traditional role — to defend the party and Chinese territory — or being encouraged by party leaders to redefine China's broader national interests. But the military has become far more outspoken in recent months, frequently upstaging the Foreign Ministry and heightening concerns in the region and beyond about how China plans to use its economic muscle."

In September, the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation had noted: "While China and India have long sparred over the Dalai Lama and Tibet's status, border incursions and China's growing footprint in southern Asia, a perceptible shift in the Chinese stance on Kashmir has now emerged as a new source of inter-state friction. Throughout the 1990s, a desire for stability on its south-western flank and fears of an Indian-Pakistani nuclear arms race caused Beijing to take a more evenhanded approach to Kashmir, while still favouring Islamabad."

The jockeying for key positions in the next Politburo and its mighty Standing Committee as well as the coveted seats in the Central Military Commission probably explains the latest Chinese moves.

However, Beijing should think twice before equating Jammu & Kashmir and Tibet. The 'civilian' or PLA leaders should not forget that Jammu & Kashmir lives under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Though a similar Article in the Chinese Constitution for Tibet would probably be the ideal solution for solving the Tibetan issue, it may not be to Beijing's taste. For the Dalai Lama, it would undoubtedly be interesting to have a 370-type Article barring non-State subjects from other Provinces to settle or start businesses in Tibet.

Jammu & Kashmir also has its own Constitution, flag, Legislative Assembly and its own elected Government. Indian laws have to be ratified by the State Assembly before being implemented and several other features exist, providing a large autonomy for Jammu & Kashmir. This sounds close to the 'genuine' autonomy for Tibet on which the Dalai Lama insists.

Suppose tomorrow New Delhi tells Beijing, "If you must club Jammu & Kashmir with Tibet, why don't you have something like 'Article 370' for Tibet and all the Tibetan-inhabited areas? It will be to your benefit, the Tibetan issue will be settled, and after a 'larger autonomy' is granted to Tibet, one can certainly find an arrangement to sort out the India-Tibet border issue."

 

Perhaps Mr Krishna did not have this in mind, but whoever decides foreign policy in Beijing should think about it before unnecessarily upping the ante on the 'Kashmir issue'.

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

INDIA'S ELUSIVE UNSC SEAT

SWARN KUMAR ANAND

The Obama address has generated unrealistic hopes of an Indian seat in the United Nations Security Council in real time. But viewed from both Indian and American standpoints, many questions hang

US President Barack Obama's endorsement of India's "rightful place in the world" — a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — despite no mention of timeline for the Security Council reforms, represents a significant evolution of US policy towards both India and the global body. 

Nobody denies that the present UNSC veto-holding membership — US, UK, Russia, China, France — is a poor reflection of the present and future world order. With the increasing self-confidence among new UN members, the old structure that came into being after WWII no longer remains unchallenged. But a berth in the UNSC is very important, as the coveted veto-wielding membership to the UNSC prevents the world body from acting against the self-interest of its members. In major conflicts like Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Vietnam War, China's repression of Tibet and recently the US invasion of Iraq, the UNSC failed to rise to the occasion.The first serious attempt to reform the UNSC came in the wake of the intense conflict generated by the US-led invasion of Iraq without the Security Council agreement. The then UNSC Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, appointed a High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, which proposed more "involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically." India, by virtue of its status as the world's largest democracy, began diplomatic lobbying for UNSC membership in the 1990s. Japan, a major contributor to the UN's finances, has also been a contender. Although, India's first tryst with the UN started in 1948 following Pakistan's attempt to militarily annex the princely State of Jammu & Kashmir when Prime Minister Jawarhal Nehru took the conflict to the UNSC. Under Atal Bihari Vajpayee the first serious and concerted diplomatic offensive towards recognition of India's bid was made. 

However, in April 2005, Kofi Annan refused to make a specific commitment of support for India's campaign for a permanent seat. Annan had then reiterated that none of the proposals under discussion would allow for India, or any new member, to be granted power of veto on the Security Council. 

But the time has changed and so is the prevailing international environment. Moreover, India's indices in terms of its geo-strategic location, economic health, military strength and domestic stability have brought about changes in the US treatment. Even during second phase of Iraq invasion, the then US President, George Bush, had requested India to send a full army brigade of more than 17,000 troops, second only to the then presence of US military, for non-combat activities — to take the responsibility of administering the northern sector of Iraq, an area of sharp tensions between ethnic Kurds and Arabs. The then US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, pushed Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani to approve the proposal, and President Bush was even ready to send a Pentagon team to New Delhi to answer India's queries regarding nature of military activities in war-devastated Iraq. Besides, a political pay-off of promising to press the then Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf to put a halt to "cross-border terrorism" into India, Bush also told Advani that he "feels" that India should get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

Cut to the present; the India visit of Obama was warranted following his 2009 trip to China in which he was generous in giving time and energy to his hosts. Then he had suggested a Chinese role in South Asia, overlooking India's regional dominance and aspirations. But the present India — a democratic, English-speaking, free-market and dedicated to the rule of law — promises to deliver more to the US. India is buying all kinds of stuff from the US starting from military transport aircraft to to jet engines to oil and gas equipment, etc. And it is here that Obama claimed that India created 53,670 jobs for Americans. Moreover, it suits the traditional US role as offshore balancer. 

However, the road ahead is not that easy for India. The talk of the UNSC reform is often dismissed as hopeless, as the five permanent members (P5) are reluctant to give up their monopoly and the alliance like Uniting for Consensus, a group of middle-ranking countries led by Pakistan and Italy, which is opposed to expansion of veto-holding membership, is always ready to scuttle other's entry into the UNSC.

The serious block, however, is China, whose rapidily-flourishing relationship with Pakistan is purely based on Chinese self-interests. But these self-interests view both India and Japan as rivals. 

Though this year, India won temporary membership in the UNSC with the support of 187 members after 19 years following a strong lobbying by External Affairs Minister SM Krishna, who personally spoke to the foreign ministers of 123 countries. 

Interestingly, for the first time, the Security Council would witness the simultaneous presence of all BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) countries, and three of the four G-4 countries (India, Brazil and Germany), which are considered to be a strong lobby for India, but the influence of the sole power US can't be discounted. This is more after the Pakistan government expressed "strong disappointment" at Obama's support for India's claim to the UNSC seat. 

However, even if India's membership claim is considered, it might require a protracted and highly unlikely process of UN reform, which has failed all attempts since 1979. Nevertheless, the boost given by Obama's speech in Indian Parliament has the merit of injecting new momentum into the issue of Security Council reform. 

Even if the Pakistan and other anti-India lobbyist allege that India's claim to the veto-holding membership is controversial because of its long-running dispute over Kashmir with Pakistan, certainly Kashmir cannot disbar India from having a permanent seat any more, as Tibet couldn't for China and Northern Ireland couldn't for the UK. 

The writer is Deputy News Editor, The Pioneer 

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

SHORT CUT IN LONG ROAD AHEAD?

DILIP LAHIRI

Barack Obama's undertaking on US support to India's UN Security Council membership bid is only a positive step. The complicated UN system, plus hostility from Pakistan and somewhat legitimate African opposition are major issues

Obama's announcement in Parliament on US support for India's permanent membership in the UN Security Council was greeted with euphoria. However, the highly nuanced formulation and the text of the Joint Statement have subsequently raised many questions.

This is what Obama said to Parliament: "In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member." The Joint Statement improved on this: "Prime Minister Singh welcomed President Obama's affirmation that, in the years ahead, the United States looks forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."For all the years of endless discussion on formulating criteria for qualifying for permanent membership, and the reams of self-serving position papers submitted to buttress one or other proposition, the crux of the matter now is to find a formula which can win 128 votes in the United Nations General Assembly. The current line-up is that the G4, consisting of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, have proposed an increase from the current 15 to 25, with six additional permanent members (themselves and two from the African Union) and four non-permanent members; they have sought to finesse the veto question by providing the possibility of a veto right for the new permanent members after 15 years. The African Union (AU) variant is that the expansion should be to 26, with the AU getting one extra non-permanent seat, and the veto right being extended to the six additional permanent members unless the current P5 agreed on the abolition of the veto.

The most vociferous opponents of the above approach are a group of countries led by Italy and Pakistan called variously as the "Coffee Club" or "Uniting for Consensus" (UfC). Their proposal is for 10 new non-permanent members, eligible for immediate re-election, with no expansion in the permanent category. Faced with the prospect of prolonged deadlock, France and the UK have proposed an intermediate reform, proposing the addition of a number of temporary seats that would become permanent if the members so wished. Germany has shown preparedness to flirt with this arrangement, specifying however that this kind of solution "must be constructed in such a fashion as to pave the way for an expansion in both categories", allowing member States to make the transition to a permanent expansion in both categories at a review conference within 15 years. The UfC and AU have opposed the proposal due to the danger, as they saw it, of the category of temporary members in effect being transformed to permanent members. This approach is however gathering increasing steam.

And then there is the question of the veto. None of the current P5 is prepared to consider any dilution of their privileges under the UN Charter. There is also no appetite among UN members to add more veto-wielding permanent members. On the other hand, it would scarcely be reasonable to expect new permanent members to accept without compensation a new caste stratification.

The biggest obstacle at this time to achieving the 128 vote target is the position of the African Group, which insists on designating the two permanent members from Africa, without the preparedness to devise a mechanism, by voting or otherwise, to decide among the several claimants. Apart from Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt, who are the leading candidates, there are others such as Kenya and Senegal. It is widely agreed that Nigeria and South Africa have the largest support. But none of them are prepared to put themselves forward without the endorsement of the African Group and to chance a vote o in the UNGA against the wishes of its largest regional group with 53 votes.

Other major obstacles to achieving the 128 vote target are the opposition of the US to more than a limited expansion of the Council beyond, say, 20; the demand of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which counts 56 Muslim countries of Asia and Africa among its members, for representation in both the permanent and non-permanent expansion (the inclusion of Nigeria would however satisfy this demand); and the League of Arab States, which also wants an assured share of the cake. Neither the OIC nor the Arab League has much of a record of its members adhering to their decisions. But in a situation where every vote counts, the prospect of disgruntled elements working to eat into the available votes is clearly a deterrent.

It should realistically be recognised that none among the P5 is enthusiastic about more permanent members, though they understand that the current anachronistic structure of the Council reduces the legitimacy of the continued presence of some of them as permanent members and stretches the credibility of the Council itself. The UK and France have extended strong support to Germany and later to the G4 and the proposal they have put forward. But this is mainly due to fear that, unless Germany gets permanent membership, it will demand that the separate seats of UK and France should be replaced by a single permanent seat on the Council for the EU. It is a different matter that this is not currently feasible, both since there is no provision for membership of an intergovernmental body like the EU in the Council , and also since EU member states have still reserved most political and security issues for national decision.

It should be clear from the above that Council restructuring may not be around the immediate corner. At the same time, there could be very quick movement if the question of the two permanent members from the African Group could be resolved, or an appropriate resolution based on the UK-French intermediate proposal, came up for voting in the UNGA.

With this background, the real substance of Obama's support can be analysed. Is it a big deal? Absolutely — US support may not be a sufficient condition for obtaining a permanent seat, but it is certainly necessary. Active opposition by the US would have made 128 votes unattainable. Does it commit the US to support India for early realisation of this objective? Not necessarily. The words "in the years ahead" are similar to Obama's Prague declaration on a nuclear weapon-free world which was, according to him, was unlikely to happen in his lifetime. And Obama is a fairly young man. Does it commit the US to support procedures e.g. voting, which may be essential to clinch matters? No, not unless explicitly agreed. Does this commit the US not to oppose expansion of the Council including India beyond 20, as has been their consistent? position in the past? No. Given the politics in the UN, there is little possibility of consensus, or of obtaining the 128 votes necessary for an UNGA Resolution approving an expansion, unless the expansion goes up to 25 or 26 to satisfy the requirement for equitable regional distribution.

Permanent membership of the Council is an important determinant of rank in the international pecking order. India will repent at leisure if it gives up the race now only to find, after some years, that countries with lesser weight but greater perseverance have left us irretrievably a rung lower in the international hierarchy.

Ambassador Dilip Lahiri has served as India's envoy to many countries and UN institutions; he is now Distinguished Fellow with the Observer 

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

INDIA DOESN'T DESERVE VETO RIGHT

WHILE OUR MEDIA IS SPREADING JOYOUS EUPHORIA ABOUT UNEQUIVOCAL AMERICAN "SUPPORT", HERE'S SOMETHING TO SOBER EVERYBODY: CONSERVATIVE OPINION IN THE US STILL OPPOSES INDIA'S BID WHICH DELHI CAN IGNORE ONLY AT ITS OWN PERIL

RICHARD GRENELL

President Barack Obama arrived in India with a gift in hand. He announced to the world that America would support India as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The support from Obama was a huge coup for the Indians but took diplomats at the UN by surprise. 

India, after all, was being rewarded despite the fact that it has done very little to help reform the UN. Ironically, it has been India that has stood in the way of the very sweeping reforms that will now be needed to ensure its ascension to a permanent Security Council seat. India has refused to support UN budget reforms that would remove outdated mandates and programmes, refused to support tough new standards for the human rights council and has consistently worked to keep intact the outdated way dues are assessed on member nations. India, too, has paid just $11.2 million in regular 2010 UN dues but receives millions more in UN assistance due to its status as a developing nation. Rewarding India without first demanding support for basic US-led reform efforts at the UN seems naïve at best. And agitating Pakistan while at the same time ditching Japan, which is also in the run for a permanent Security Council seat, seem to increase American security concerns in Afghanistan and North Korea. 

Obama's announcement was another blow to the real UN reform he has never sought. The Indians, after all, have led the resistance to it and Obama has validated their behavior. The Bush administration worked hard to reform the UN and its budget process but received only scant support from other countries. While India worked hard with other developing nations to thwart most reforms proposed by the Bush administration, Japan worked hard to implement many of the reforms the US was pushing. In fact, India voted 11 per cent of the time with the United States on issues important to the US while Japan voted 86 per cent of the time with the US. Obama rewarded the country working against us and dismissed the country working with us. 

President Bush ended up announcing the US' support for Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council only after it supported UN reform and other good governance policies. Bush's support for Japan was a reward for good work. Obama's support for India's bid signals his desire to keep the UN as it is. Japan pays 12.5 per cent of the UN's regular budget while India pays 0.5 per cent (only a few years ago Japan was paying 19.5 per cent signaling their growing frustration with the world body). That means India pays $11.2 million in regular UN dues compared to Japan's $264.9 million. Further, India is a net beneficiary of the UN and its programmes in that it receives more than $200 million a year from just peacekeeping payments and the UN's World Food Programme to help feed its people. A full tally of UNDP, UNHCR, UNEP and other UN programmes would surely show that India's participation in the UN is a financial boon.

Supporting India for a permanent seat on the Security Council comes at an even greater cost to the war on terror by unnecessarily upsetting Pakistan at a time when controlling the borders and mountainous regions of Pakistan is key to rooting out al-Qaida. Almost instantly after Obama's announcement on India, a government spokesmen in Pakistan issued statements pointing out that India has not lived up to its responsibility in the disputed territory of Kashmir and that it wasn't qualified to be a global leader sitting on the UN's most prestigious body. Pakistan's political class has roundly criticised Obama for his decision to support India at a time when the US needs Pakistan's stalwart support. And Japan, the second most generous funder of the UN behind only the United States and one of our closest allies at the UN, was left wondering if it would get the same endorsement from Obama when the president visits Tokyo.

The Obama team's short-sightedness in dealing with difficult international issues in exchange for quick bursts of popularity while traveling abroad has made it more difficult to make progress on US priorities at the UN. Obama has shown that he is all too willing to sacrifice American security for his personal popularity as was the case with Obama's announcement that the US would no longer seek to put a missile shield in Eastern Europe while negotiating with the Russians and his flip-flop on promising to remove troops from Iraq as a candidate and telling military leaders to continue the course as President.

When President Obama arrives in Japan he should tell the Japanese taxpayers that they deserve to have a permanent seat at the UN table. President Obama should also be unambiguous that reforming the UN is the first condition for US support for any nation seeking a permanent Security Council seat — even though it won't be a popular position. He should also make clear that India hasn't earned its seat yet.

The writer is a US diplomat at United Nations 

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE TIMES OF INDIA

COMMENT

OF COMMONERS AND KINGS

 

Better Kate than never. Yes, Prince William has chosen his future bride. But many Brits today aren't as gaga about royal romances as when Charles and Diana wed. Recession-hit, a sizeable tribe of the penny-wise wonder how big the hole in taxpayer pockets will be, post-wedding tamasha. Though the royals are set to payroll the revelry next year, the public may have to foot a security-related bill. Now, we Big Fat Indian Wedding lovers don't mind shaadi ka kharcha. As long as it's paisa vasool. 

In this case, it is. Fairy tales mean collective money-spinning. The Kate-William story, it's said, could give a "#620 million consumer spending boost" to UK's drooping economy. It's boomtime, folks, for businesses from UK to Kenya - pen-pushers, paparazzi, tour-operators, honeymoon planners, bridal lingerie-makers, you name it. UK's furniture-wallahs, for instance, are offering "Crown Jewel" beds. The extra bounciness is because marriage comes with springs attached. Bookies too expect to make a killing. Wanna bet, they ask, on this marriage lasting a decade? 

Also, everybody's happy royals no longer compulsorily marry for convenience. In the past, monarchs conducted phoren policy via nuptials to augment wealth, power and territory, the spouse being the fringe benefit. But modern princes woo commoners without inviting social grimaces. Stiff upper lip, bye-bye. Britain now has a queen on Facebook. Prince Charles champions trendy causes. And the on-off-on relationship of king-in-queue William and girl-next-door Kate resembles ordinary people's love lives. English royalty's no longer a snob story. 

We can't say the same for India's political royalty. Here, monarchy, titles, privy purses, all lie buried. Yet it's a royal blunder to expect changed raja-praja equations. Our political commoners act like royalty, their flashing insignia telling lesser mortals: "Do you know who i am?" We desis don't need blue blood to have kingsize egos, monarchical pretensions or feudal retinue. Number games turn netas into frog-princes, and taxpayers into retainers. Build a political dynasty, and factotums say mai-baap. Distance ruler and ruled, and all manner of official murk is beautified in rituals, codified in protocol and buried in babudom's XXX-files. 

No wonder the Great Indian Coalitional Wedding enriches democracy less than a political aristocracy. So, while maha-Raja dispenses spectrum by divine decree, scam-hit unions like the Congress-DMK's stay superglued by "coalition compulsions". A study says married adults may lose 730 hours of sleep yearly due to their partners' snoring. Rajneeti's strange bedfellows slumber through far nastier spousal habits, like rifling the public till. Ask Singh-is-King who wears a crown of thorns. 2G scam-watchers wag fingers at him, saying, "While you were sleeping..." 

Some dynastic products seem to be wooing commoners for real. Congress's "yuvraj" Rahul dines in rural homes and train-travels alongside aam aadmi. Is this courtship of the people aimed at remaining politically 'single', Pachmarhi-style? Or is it to gain popular support for making power-wielders' togetherness less about sharing spoils than governance? Either way, hope floats that coalitions will eventually reform, becoming more than just Mergers-for-Acquisitions. Isn't the Great Indian Political Wedding really about asking voters: mujhse shaadi karoge?

***************************************

THE TIMES OF INDIA

TOP ARTICLE

SAVE CAPITALISM FROM PROTECTIONISTS

JEAN-PIERRE LEHMANN

 

The two most critical priorities on the global agenda, trade and climate change, once again got pushed under the Group of Twenty (G20) carpet last week in Seoul. Of the two, trade is the most immediately critical. There is a grave risk that the world economy will collapse into a protectionist spiral. The best means to ensure that this does not happen is to conclude the Doha Round. Rather than address the issue seriously, the G20 has again done no more than pray the lid will stay on the protectionist cauldron. 

 

Seoul was a variation on what has become by now a depressingly familiar G20 theme. At the Washington 2008 summit the leaders declared they would instruct their trade ministers to conclude the Round before the end of the year. In April the following year in London, it was to be concluded by 2009. In Pittsburgh, the moveable feast was postponed to 2010. This June in Toronto, it was deemed safest to opt for the vague "as soon as possible". 

So what did the "Leaders' Declaration" from the November 2010 Seoul summit have to say on the subject? The relevant Article (43) declares that "2011 is a critical window of opportunity" and consequently "we direct our negotiators...to promptly bring the Doha Development Round to a successful, ambitious, comprehensive, and balanced conclusion". 

There are four points to be raised here. First, the language is not only depressingly similar to that used in all previous G20 summit declarations, but also to meetings on trade convened by the League of Nations in the late 1920s and early 1930s! 

Second: 2011 a window of opportunity? With France in the G20 presidency? Nicolas Sarkozy is a visceral protectionist. While leadership could have been hoped for from Korea on trade, any such expectations in respect to France should be rapidly obliterated! 

Third, it is not up to the trade negotiators to conclude the Round, but the heads of government themselves. Trade negotiators take orders from their political bosses. Fourth, and most critical, there will be no conclusion to the Doha Round until and unless big business really commits. In parallel to the G20 summit, Seoul hosted a B20 summit of business leaders. The business leaders present did make the case for the revitalisation of trade. 

However, business does not speak with one voice. One big disappointment at Seoul was that US President Barack Obama and Korean President Lee Myung-bak failed to conclude the bilateral US-Korea free trade agreement. This was a vital litmus test; its conclusion could have served as a lynchpin to a renewed trade agenda. A major opponent and obstacle was the Ford Motor Co. Business is more active and obstructive behind the scenes and hence more effective than on public platforms. 

The global trade scene has undergone unprecedented transformation. A decade ago, in 2000, China was not yet in the WTO and was still a somewhat peripheral actor in global trade. A decade later the erstwhile global trade applecart dominated by the "quad" - Canada, EU, Japan and US - has been completely upset. China has emerged as the world's leading trading power, while other "emerging" countries – Brazil, Vietnam, India, Turkey, South Africa, Chile, etc, etc - are both far more present on global markets and demand greater say in global trade governance. Transformations invariably cause turbulence. 

The fact that there is turbulence is all the more reason why leadership, good governance and a solid rules-based multilateral trade framework are absolute imperatives. This, however, is unlikely to happen without business involvement and leadership. Yet business leadership - something which as the 21st century advances is increasingly becoming an oxymoron - is sadly myopic and blinkered. 

What is at stake is nothing less than the global open market system and capitalism itself. We are, as in the 1930s, at a crossroads. The conclusion of the Doha Round would provide the single most important boost to confidence in the system and also a great stimulus to the world economy. It would also demonstrate the commitment of global leaders to the development agenda. It is not, one must hasten to add, a panacea. But in the same breath one can also say that failing to conclude the Round soon will exacerbate the forces of protectionism and hasten the demise of capitalism. 

Business support, indeed leadership, for the conclusion of the Doha Round is not a matter of idealistic global altruism; it is one of enlightened self-interest and it is an urgent imperative. So, for the prospects of global trade, do not look to the Elysee, but to the CEOs and boardrooms of those 3,500 or so multinational companies that account for the bulk of world trade. 

It has been said that the main problem with communism is communism, while the main problem with capitalism is capitalists, that they are the agents of their own destruction. As capitalists face the system's gravest challenge in eight decades, it remains to be seen whether this adage is true. 

The writer is a professor of international political economy at IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland.

 

***************************************

THE TIMES OF INDIA

COUNTERVIEW

THEY APPEAL TO BASE INSTINCTS

JAY KUMAR

 

Despite the recent controversies surrounding some reality shows on Indian television channels, they are being celebrated as the New Age entertainment recipe. And of late, there has been a mindless proliferation of reality shows ranging from singing and dancing competitions to celebrity shows. But, is there any sense or logic in having these shows when we know they are anything but real? 

Let's accept that the term 'reality show' has become a misnomer, an oxymoron. Writers and producers from many shows have admitted that their shows are either partially scripted or edited to create storylines. The producers not only specifically select the participants, they also fabricate an atmosphere to encourage particular forms of behaviour and conflict. Often, these shows pander to some of the worst excesses of human sentiment. The sole aim of these shows is to cash in on voyeuristic tendencies, and the atavistic desire of humans to peep and pry into other people's lives. The much-touted success of these shows is based on the desire of viewers to see others humiliated. They are thus becoming nurseries of cruelty. 

But can we make a mockery of human emotions for the sake of television rating points? Can we allow such negative mindsets as creative expression? Further, can we completely turn a blind eye towards the social impact of such shows, especially when the medium is as powerful as television, with a powerful impact on viewers, particularly children? In this context, the information and broadcasting ministry's decision to regulate the timings of two reality shows doesn't go far enough. The reality show is a pernicious and morally unacceptable genre that must be banished from the small screen. Instead of merely portraying dark shades of human behaviour, television ought to have positive and uplifting themes. 

 

***************************************

THE TIMES OF INDIA

TIMES VIEW

THE SHOWS ARE DEMAND DRIVEN

 

The last few years have witnessed a mushrooming of reality TV shows across the television-viewing spectrum in the country. Whether it is singing for a music album contract or performing death-defying stunts for a significant amount of prize money, reality shows have become standard programming on most television channels today. However, reality shows have also been at the receiving end of criticism from certain quarters. There have been calls to ban them, on the ground that they are inherently voyeuristic and cater to the basest of human instincts. It's also been said that they are merely scripted simulations of reality, therefore a sham as they do not offer what they promise. None of these criticisms are valid. 

It's true that reality shows can be voyeuristic, but so is biography or fictional literature. All of these forms help satisfy innate human curiosity about how other lives are lived. The other side of the coin is an exhibitionist urge on the part of participants in such shows to put themselves or their lives on display. This too is an urge many people share, and it's not confined to reality shows. Anyone who has spent some time on the internet or on social networking websites can attest to this. The strong human appeal of reality shows is evident in the high TRP ratings they attract. If they were truly such a turn off, so many people wouldn't be tuning in to watch them. 

If reality shows are merely scripted simulations of reality and not the real thing itself, the same is true of biography and realistic fiction. It's the dramatic approximation of the real that matters, else we would get television that's as dull as CCTV footage. It's also important to remember that no two reality shows are the same. Clubbing all of them together is patently unfair.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

HINDUSTAN TIMES

OUR TAKE

WHO'LL CUT THIS GORDIAN KNOT?

 

Now it seems that when it comes to Afghanistan, 2014 is the new 2011. But not quite, because even 2014 is not a deadline, merely a goal. The US still holds to the view that it will begin to reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan from 2011 onwards.  Many assumed this meant a US pullout just before Americans go to choose a president in late-2012. This weekend the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) summit in Lisbon put its imprimatur on a scenario where the US troops linger on until 2014 before handing over security to an Afghan army. Even here, both Nato and President Barack Obama have made it clear there will be no abandonment of Afghanistan. The truth is that no one, and Washington least of all, knows when and for how long the US will persevere in that country.

 

Unfortunately, this is a very large known unknown. The US troop presence is the single most important obstacle for the Taliban. In the near-term, the uncertainty of the US's role is determining the responses of every other player in the Great Game. The most-important players are all betting on early US departure or a half-hearted presence. This includes the Taliban, the Pakistan military and, it seems, also Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The Taliban and their supporters in Rawalpindi, therefore, wage what is a simple war of attrition against the US troops. Mr Karzai's increasingly unhelpful attitude to the US seems motivated by a similar calculation. The Americans will leave soon and, therefore, Mr Karzai is more interested in wooing Taliban factions and distancing himself from a US campaign destined for defeat.

 

Mr Obama is reported to have said recently that the AfPak calculus rested on the need to change the mindset of Pakistan. He seems to have diagnosed the regional illness but come up with a prescription that is guaranteed to not heal anything. Pakistan's mindset has been reinforced by Washington's "we're going, we're staying" flip flop. It is understandable that the US would like to withdraw from Afghanistan as fast as possible. It is also understandable that Mr Obama wants to keep the Democrat's pacifist wing happy. But these policies are contradictory. To appease the latter, he undermines his ability to do the former in an orderly fashion. Cutting this Gordian knot is what leadership is all about. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has not been evident when it comes to the US and its Af-Pak conundrum.

 

***************************************

HINDUSTAN TIMES

THE PUNDIT

STILL A SCORCHER

GOPALKRISHNA GANDHI, 

 

Seven score and seven years ago, yesterday, Abraham Lincoln made his immortal speech at Gettysburg. Beginning with 'Four score and seven years ago…' that brief address has been carved into the tablet of great orations.

 

And yet Lincoln's was not the main speech of the occasion. Those organising the consecration of the cemetery for the men who fell in the civil war at Gettysburg had invited not Lincoln, but the orator Edward Everett, a former US Senator and Congressman, Governor of Massachusetts, Secretary of State, Phi Beta Kappa poet at Harvard and President of Harvard University, to give the main 'Gettysburg address'. Everett's 13,607-word oration began with words rehearsed in the school of declamation:

 

"Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labours of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice…"

 

Everett spoke for one hour and 57 minutes without faltering. When he finished, he was heartily applauded. Carl Sandburg writes in his great biography of the President, "… Lincoln knew when the moment drew near for him to speak. He took out his own manuscript from a coat pocket, put on his steel-lowed glasses, stirred in his chair, looked over the manuscript, and put it back in his pocket." And when he was called, rose, and holding in one hand the two sheets of paper, made his 'Dedicatory Remarks'. A mere ten sentences long, they took no more than two to three minutes to read. So brief, they are worth reproducing in full :

 

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

 

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

Sandburg says the applause that followed was "formal, a tribute to the occasion". On resuming his seat Lincoln told the person next to him "…that speech won't scour. It is a flat failure and the people are disappointed."

 

]Newspapers were divided on its impact. The Chicago Times, no supporter of the President wrote, "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dish watery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States." But the Chicago Tribune reported "The dedicatory remarks of President Lincoln will live among the annals of man."

 

Why has the speech so possessed the human imagination across the world and over the decades?

 

At a purely textual level this is because it is a model of concision, easy to remember and easier to recite both on account of its brevity and its cadences. Reaching and staying at middle flight, Lincoln is neither breathless, nor makes his listeners so. He wafts, he does not soar. He uses rhythm, not rhapsody. Rhythm is typically achieved by measured repetition. He repeats the word 'nation' four times. It becomes, in fact, the speech's refrain. 'Dedicate' occurs as often, followed by 'devotion'. The three words — nation, dedication and devotion — form the speech's triad. On their firm pedestal, Lincoln seats the power of his speech. In the final sentence — which is also the longest — comes the speech's most famous repetition — 'people' occurs in a threesome fluency that versifies prose and defies decay. But all this is dry dissection.

 

Lincoln's speech is not a text to be analysed for its literary devices, accidental or deliberate. It is a living, pulsing utterance to be experienced.

 

The phrase 'All men are created equal' was known to Americans since the time of Jefferson's famous proposition. It was cherished by those Americans who believed the Negro slave to be a human being and hated by those who did not. In invoking that idea and that belief, Lincoln was ringing a bell everyone had heard before.

 

It feels good to hear a known sound intoned. But then he went on to do something altogether unexpected, different. The war was far from over. In fact, even as he listened to Everett's prolonged cataract of eloquence, Lincoln was getting reports on the civil war's progress, one of which told him of Grant's preparing for a big battle at Chattanooga. Incidentally, he was also getting reports on his son Tad's grave illness, back at White House. Emancipation was at risk. Union was in peril. Death was at hand.

 

In those circumstances, what would a chief executive say ? That Emancipation is at risk, Union is in peril and Death is aboard?

 

Yes, a chief executive might. Not Old Abe.

 

He would call for something new, not moan. I referred to three words that occur repeatedly in the speech. They are, in themselves, ordinary words. But there is another word, also ordinary, that he uses twice, with telling effect. And it is that which, almost without being noticed, makes the Gettysburg address what it is. The word is : 'new'. It occurs routinely in the first sentence and alchemically in the last. '…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.'

 

Nehru's 'Tryst With Destiny' speech, starting like Lincoln's, with '…years ago' and climaxing its key sentence with '…life and freedom' invokes Gettysburg magically.

 

Since every society, every nation, in every epoch has known freedom to be won only to be lost, gained only to be traduced, enjoyed but only by some, and since people everywhere and in all ages have seen their trustees become tyrannical and their delegates turn despotic, the human breast has longed for a new birth of freedom.

 

For as long as the world has people that need a new birth of freedom, what Lincoln said five score and forty seven years ago, will continue to startle the deprived with hope and scour deprivers with guilt.

 

Gopalkrishna Gandhi is a former administrator, diplomat and governor The views expressed by the author are personal.

 

***************************************

HINDUSTAN TIMES

BEYOND THE BYTE

GENTLE FOLK, RENAISSANCE MEN

PRATIK KANJILAL,

 

November took away two men I admired. Prof P Lal (1929-2010) and LC Jain (1925-2010) were in their 80s, but I never thought of them as old. They had the independence of spirit that is the mark of youth. For them, idealism never became a dirty word. Gentle folk who wore their greatness lightly, they joyfully swam against the current. But they politely declined to make waves. So the nation did not remember them as fulsomely as it might have, though they were harbingers of its future.

 

Jain was promoting participatory development shortly after Independence, almost half a century before the term was coined. One of his first experiments was Delhi's satellite town of Faridabad, built by refugees with community ownership of civic facilities and even factories. He was a key figure in the cooperative movement which created many enduring institutions, from the Cottage Industries Emporium to Amul butter. And Super Bazar, India's first quality-assured supermarket chain, a bulwark against the rampant food adulteration and hoarding of the Indira years.

 

Jain worked in the Nehru administration, though he was appalled when it trashed the daring Gandhian experiment of village-centric development in favour of a command economy run by indifferent bureaucrats. It is only now, half a century too late, that the government is promoting rural self-sufficiency through Band-Aid employment guarantee schemes. 

 

P Lal, too, was ahead of his time. When the Empire wrote back in the hand of Salman Rushdie and Vikram Seth, it owed something to his cottage industry. Writers Workshop, established in Lal's Kolkata study in the 50s, published literature in English when it was vilified as the coloniser's tongue, the brand of slavery. In fact, Seth's debut volume of verse, Mappings (1980), was published by Writers Workshop. Lal made books by hand and with love — handset type printed on a hand-operated press in a neighbour's garage, covers calligraphed with a Sheaffer fountain pen and bound with Orissa saree cloth. LC Jain would have applauded the nod to rural artisanship.

 

There are few major Indian writers and poets in English who did not make or build a reputation with the help of Writers Workshop. Like Lal, who had published Modern Indo-Anglian Poetry (1959), some went on to anthologise and chronicle Indian literature, in translation and in English. Adil Jussawalla edited New Writing in India (Penguin, 1974) and former poet Pritish Nandy, who has wandered irretrievably far from literature, edited the cult poetry anthology strangertime (Hind Pocket Books, 1977).

 

Nandy is the only beneficiary of Lal's patronage who has publicly admitted that in the great tradition of new writers, he has been ungrateful to the man who gave him a break. In the bibliographies of writers launched by P Lal, early work is often listed as "independently published", without crediting Writers Workshop.

India on the make has become embarrassingly eager to forget. LC Jain is redundant because ethnic is in, a travesty of his conception of village products as elements of daily life rather than fashion statements. P Lal is dispensable now that Indian names thickly populate the Booker shortlist. And, more importantly, we are inclined to forget that it is possible to be an idealist and go against the current without ceasing to be a gentleman.

Pratik Kanjilal is publisher of The Little Magazine n pratik@littlemag.com The views expressed by the author are personal.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

WIKIJOURNALISM

 

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks currently in flight from Swedish authorities for allegations of sexual assault, has reignited an old debate about press freedom and journalistic ethics. To sum it up: how do we know the dancer from the dance? In proclaiming the birth of a new journalism, has Assange done what the media should logically extend itself to doing (if it's not doing so already), or has he assumed a complicity and inevitability that needn't characterise the media as a whole? Is this one dancer's steps we're examining, or the steps of the dance itself?Despite our age of disclosures, officialdom persists in preserving its power through secret communication. It's this WikiLeaks sought to puncture by publishing 76,000 intelligence-military reports from the Afghan war in July; following up in October with almost 400,000 secret documents from the Iraq frontlines. These are valuable for raw facts that wouldn't have made it to the public and enforced insights into the reality of warfare. But WikiLeaks also made public names of informants that could get put them in danger, apart from tactical information that could endanger public safety.WikiLeaks disclosures are not the Pentagon Papers, as Steve Coll argued in The New Yorker, and overvaluing them is unnecessary. However, the heart of the problem is this: in demanding absolute accountability of others, WikiLeaks hasn't held itself similarly accountable. The New York Times and Washington Post successfully defended publishing the Pentagon Papers in court, increasing their impact. This time, the Times worked on the WikiLeaks documents, organised them and pointed out what's of value — because in each case, then and now, certain conventions of news dissemination couldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. Journalism should tell truth to power, without disregarding the rule of law. The real challenge for organisations like WikiLeaks is credible publishing on a sustained basis, in keeping with the ideals of press freedom they call for.

 

***************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

HAZY WATERSHED

 

This week the information and broadcasting ministry sought to have the broadcast of two television shows postponed, citing adult content. The channel broadcasting one of them, the reality show Bigg Boss, obtained a stay from the Bombay high court, thereby retaining its telecast in the 9-10 pm prime slot. The specific contents of Bigg Boss apart, and the court is expected to pass a final order on November 22, this episode once again highlights the lack of an independent regulatory mechanism to establish what may or may not be permissible at times when children and young adults watch television.Most countries have a clearly laid down watershed schedule, that's the period when what's deemed to be adult content can be telecast, mostly starting between 8 pm and 10 pm and ending early morning, and a violation of guidelines can invite an indecency fine. Indecency is, crucially, a tricky charge to level. Television, like cinema, retains an edginess by pushing the envelope on what subjects can be within the purview of telecast and in what manner. Certification of such content and decisions on its suitability for wider viewership require an open mind on the changing context; the parameters cannot be constant. This is why such decision-making needs to be made in a zone apart from the government (which, even when it's not actually moving on a censorship impulse, will always be viewed with suspicion) and the broadcasters (which, obviously, would take as liberal a view of guidelines as possible). In the UK, for instance, the Office of Communications was established by an Act of Parliament in 2003, as a forum where, among other things, concerns about programming can be raised, discussed and acted upon.There's been no shortage of occasions to perceive the absence of such a mechanism in India: from questions about some of the live coverage of the November 2008 Mumbai attack, to the full-throated demand in Parliament last year for curbs on entertainment channels, to I&B's Bigg Boss initiative. The failure of government and industry to move beyond these periodic face-offs, however, leaves the impression that each is rather more comfortable with the current arrangement.

 

***************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

FAMILY MATTERS

 

Though the earth hasn't stopped shaking after A. Raja's resignation, the DMK has blithely moved on. The Karunanidhi family was front-and-centre in national affairs, as they turned a private ceremony, a wedding in the family, into a political ceremonial to display the durability of their alliance with the Congress. It's no secret that the family is a feud-riddled, shaky ship — Karunanidhi's sons Stalin and Alagiri are locked in a struggle for control of the party machine. The DMK's decisions about divvying up political positions at the Centre or assigning responsibility in the state are also highly fraught decisions, given this flammable family situation. At the wedding, Karunanidhi pointed out that it was a "self-respect marriage" — and the reference only underscored how far the party has drifted from its founding ideals. That the DMK has debased itself, from being a movement of rationalist convictions led by a dedicated cadre, to a party that submits to the patriarch's will for every decision and allows the family's well-being to be its sole guiding concern, is its own problem. However, those decisions have such tremendous national ramifications. Karunanidhi's desire to placate one force or the other, and for the party to demand the most lucrative ministries at the Centre, so that it can throw money around in the state, have now made allying with the DMK a highly difficult choice. It has now put the prime minister and the entire UPA in a place it wouldn't want to be seen in, brought it the Supreme Court's reprimand and great public scorn. The DMK might think that wringing a sector dry passes as suitable ministerial behaviour, but its actions have put the whole government into question.The Congress appears determined not to let the Raja incident sour the relationship, as Pranab Mukherjee and P. Chidambaram's presence at the Madurai wedding indicated. Both sides emphasised how well they understood each other, and their intent to keep the alliance going. The tensions, if any, had been papered over. However, much as it needs their political strength, the Congress must realise the cost of accommodating the DMK's succession concerns. The rest of the country may not be as cynical and accepting about the sordid give-and-take and accommodation that many Indian joint families take for granted.

 

***************************************

 

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

COLUMN

AAM AADMI VS SAB CHOR

SHEKHAR GUPTA 

 

Make a roll call of the key members of this Cabinet and you wouldn't think they could preside over one of the most corrupt governments in India's history. The prime minister is sometimes attacked by the opposition for being weak, fence-sitting, and once, famously, he was even called "nikamma" or rather some milder English equivalent (inept), but not even his worst enemy would ever call him corrupt. You could say pretty much the same for the finance, home and defence ministers. So the four most important men in the cabinet are entirely clean. And yet, if you held an opinion poll, a vast majority would say corruption is India's biggest challenge today. There are multiple scams breaking in the media every morning. And if you scan the regional media, you will find many more surfacing in the states.So how can a government with such clean, efficient and experienced people at the top land itself in such a mess? At a time when the economy is booming, the internal situation is stable and external environment so promising, the last thing India needs is this bitter mood of "sab chor hain". How accurate the generalisation is we can debate in better times. But as they say in business, never fight with the customer or the market. In a democracy, the people, the voters, are your customers. And if they are so furious, and so readily inclined to believe that everybody is a thief, that every deal is a scam, you cannot wish it away as some seasonal virus. Somebody has obviously got something very wrong somewhere. Three things, however, are clear. One, that while the top leaders of this cabinet and the Congress party are individually clean, they have failed to exercise adequate control over the system. Two, that for too long have they erred — and gravely so — in casually and lazily personalising the issue of corruption. So blame telecom on Raja (and use the alibi of that horrible expression, coalition dharma), CWG on Kalmadi and Adarsh on Chavan. Three, and this is the most serious one, that they have failed to keep pace with changes in a reform-charged economy. Consequently, politics, governance and regulation have fallen way behind business and the market, resulting in the rise of an entirely new system of rent-seeking. And a new generation of kleptocracy which has its roots in politics, bureaucracy and private enterprise.

 

The scams of today are fundamentally different from those of the past in that almost all have something to do with the government/ private sector interface. In the past, scandals were all about government purchases and contracts and, as economic reform began, the stock market (which saw one each under Congress and BJP watch, Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh, respectively). Government purchases became less of a story because of reform. Even the key PSUs became listed companies and therefore had to become a lot more transparent. The reason we have run one of the cleanest stock markets in the world for a decade now is simply the correctives that followed the two scams, with the strengthening of SEBI as such a powerful and autonomous regulator and unrelenting prosecution of the scamsters. But the failure of the same reformers to prepare the system for challenges that would have inevitably followed is intellectual as well as one of a lack of political will.

 

Over the past few years, almost all scandals have involved misuse, or a widely believed allegation of misuse, of discretionary powers by the government, either for old-fashioned rent-seeking, or its new child, crony-capitalism. What has happened with telecom is only the most brazen example of both, and has given India a bad name globally, particularly because this is such a sunrise industry and one of the greatest post-reform success stories of India, along with IT, followed by automobiles and aviation. Whatever happens domestically, damage to India's international reputation will be humongous as the scandal now takes some of the largest global telecom players in its sweep. Meanwhile, under the same dispensation, the government's own telecom companies have been systematically destroyed. One of these (BSNL) has been denied a public listing on the most specious of arguments but understandably on the most obvious of motives (to keep the ministry's grip over its contracts and largesse). Public listing brings transparency and diminishes discretion, and those are the last things you want when you so crave cronyism and rent. Kapil Sibal has thus been handed a challenge bigger, and more urgent, than even HRD. You would only hope the excuse of "coalition dharma" is not used again to hand this portfolio back to the DMK. No government can survive for three-and-a-half years after dumping so much credibility and, even if it does, it can forget about getting re-elected.

 

Let's look beyond telecom. Each major scandal the UPA has faced has stemmed from misuse of discretionary powers by its ministers, either to make money, or to favour cronies or fellow travellers. From petroleum, to mining leases, coal linkages, almost all the major scandals that create today's "sab chor hain" mood have resulted from the fact that impartial, autonomous and modern regulation has failed to keep pace with the reform and growth of our economy. Free markets cannot survive without equally free and wise regulators. That is where the UPA's record has been so shoddy. Raja is not the only one to have undermined his (telecom) regulators. The petroleum ministry has systematically decimated its own. Civil aviation has only talked of a regulator for six years now without a step taken in that direction. For how long can higher education, which is becoming a big business now, be left to be "regulated" by the UGC and AICTE and MCI? There is so much discretion left with the environment ministry that in the past it was widely known that some of its residents pretty much had tariff cards for clearances. That, mercifully, is not the situation now. But this kind of discretionary power leaves scope for enormous whimsicality as well as corruption, and transparent, autonomous regulators, often talked about, are nowhere on the horizon. And where is the real estate regulator without which there is no protection of the rights of the emerging new middle class that is betting its future so bravely to borrow and buy its proud new homes, and without which the property business cannot come out in the transparent domain, with the emergence of modern price-discovery and liquidity mechanisms like REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts)? You know why all politicians, particularly at the state level, love discretionary powers over land so much. But so was the case with industrial licensing and Manmohan Singh dismantled that. Why has he not been able to do so with property now?

 

These scandals could ruin this government, and, most unfortunately, the prime minister's name. But he has been in that place before, and knows what needs to be done. He needs a new 100-day project now to institutionalise all these regulators and take away his key economic and resource ministries' discretionary powers. They will protest, particularly those manning what can be aptly described as ATM ministries: you shove the card, cash starts dropping out of the slot. He also needs to abolish ministries which are built as pure ATMs, like Steel and Coal, as these are also anachronisms in a reformed economy. It won't be easy, but it won't be as tough as the nuclear deal, particularly when public support for a clean-up is guaranteed. If he doesn't, he will see the clock firmly set back on his own reform under his own charge. Surely, that's not the Manmohan Singh legacy that Manmohan Singh would like.

 

sg@expressindia.com

 

**************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

COLUMN

GO BACK TO THE TEXT

A. FAIZUR RAHMAN 

 

It is said that "a folly oft-repeated loses its absurdity and takes the shape of reason." This seems to be the case with the misogynist fatwas of the Darul Uloom Deoband which, despite their incremental risibility, pass off peacefully without evoking an indignant response from Muslims. It is not surprising, therefore, that the recent fatwa legitimising divorce in jest was not greeted with the criticism it deserved although it victimised an innocent woman whose Qatari husband not only committed the indiscretion of typing the dreaded word "talaq" thrice during an Internet chat but was also foolish enough to seek a fatwa on the consequences of his naiveness.

 

The Deoband muftis promptly obliged him by terminating the marriage on the grounds that the marital relationship gets severed once "talaq" is uttered thrice, even over a mobile phone (as per a fresh fatwa) and when the wife is unable to hear it due to "network" problems! It may be recalled that last year Deoband issued a similar fatwa validating triple talaq given by a drunken man.

 

Undoubtedly, these rulings are a gross violation of Islam and it is time the Quranic procedure of divorce is highlighted.

 

Four steps before the first talaq (Quran, 4: 34-35): As a first step, when there is marital discord, the Quran advises the husband to gently talk it out (fa'izuhunna) with his wife. If differences persist, the parties are asked to sexually distance themselves (wahjuruhunna) from each other in the hope that temporary physical separation may encourage them to unite. And even if this fails to break the deadlock, the husband is instructed, as a third step, to once again explain (wazribuhunna) to his wife the seriousness of the situation and try to bring about a reconciliation.

 

For instance, in pursuance of wazribuhunna, the husband may point out to his wife that if they do not resolve their differences soon enough, their dispute could go beyond the confines of their house and become a subject of gossip, which may not be in the interest of both parties. This would be true, because, if the dispute still remains unresolved, as a fourth step, the Quran requires the matter to be placed before two arbiters, one from the family of each spouse, for resolution.

 

Three talaqs: It is only after the failure of the aforementioned four attempts at reconciliation that the Quran allows the first talaq to be pronounced, followed by a waiting period called the iddat. Not more than two divorces can be pronounced within this period, the duration of which is three monthly courses [2:228-229]. For women who have passed the age of menstruation the period of iddat is three months, and in the case of pregnant women it is till the termination of pregnancy [65:4].

 

And if the parties are unable to unite during the period of iddat as envisaged by verse 2:228, the final irrevocable talaq can be pronounced, but only after the expiry of the iddat [2:231]. Once the final talaq has been invoked the marital bond is severed and the parties cease to be of any relation to each other. However, even after the period of iddat has lapsed, the Quran offers the contending parties a chance to reunite, provided the final talaq has not been pronounced [2:232]. In other words, after the expiry of iddat, as per verses 2:231 and 232, the parties are given the options of remarriage or permanent separation — the separation being the third and final irrevocable talaq to be pronounced in the presence of two witnesses [65:2].

 

However, to emphasise the sanctity of marriage and the enormity of breaking it for frivolous reasons, the Quran warns that once the parties choose to separate after the expiry of the iddat, they cannot entertain hopes of marrying again unless the wife takes another husband and the second husband divorces her [2:230]. It is understood here that a divorce may result only if the new husband has serious differences with his wife, and in the rare event of such differences cropping up, he is required to follow the procedure of divorce as discussed earlier. The extreme unlikelihood of this happening serves as a severe deterrent against arbitrary divorce.

 

Unfortunately, this Quranic injunction has been circumvented by sectarian seminaries to overcome the impracticality of triple talaq law of the medievalist Hanafi school. To help the victims of this law a pliable person is set up to marry the triple-divorced wife, consummate the marriage overnight and divorce her the next day so that the original husband can remarry her in accordance with 2:230. This outrageousness which an innocent woman is subjected to is known as halaala.

 

The abhorrent practice continues only because Muslim women are reluctant to show dissent and have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated into prioritising comparatively smaller problems such as the ban on the burqa. If the present-day shariah is to be reformed and brought into conformity with the original teachings of the Quran and the Prophet, Muslims must come out and intellectually challenge patriarchal interpretations of Islam.

 

The writer is the Secretary General of Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought among Muslims, Chennai express@expressindia.com

 

***************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

OPED

NEW TAX ON THE BLOCK

RUCHIKA TALWAR 

 

New tax on the block

After the flood relief tax and special excise duty on non-essential and luxury goods, comes the reformed general sales tax, or RGST, needed for Pakistan to receive the second tranche of a loan from IMF. Pakistan's parties stand divided over the issue. The PPP's coalition partner both in the central and Sindh governments, the MQM, opposes the RGST. The Nation reported on November 15: "Altaf Hussain has made it clear that MQM will not be part of any step that goes against the interest of the people of the country." The PPP's other coalition partner in the federal and Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa governments, the Awami National Party, is also undecided about the RGST. Dawn quoted the party's president, Asfandyar Wali Khan, as saying that it had constituted a committee to review the bill before deciding. However, Khan was quoted by The News on November 14 as saying that the "tax-base needed to be broadened, but those already taxed must not be burdened with new taxes."

 

As the ruling PPP tabled the bill in parliament, Dawn reported on November 16: "PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif is reported to have asked Punjab CM Shahbaz Sharif not to support... the RGST. PML-N sources said following PM Yousaf Raza Gilani's statements that Shahbaz Sharif had given an 'undertaking' to the federal government... that the Punjab government would cooperate in the imposition of RGST, Nawaz Sharif summoned his younger brother to Raiwind... and sought a clarification. The sources quoted Shahbaz Sharif as saying that he had agreed in principle... He was also quoted as saying the cooperation would enable Punjab to get financial concessions from the Centre. But... Nawaz Sharif was not convinced and he directed his younger brother not to lend support to the 'anti-people' measure because, in his opinion, its political cost would nullify the 'financial concessions' Punjab was expecting from the federation."

 

Daily Times reported on November 17 that the PML(Q) is willing to extend conditional support to the PPP on the new tax as it doesn't want the government to fall at a time when its "allies and opposition are trying to destabilise it."

 

Getting people's goats

 

Prices of sacrificial animals created news on Eid-ul-Azha. Daily Times reported on November 17: "Most of Pakistan's Muslims will be unable to join in Eid celebrations with the traditional animal sacrifice this week, as cattle prices have more than doubled in the wake of the country's fatal floods." Dawn added: "the average price of a goat has climbed to Rs 21,000..." Traders were reportedly complaining that "we have bought the animals but nobody is buying..." Another side to the story was reported by Dawn: "But another market trader, Jalil Khan, was not convinced the floods were the cause of the problem, saying: 'A large number of animals are being smuggled to Afghanistan.' Cattle fetch even higher prices in the neighbouring war-torn country, where livestock is in short supply all year round."

 

Power induction

 

Pakistan's troubled electricity-generation sector got a shot in the arm, reported Dawn on November 18. "A Turkish ship carrying a rental power plant, as per an agreement with the government of Pakistan, anchored at berth number 4 of Karachi's port on Thursday. The ship, which sailed from Tuzla port in Turkey and brought a rented power plant with a 232-megawatt capacity, will further shift the plant to the Korangi thermal power plant on November 20."

***************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

OPED

IRELAND CAN BARELY COMPREHEND ITS DEBT

 

This year there were no fireworks. Throughout most of the past decade, for weeks before and after Halloween, the night skies over Ireland were filled with the crack and crash of bursting rockets and fountains of multicoloured flame. Since fireworks are illegal here they had to be bought in Northern Ireland and smuggled across the border — quite a turnabout from the days when the IRA smuggled tons of explosives the other direction, during the Thirty Years' War it waged on the Protestants and the British Army garrison in the North from the 1960s to the 1990s.

 

Throughout the 2000s there was a lot of cross-border shopping, almost all of it one-way, since usually in those years the euro was strong and the British pound weak. Newly rich middle-class couples from the Republic, riding the broad back of the Celtic Tiger, would travel north on Saturday mornings and return at evening happy as Visigoths with their booty — liquor, cigarettes, electrical goods, designer-label clothes and, as the autumn set in, boxes and boxes of fireworks. Those were the sparkling years.

 

Now, with the Tiger dead and buried under a mound of ever-increasing debt, a silence is falling over the land. This year, the eve of All Saints passed in a deathly hush, save for a few damp squibs. There seemed little left to celebrate, with nothing to be seen in the skies save, in the murky distance but approaching ever nearer, the Four Horsemen of our particular Apocalypse: the IMF, the European Commission, Brussels and the Iron Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The shopping trips of yesteryear are gone with the snows; indeed, many of the SUVs that carried the merry marauders northward have been sold off at a loss, or repossessed.

 

The wildest urban legends are readily believed. There is said to be a two-month backlog at the abattoirs, as families abandon the expensive pets, including thoroughbred racehorses, that they can no longer afford to feed. One hears stories of the return of bartering: a yacht swapped for a mobile phone, a Harley-Davidson exchanged for a bicycle. There are moments of giddiness and breathless panic when it feels as it must have in the last days of the Weimar Republic.

 

At first, when the poor beast began to sicken, we Tiger cubs set up a great roaring and ranting. Who is to blame for our sudden travails? we demanded — somebody must be to blame. The bankers? Them, certainly. The politicians? Well, the politicians are always to blame, so nothing new there. The markets, those shadowy entities that seem to operate by whim? Ourselves, perhaps? — now, there was a sobering possibility.

 

Pundits in those early days used to urge us to think of the country as being at war and to fire ourselves up with the same plucky spirit that saved civilisation when it was threatened by German and Japanese warmongers. But how is it possible to be at war when the enemy cannot be identified, and when those who raided our coffers and beggared us are by now beggars themselves? One Irish building firm, owned by a well-meaning man, is said to have debts of a billion and a half euros. Imagine that poor fellow's nights.

 

It is the figures, mainly, that cow us into silence. It is estimated that the banking debt of this nation, which has a population of only 4.6 million, may be substantially more than 100 billion euros. That is 100,000 millions and rising. When we were at school it amused our science teachers to dazzle us with astronomical statistics — so many myriads of light years, so many zillions of stars — but the numbers that we are being forced to count on our too-few fingers now have nothing to do with the fanciful dimensions of outer space. They represent precisely the breadth and depth of the financial hole into which we have toppled headlong.

 

In the months after September 2008, when the Irish government, after a night-long crisis meeting, was forced to give a guarantee of some 400 billion euros — money we had no hope of ever having — to save the Irish banks from collapse, we used to say that it would fall to our children to pay for our financial folly. Now we know that it will be our children and our children's children and our children's children's children, unto the nth generation, who will bear our debts, including the "substantial loan" from international lenders that officials now acknowledge is necessary.

 

There used to be a nice acronym that neatly expressed how the Irish people conceive of themselves: MOPE, that is, Most Oppressed People Ever. For a decade or so, when the Tiger was at its fiercest, we threw off the mantle of oppression, as once we had thrown off what used to be called "the yoke of British rule." On Wednesday, the British chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced in Brussels that his government stood ready to help Ireland in its hour of need. Oh, bitter day.

 

All the same, life goes on, somehow. We are learning a new resilience. Humbled as we are, we might even begin to learn social responsibility, a quality in which we have been singularly lacking up to now. Who knows, we may at last recognise the irreplaceable value of public and private honesty. But let us not light the firecrackers just yet.

 

John Banville

***************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

OPED

THE AMATEURS IN CHARGE

KSHANKARBAJPAI 

 

Blaming Pandit Nehru for everything wrong with India has grown from a fashion to a rage, so the letters he addressed to American President John F. Kennedy on November 19, 1962, will be used as another stick with which to beat him. Destructive denigration serves him as ill as the idolatry in which he could do no wrong. Of course he made mistakes, who doesn't, and to pretend they really were not mistakes — worse, to conceal facts — only feeds his detractors. What our country owes him becomes ever more apparent, time and our travails keep confirming its value. Viewing so great a man whole, faults and all, cannot diminish his stature, or our debt. What we need is to learn from the mistakes, his and ours — which we stubbornly refuse to do.

 

November 1962 was a national disaster, all the more painful for being so self-inflicted: blinding ourselves to it is to invite repeats. Panditji must bear his share of responsibility, but the totality of our failure extends far beyond individuals. India failed to function as an organised state, alive to its challenges and opportunities, appropriately prepared to deal with them. Have we used our experience to become such a state now?

 

People today cannot realise the horrific pressures of those weeks. Despite our foolishness in imagining that suppressing facts can change them, plentiful evidence has been published by important actors of the time, inter alia recording the frightening situation Delhi saw itself facing that November 19 morning. Key positions had been left to the enemy, Sela and Bomdila augured horrendous dangers, civil officers had started being withdrawn and a complete evacuation from Assam was being considered, the DIB even starting to plan a resistance movement. An outstanding soldier, Major-General "Monty" Palit wrote 20 years ago that he was shown the draft letter seeking 12 fighter and two bomber squadrons; as "DMO, at a desperate stage of a war that seemed to be moving along a course of escalating disasters, [he] could only welcome the proposal of obtaining military help, whatever its source," though confessing he "had not for a moment imagined that... the architect of India's non-alignment policy, would ask for actual intervention by US forces." (War in the High Himalayas pp 342-343)

 

Nehru-baiters will indulge their love of taunts on this: how could this proud nation plead to be saved by outsiders, a champion of non-alignment by one of its prime opponents? Even as the second letter was being delivered, we were already told of the unilateral ceasefire, exposing us to more sarcasm.

 

Contrarily, guardians of his image (largely self-appointed and self-seeking) who discern hard-headed realism underlying Panditji's idealistic rhetoric, will argue that in our hour of need he had no hesitation in supping even with the devil. Also, that he was a shattered man, the Chinese attack a mortal blow to his whole worldview as well as his longing to develop India in its own special way. Temporarily, he let himself be guided by advisers. Palit records being told only the PM, foreign secretary and joint secretary (ground) of defence, who consulted him, knew of the draft. It was certainly known Panditji was not himself those days, and the letters were indeed drafted by advisers, especially his strange foreign secretary. And, sure enough, as soon as he was better we were more non-aligned than ever. No doubt our reversion was encouraged by the derisory nature of the Anglo-American response — but the explanation that we had never in fact deviated but only practiced realpolitik will be elaborated.

 

It won't wash. The letters clearly show to what depths we had fallen. It was as embarrassing for Carl Kaysen, the US deputy national security advisor, who was as high as we could reach at that late hour, to receive the second letter, as it was for the great public servant who was our envoy to deliver it. Panditji signed them, the onus falls on him. Let's just acknowledge that, and focus on the broader causes of a national failure.

 

Apart from Palit, two criticised officers, B.N. Kaul and J. Dalvi have left accounts which, even allowing for their special pleading, leave convincing impressions of the utter amateurishness of our whole approach to, and handling of, this first great challenge to our state. B.N. Mullick gives the most vivid picture of our chaotic ways, soldiers and civilians rushing back and forth, our top leaders hovering around a front commander conducting operations from a Delhi sickbed; greatly respected in his profession, this director of the Intelligence Bureau justifies claims of reliable intelligence, but unintentionally makes things look worse by citing involvement in operations — which is none of an intelligence officer's business. Memoirs of two foreign secretaries, Y.D. Gundevia and Rajeshwar Dayal, independently recount how, barely a few days before the Chinese attacks, they were bewildered by being called to meetings under the defence minister to be solemnly told (with the director's concurrence) that it was not China that was preparing mischief but Pakistan!

 

None of the civilians had the slightest notion of grand strategy, much less of fighting a war; with some honourable exceptions, our military emerge no better. Except for the gallant victims of our ineptitude, nobody comes out well.

 

These letters have been available for years on special request by scholars, awaiting dispassionate study in the context of the whole story. (Incidentally, no copy was kept in our embassy, but our lunatic attitude towards archives and secrecy needs separate attention). Everything, from our assessment of security needs, the planning of strategy, the build-up of resources, not least the application of trained minds — we were like schoolboys playing games. The key to serving a state is statecraft, which we simply will not learn. Today we have the added problem that the instruments of state have become increasingly dysfunctional. The wake-up call of 1962 keeps ringing, unheard, after 50 years.

 

The writer is a former ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US, and secretary at the ministry of external affairs

 

***************************************

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

OPED

A MARRIAGE OF MANY MINDS

COOMI KAPOOR 

 

Big fat Indian weddings proclaim one's social status. But when a politician hosts a wedding extravaganza for his offspring, the political message can be even more significant than the social statement. When Union Chemicals and Fertilisers Minister M.K. Alagiri's son Durai Dayanidhi got married in Madurai this Thursday, it was, as expected, a hugely political affair. Alagiri had taken nearly six months off from his duties as Union cabinet minister to make the arrangements. Keen to establish his supremacy in both the DMK and in Tamil Nadu politics, the wedding provided him an opportunity to show his clout. He was able to demonstrate his hold over his pocket borough of Madurai, where political rival Jayalalithaa had the temerity to organise a huge rally at the Tamukkam grounds, the very venue of the wedding, merely a month back. Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi's elder son was also anxious to prove to his father, who has propped up his younger brother M.K. Stalin as his heir apparent, that it is he and not Stalin who has a firm grip over the party's organisation. To facilitate Stalin's appointment as deputy chief minister, Karunanidhi had banished an unwilling Alagiri to Delhi. His supporters suggest that the wedding will be a turning point in his political career. Alagiri wants to leave Delhi, where he feels uncomfortable because of his lack of fluency in both English and Hindi, and return to his home turf in Tamil Nadu.Despite the friction in the family, all sections of this very divided first family of Tamil Nadu presented a united front for the wedding. Brother Stalin, cousin Dayanidhi Maran and even stepsister Kanimozhi helped with the distribution of wedding cards to UPA leaders. Invitations were issued in the name of the aging patriarch, M. Karunanidhi, who sent personally handwritten notes to Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The DMK believed that Gandhi and Singh's presence at the wedding would end speculation about the continuation of the Congress-DMK alliance ahead of the assembly elections next year. Jayalalithaa, who has recently made overtures to the Congress, would be put in her place. Unfortunately, the plan has not gone quite as scripted. Both Gandhi and Singh excused themselves on the grounds that Parliament was in session. The timing of the wedding has, in fact, turned out to be very inopportune, since the 2G scam cast a shadow over the celebrations. The Congress is furious with its southern ally for putting it in an indefensible position. An emboldened Congress has, at least temporarily, retained the telecommunications portfolio to the annoyance of the DMK. However, to keep the DMK boss in good humour, both Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Home Minister P. Chidambaram flew to Madurai with Mukherjee making the right noises about the DMK-Congress partnership. Nevertheless, there is still a question mark as to whether the two parties will fight the Tamil Nadu assembly elections unitedly. Significantly, Rahul Gandhi who has visited Tamil Nadu five times, has not called on the DMK patriarch even once, an expected courtesy in the state. Thursday's wedding turned out to be a political jamboree. Alagiri left no stone unturned in making it a grand public spectacle. Local authorities even removed all the illegal encroachments on the long road leading to the venue. Inevitably, comparisons are being made with Jayalalithaa's glittering show for the marriage of her adopted son Sudhakaran with film icon Sivaji Ganesan's granddaughter in 1995. But while the numbers at Alagiri's function may have been larger, the extravagance at Jayalalithaa's party was more visible, with even the national media commenting on the opulence of the jewellery and saris. Actually Alagiri should have learnt a lesson from that ill-fated marriage. The display of wealth and misuse of official machinery was one of the reasons why Jayalalithaa was voted out of power a year later. Indeed the marriage also fell apart, and Jayalalithaa ended up disowning her foster son.Weddings which proved to be the undoing of a politician were Lalu Prasad's grand circuses for the marriages of his two elder daughters. In one case, government employees were ordered to construct a road and lay water pipelines to the groom's ancestral village, as well as build a house for the couple within 10 days. Swanky cars in Patna showrooms were commandeered for the wedding guests without so much as a by-your-leave. Incidentally, a major difference between north Indian and south Indian political weddings is that in the south, those from rival political parties are not usually invited. At the Alagiri do, there was no one from the AIADMK and none from the NDA central leadership. In a contrast to the usual over-the-top political weddings, Sonia Gandhi hosted such a low-key function for her daughter Priyanka's wedding that even among the relatives, only one representative from each family branch was invited. Another who set an inspiring example was the late Rajesh Pilot who married his daughter with such simplicity that only his old air force colleagues were called. But these are rare exceptions.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

YEDDY MUST GO

 

The festival season seems to have suddenly metamorphosed into a season of scams with a series of unscrupulous deals rapidly unravelling across the country, right from the telecom scam in the nation's capital to the defence housing scam in its commercial centre in Mumbai and extending to the large land scams deep down south of the Vindhyas at its IT hub in Bangalore. While the Congress has now succumbed to the pressures, albeit belatedly, and booted out both the telecom minister A Raja and the Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan, the BJP, which initially claimed to have secured satisfactory answers to its queries from its beleaguered Karnataka chief minister BS Yeddyurappa, is still engaged in consultations. Though the chief minister has now agreed to a judicial probe into the denotification of the government-acquired land over the past 10 years, it is clearly not enough as he has also been accused of bestowing favours on close relatives in various land deals, including to two sons, whose companies have take huge loans from persons who have been favoured with generous leases and plots of land. Strikingly, the chief minister has still only sought to defend his actions by pointing to the similar discretionary allocations of cheap land and land use changes made by his predecessors.

 

However, the BJP may find it difficult to take strong corrective action, especially since any central intervention to change the chief minister and take remedial steps will only add to the instability of the Karnataka government, its first in the south. But any efforts to defend the chief minister will prove even more costly in the BJP for a number of reasons. One, it will not only erode the credibility of the BJP's demand for setting up a joint parliamentary committee to probe into the 2G spectrum scam but also drive another big question mark over its claims to being a party with a difference. The BJP, which has accused the Prime Minister of sacrificing the interests of the nation for the sake of the survival of the government cannot adopt a different yardstick when it comes to its own chief minister. Only a reliable investigation into the Karnataka scam after removing the chief minister will help restore the credibility of the BJP's claims to greater probity in public life.

 

***************************************

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

BRAND SUCCESS

 

Companies go for rebranding or making their brands don a fresh coat of paint to signal different things. It could be change in product mix, announcing entry into new markets, a new management vision, being in sync with the industry nomenclature or simply to contemporarise a fuddy-duddy image. Back in early 2000s, a host of Indian companies went in for a name change. Tata Engineering became Tata Motors to signal its ambition to be seen as a global car company, not just an Indian truck maker. Somehow its old moniker, Tata Engineering, didn't sit well with what Bombay House had just embarked on—benchmarking its marquee auto company with the best globally. Around the same time Vam Organics changed into Jubilant Organosys to better reflect its focus away from bulk to specialty chemicals. It recently changed to Jubilant Life Sciences, again to reflect the changed business focus.

 

And so is it with the country's largest telco, Bharti Airtel, now fifth largest in the world, with over 200 million customers, after its takeover of Zain in Africa earlier this year. The company has gone in for rebranding, its third since inception in mid-1990s, complete with a new logo, new brand tune and all. It's using the occasion of rolling out its airtel brand (yes, with a lower case now, to signify humility in serving the customer) into its newly acquired markets in Africa, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to signal its new global company status and also set the tone for its businesses. The new logo—for which the company is running a customer-led naming contest—and the airtel word in bright red is an attempt at better traction with the young demographics that will drive its value-added businesses like third-generation telephony across Asia and Africa. The logo, part swoosh, part reminiscent of digital era and hip-hop, taps into the company's desire to be seen as 'modern, vibrant, and friendly' in a highly competitive industry where the product and service is fast becoming parity, and the only differentiation perhaps is the brand.

 

In the past decade both Tata Motors and Jubilant have gone from strength to strength by making the right calls on new products, research, acquisitions and reading the customers' evolving needs right. Thus, in hindsight, the now decade-old rebranding looks like a precursor to a real change in its business approach—whether it was focus on value engineering and bold acquisitions like Jaguar-Land Rover with Tata Motors or research-led high-value business for Jubilant. How well Bharti Airtel is able to pull off its around $10 billion Zain acquisition, and return to high profitability in the Indian market will alone determine how its current over Rs 200 crore rebranding effort is finally judged—mere spin-doctoring or a prescient move.

 

***************************************

 

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

COLUMN

INNOCENT OF THE LAW

SUNIL JAIN

 

The government has probably done well to ask Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam not to represent the Prime Minister in the Supreme Court when the Subramanian Swamy case comes up again next week. For while there can be a debate as to whether the Supreme Court should have asked the PM to explain his silence on Swamy's request to be allowed to prosecute the then telecom minister A Raja, it does appear Subramaniam goofed up by telling the Court that Swamy's letter had been dealt with on many occasions—when Swamy said he had received just one letter saying his application was premature, the Court then asked Subramaniam to put down his statements in an affidavit.

 

What's worse is the affidavit he filed in the Court a few days before Raja was asked to go. While the PM's defence has all along been that Raja had acted without his consent, indeed against his wishes, the affidavit (para 94) says the PM's advice was never ignored. "It has further been contended that the advice of the Hon'ble Prime Minister has been disregarded. This is again wholly incorrect. … Thus, not only was there no difference of opinion with the Hon'ble Prime Minister, his office was also kept fully informed of all decisions." Hardly surprising then, that when a top minister had an off-record briefing on the Court's statements on the Prime Minister, he said he wouldn't be having this briefing if Subramaniam had done his job properly.

 

The question of course is whether the government is jumping from the frying pan into the fire since the replacement, attorney general Goolam Vahanvati, has also been arguing the same line and defending Raja all this while—so, any smart attorney will probably trap him on what he's said before. Vahanvati defended Raja's line in the Delhi High Court when STel challenged Raja's policy, and lost the case in July 2009—he also challenged the high court decision unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court. (Indeed, on December 26, 2007, Raja wrote a letter to the PM saying he'd met Pranab Mukherjee to explain the case to him and even called in Goolam Vahanvati to explain the legal position.)

 

More important, it also appears the law officers gave incorrect advice and, in that sense, helped Raja justify his actions. Opinion, it also appears, they shouldn't have even been giving since the law minister had clearly said matters should be brought before the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM). A look at some of the specifics:

 

* Para 92 of the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court says, "the Ministry of Law and Justice has not given any advice regarding the policy in force on grant of UAS licences or the first-come-first serve issue". Well, para 86 of the same affidavit, while talking of Raja's press release of no cap and first-come-first-serve of January 10, 2008, says, "the said press release was issued after obtaining legal advice"!

 

* Para 88 goes on to say there was no preponement of any cut off date—this is the big illegality Raja has been accused of since, while applications were to be accepted till October 1, 2007, his press release said only those received till September 25 would be accepted. So here's what the affidavit says: "there was no preponement of any cut-off date. It was rather a case of batch-wise processing of applications. No application was rejected because it was received after 25.09.2007—its processing was merely postponed."

 

This is clearly being economical with the truth. The affidavit didn't say the ministry had approached the Trai since it didn't have enough spectrum to give to the post-September 25 applications and that the Trai recommended a cap be put so that more licences didn't have to be given.

 

It also contradicts something said in para 83, that the government simply didn't have enough spectrum to give to all applicants … "therefore, it was not even theoretically possible to accommodate all the applicants ..."

 

So why tell the Court the government will process the other applications as well?

 

There is then the matter of whether the law officers even had the authority to give the telecom ministry the opinions it did. On November 1, 2007, the law secretary put up a note to the law minister on the telecom ministry's request on how to deal with the 575 applications it had got for licences. The law secretary said the questions posed were too broad to be of any use; the file then went to the law minister who said the matter should go to the EGoM. Given that Raja ensured he didn't go to the EGoM, how were opinions even given?

 

While dismissing Vahanvati's argument on July 1, 2009, the Delhi High Court had pointed out that while Raja said he had accepted the Trai recommendation that there should be no cap on the number of service providers, by amending the cut-off date, he had actually placed a cap. That is, the ministry was violating the Trai Act, which says any changes made have to be referred back to Trai—when Vahanvati was explaining the legal position to Pranab Mukherjee on December 26, 2007, didn't he realise this? Didn't Subramaniam realise this while clearing various affidavits for the ministry? Both, after all, have been arguing telecom cases for 10-15 years. By the way, even last week's affidavit in the Court carries on saying the Trai recommendation of no cap was accepted by the ministry—the law officers didn't even have the honesty to tell the Court that the Delhi High Court, and even the Court itself, had previously held that the Trai policy had not been accepted.

 

It's time the government realised its lawyers are as fallible as others. So the next time around, it should stop parading the attorney general or the solicitor general's opinion as God's own truth.

 

sunil.jain@expressindia.com

 

***************************************

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

COLUMN

FACEBOOK'S NEW FACE

CARL SCHRAMM

Can Facebook really be the solution to serious social problems of our time? In the words of George Yeo, Singapore's long-time foreign minister and not a man given to easy enthusiasm, it now is "arguably the most important social infrastructure in the world today."

But what about using it and other forms of social media on the one issue that—given burgeoning youth cohorts entering the labour market in many developing economies—is more pressing today than any other: the need to create more jobs? Can it help us find pathways towards innovative solutions to real-life problems and promote entrepreneurship and innovation?

 

Sounds far-fetched? Perhaps not. Here is why: New jobs are best created on the basis of ideas generated either to meet new demands—or to solve, at long last, some very old problems. These include providing access to healthcare, reforming education systems and focusing on a cleaner environment and greater resource preservation all across the range of human activity. Fortunately, these are issues young people are focused on. That is quite natural, in part because the younger generation tends to be drawn to solving the problems insufficiently addressed by their parents' generation. And there can be no denying that we baby boomers have fallen short in some critical regards. If there were ever a time to focus attention on the need for human ingenuity, it is surely now.

 

It is easy to trivialise the potential effect of social media, just as it is easy to overstate their importance. What matters is that while terms like 'crowd sourcing' or 'collaborating in the cloud' still sound alien to many people over 30, they are anything but gimmicky. As anybody who has worked at a large corporation lately can attest this is pretty much what large companies try to accomplish in working with their worldwide staff.

 

Take a company like IBM. Characterised as being on the death bed not so long ago, it has dramatically reinvented itself. That was not an easy task, considering it is one of the world's largest corporations. But the reinvention process worked for two reasons, as it has—and does—at other corporate behemoths who are re-learning the art of being nimble on their feet.

 

First, one has to truly globalise the internal innovation strategy and processes, without regard for rank and work location. Second, more so than ever before, this process of innovation is entirely team-oriented. This isn't any longer a world of lone rangers toiling away in remote labs to come up with the next big idea.

 

To leverage the inherent ingenuity of its staff, which is any corporation's only real asset, has also meant moving far beyond just American and European teams of engineers, which were dominant for many decades. Like at many other companies, IBM researchers today, or those at, say, pharmaceutical or car companies, work on a given problem on a 24-hour basis. Using IT, work-sharing platforms and wikis for internal knowledge management, they pass the project around the globe to research teams located in different time zones. It is much like big banks pass their trading books around the globe, from Hong Kong to London to New York.

 

In addition, good engineers no longer are the good corporate soldiers they used to be. They want to live where they like to, and that is not necessarily where the big research centres are located. That has forced big corporations to cope with a formerly unimaginable thing—letting their people go, quite literally, to where they feel most creative.

 

Now why, you may ask, have I dwelled on the changed nature of large companies at such length? For two reasons: the first is to underscore the degree to which today's business world—the successful companies at least—is already in the grip of youth-embraced, technology-enabled trends such as online collaboration and crowd sourcing. The second is to point out that the world has yet to organise its collective business acumen and drive in vital ways. We are still far from finding the most effective ways to collaborate across the globe and really tap into the ingenuity and drive of the younger generation.

 

Does that sound like a pipe dream? I think not—and for a very straightforward reason: if work processes and innovation management become more informal inside large corporations, it stands to reason that there is no obstacle to using the same informality outside of corporate structures. What large corporations have learnt the hard way is that they must create a fertile environment in which that moment can happen—and happen often, without predicting where or by whom.

 

It is that rare and hard-to-predict moment when a mix of people, ideas and circumstances come together that yields fresh insights and true innovation. It is precisely in these moments when new ideas emerge that can then be pushed forward into new markets by determined entrepreneurs.

 

With that in mind, the Kauffman Foundation organised Global Entrepreneurship Week, now in its third year. Held in November, this collaboration of more than 10 million young people in 103 countries during the week is a critical part of this effort. We are putting increasing emphasis on social media activities as platforms to create an environment conducive to generating innovative ideas and fertilising the soil for global entrepreneurship.

 

The realisation of much of future economic growth comes down to opening our eyes, providing new platforms for that purpose and jumping off. Getting young people engaged globally is the key untapped resource in this equation.

 

The author is president & CEO, Kauffman Foundation

 

***************************************

 

 

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

COLUMN

EAVESDROPPER

Social work comes first

Karnataka chief minister BS Yeddyurappa may have been tense about his meeting with the BJP's top brass, given how everyone speculated that he was on his way out, but he didn't show it. He told the BJP's brass that he would only be able to meet them in the evening as he had to distribute sarees in Karwar and Davangere in the morning.

 

Incomplete justice

 

A senior minister did some damage control yesterday, briefing the press on the condition it was off-record about the Supreme Court's observations regarding the Prime Minister. The minister said the judges hadn't been briefed properly on the fact that the Prime Minister couldn't possibly sanction prosecution till the CBI finished its investigation. He mocked the efforts of Solicitor General in explaining this to the Court and said he wouldn't be holding the briefing if the SG had done his job well. The courts, he said, couldn't base their observations on a few media articles and if observations start becoming rules, then "God save the nation".

 

***************************************

THE FINANCIAL EXPRESS

ANTIMATTER

 

Cern scientists made big news chasing the God particle. They are back, tracking Big Bang this time

 

Engineering, stand by for warp drive, Captain Kirk would say and Starship Enterprise would promptly perform a feat firmly rooted in a fictional world. But Cern scientists, as reported in Nature magazine this week, have brought us just a little bit closer to figuring out the kind of matter-antimatter processes that the good Captain had at his fingertips. Physicist Paul Dirac posited antimatter as ordinary matter in reverse as far back as in 1931: every particle has an antiparticle that has an opposite electric charge but is otherwise nearly identical, right down to mass and lifetime. This is key to all theories of physics assuming that at Big Bang, some 15 billion years ago, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were generated. Yet, little antimatter survives and that's a big mystery. To solve the mystery, scientists need to see antimatter in action. This has proved nearly impossible as matter and antimatter annihilate each other on contact (creating the energy that could power a starship). So, what has Cern actually pulled off?

 

Using hydrogen atoms, where positrons and antiprotons would be the counterparts to electrons and protons, they used several stages of cooling to stabilise (relatively speaking) the antimatter so that 38 antihydrogen atoms were successfully trapped inside a magnetic bottle for 0.2 seconds. That wouldn't generate enough energy to make a cup of coffee let alone the ultimate rocket fuel. But for the physicists, this is a dramatic step forward.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE HINDU

EDITORIAL

FLAWED PROCESS, FAILED OUTCOME

 

The integrity of the process always determines the quality of the product that comes out of it. If a process is wrong, the product seldom turns out right. It is now a common conclusion that the procedure for the allocation of spectrum in 2007-08 for the second generation (2G) telecom services was flawed, and grossly so. When there were many more aspirants for the licences than there was frequency spectrum, and an auction should have been the obvious method to decide on the winners, the licences were handed out instead in a non-transparent, first-come-first-served basis and at a low price set seven years earlier. These are the charges that the former Union Minister for Telecommunications, A. Raja, faces, and the ones that forced his resignation. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India found that some of the licence winners had not met even the basic requirements when they applied. It comes as little surprise therefore that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is advising the government to cancel the licences of all the six companies for not conforming to the licence conditions. The relevant requirement was simple: within 12 months of getting the licence, mobile phone operators must make their cellular signals, and therefore the service, available in at least 10 per cent of each district headquarters in each telecom circle. Spectrum being scarce, this was necessary to ensure that licencees did not take the spectrum and not provide the requisite telephone service to the community. Remarkably, none of the six licencees has managed to roll out service as stipulated; some indeed have barely started operations. The 2G fiasco is thus strikingly complete.

 

The Manmohan Singh government has no option but to take serious note of the glaring non-performance by these companies. Perhaps it was inevitable they would fail, because as the CAG discovered, many of these companies did not have any experience in telecommunications. Revoking their licences would therefore be a rational and appropriate response. The case of one or two of the licencees who exerted themselves enough to accumulate a few million subscribers may be tricky, but even that is not beyond resolution. The spectrum that will be wrested back must be quickly put through as transparent an auction as defined the allotment of the third generation spectrum earlier this year. It requires no genius to predict that the government's take from the sale will be substantially larger than the Rs.12,386 crore it got in 2007-08. There will be nothing to fear for customers of the scratched companies; if the government were to facilitate number portability as promised, they can painlessly switch themselves to another service provider.

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

EDITORIAL

TIME UP FOR YEDDYURAPPA

 

At a time the Bharatiya Janata Party is taking the moral high ground on corruption, the land allotment scam in Karnataka involving Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa is turning out to be a severe embarrassment. No matter what party president Nitin Gadkari throws at the Congress and the United Progressive Alliance government on alleged corruption in 2G spectrum allocation, the Commonwealth Games, and the Adarsh Society, the BJP will be unable to gain any political advantage without acting decisively in Karnataka. Mr. Yeddyurappa faces serious allegations of nepotism and irregularities: wrongful de-notification of lands and allotment to family members. Moreover, his defence is weak, a political counter devoid of any legal merit. While acknowledging that his family members were benefitted, he claimed that his predecessors belonging to the Congress and the Janata Dal (Secular) too had made similar allotments. This line of defence makes a strong pitch for a thorough probe into all such instances of de-notification of land, but hardly absolves him of the charges of wrongdoing. Similarly, while the Chief Minister's announcement that his family members would surrender the lands is welcome, it cannot be used to gloss over the serious procedural irregularities and the legal infirmities in the original de-notification and allotments.

 

Against this background, the judicial probe ordered into such allotments seems to be a move to pre-empt the Opposition, which has taken the issue to the Lokayukta. The probe, which is to cover the period from 1994, when JD(S) leader Deve Gowda was Chief Minister, should not be used to deflect the allegations of corruption and nepotism. Mr. Yeddyurappa cannot seek to extend his stay in power on the ground that a fact-finding judicial exercise is on and some corrective measures have been taken. For the BJP, the land allotment scam could not have come at a more inopportune moment. Not only does this take the force out of its offensive against the UPA on the scams related to the 2G spectrum, the CWG, and the Adarsh Society, it also raises serious questions about the survival of the party's government in Karnataka. Even before the land scam, Mr. Yeddyurappa was clinging on to a slender majority in the Assembly through blatantly unsavoury means. A change at the helm could again result in a shake-up of the BJP's legislature party, and wreck its only government in the south. But whatever be the compulsions, Mr. Yeddyurappa will have to go in the interests of a clean and transparent administration in Karnataka. Whether the BJP will gain or lose on account of his exit is a matter of minor importance.

 

 

***************************************

 

THE HINDU

LEADER PAGE ARTICLES

LIGHT AT THE END OF IRAQI TUNNEL

WHAT HAS EMERGED IS THAT THERE IS PROBABLY SOME DEGREE OF U.S.-IRANIAN CONVERGENCE ON THE POWER-SHARING DEAL IN BAGHDAD.

M.K. BHADRAKUMAR

 

The first major foreign policy success of the Barack Obama presidency began surfacing last week. This, of course, is an optimistic way of looking at the power-sharing deal in Baghdad, which was sealed eight months after the inconclusive general election in March. But wasn't the deal brokered by Iran? How can it be counted as Mr. Obama's success story? It can be. The heart of the matter is that the United States has tacitly consorted with Iran, which only underscores political realism on the part of the Obama administration.

 

The Baghdad deal, which followed three days of high-pressure talks between the Iraqi political factions, envisages that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shi'ite will have another term in office. So also Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, will continue as President, while the post of Speaker of Parliament has gone to Osama al-Najafi, a Sunni Arab credited with an obscure past of links with Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. As part of the deal, a new statutory body, National Council for Strategic Policy (NCSP), is being established to oversee security, which will probably be chaired by the former Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, a "secular" Sh'ite from the mainly Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc, who many regard as a U.S. proxy. And, to complete the tapestry, if rumours gather substance in the coming days, the post of Foreign Minister may go to Saleh al-Mutlak, the "secular" Sunni politician who is commonly linked to the Baath Party.

 

It is almost impossible to be certain about who won and who lost in a pantomime. The Americans, prima facie, "lost" and yet, as the witches in Macbeth would say, they may have "won" as well. So has Iran. The U.S. initially backed Mr. Allawi for prime ministership, failing which it worked for a power-sharing deal between him and Mr. Maliki. At a later stage, it sought to have Mr. Allawi as President. But Mr. Maliki trumped Mr. Allawi and the Kurds (who have been sturdy American allies), rebuffed the U.S. and insisted on retaining the presidency. The U.S. has now been left to persuade Mr. Allawi to accept the post of head of NCSP, whose powers are yet to be defined. Again, the U.S. sought to exclude the fiercely anti-American Shi'ite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, from the power structure but the current deal is riveted on his group's undertaking to support a government with Mr. Maliki, and the Sadrists may hold as many as a quarter of Cabinet posts in the new government. Indeed, Mr. Maliki travelled to Iran to meet Mr. Sadr (residing in the holy city of Qom) and publicly acknowledged his appreciation of Tehran's role in persuading Mr. Sadr to set aside his visceral hatred of him (Mr. Maliki).

 

The noted Middle East analyst and historian, Juan Cole, wrote: "I don't think there is any way to interpret what has happened except as a victory for Iran … Iran has been working hard to put back together the fractured coalition of Shi'ite religious parties ... As the U.S. withdraws its troops over the next year, Iran's favourable position in Iraq will now likely be strengthened." True, the current deal is not what the U.S. would have preferred. On the other hand, the deal also reflects the U.S. influence insofar as it provides for an inclusive government that does not disenfranchise Mr. Allawi's Sunni supporters. The Obama administration has all along argued that the new government must be broad-based and should include all major factions and accommodate all groups, including even the Baathists of the Saddam era.

 

What has emerged is that there is probably some degree of U.S.-Iranian convergence. The deal in Iraq leaves one guessing all over again about the backchannel contact between the two implacable adversaries that never quite stops working. We know for sure that the backchannel has been working steadily on Afghanistan in the recent period. All the same, it is hard to tell whether it was a mere coincidence that, in a dramatic turnaround on November 3, the U.S. State Department designated the Jundullah as a terrorist organisation. Tehran has been accusing Washington of secretly supporting the Jundullah to bring about a "regime change" in Iran. In March last year, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly warned the U.S. that Iran had intercepted communication between the Jundullah terrorists and American operatives. He chastised Mr. Obama: "In a neighbouring country, bandits, terrorists and murderers are in touch with American officials. They say 'Let's negotiate, let's start relations'. They have the slogan of 'change'. But where is the 'change'? 'Change' has to be real. You change, and we shall change as well." Is the Obama administration finally changing course and addressing the mother of all "injustices" that Tehran alleges successive U.S. administrations have perpetrated on Iran through the past three decades — the covert policy to seek a "regime change?"

 

]Of course, Tehran will wield influence over the new government in Baghdad so as to ensure that Iranian interests are not jeopardised. But it knows well enough that Mr. Maliki is first and foremost an Iraqi nationalist — so is Mr. Sadr — who is a master-tactician in balancing competing interest groups and superb practitioner of the politics of expediency. Mr. Maliki all along kept lines open to Tehran and Washington, besides having his own regional connections, as is apparent from his success in winning over Syria (which, along with Saudi Arabia and Jordan, has been supportive of Mr. Allawi) to his side. In sum, Tehran is accepting a power structure in Baghdad that is dominated by Shi'ite groups but accommodates Sunni groups and possibly at some stage Baathist elements as well. Iran's main consideration is that Iraq should remain stable and friendly.

 

Mr. Obama's enthusiasm for the Iraqi formula is equally meaningful. He called it "another milestone in the history of modern Iraq." He said Washington had been lobbying for precisely such a "broadbased government". In recent days he (and Vice-President Joe Biden) spoke to several Iraqi leaders, coaxing them to compromise, during which, as Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes put it, the President "reiterated our strong desire to see an inclusive government in Iraq, and welcomed the steps that have been taken toward reaching that goal." Mr. Obama called up Mr. Allawi to prevail upon him to agree to the current deal brokered by Iran and to hold positions in the partnership government. Of course, the U.S. would have to stay engaged in the coming period also. Mr. Allawi's followers seek the repeal of the "de-Baathification" laws so that Saddam Hussein's followers can hold office. This may not find favour with the Shi'ite and Kurdish groups. Again, it is unclear whether Mr. Mailki will allow his prime ministerial prerogatives to be circumscribed by the NCSP. The Shi'ite-Sunni power struggle has been institutionalised in Iraq.

 

To be sure, Mr. Obama's pragmatism in hailing a political dispensation in Iraq comprising stakeholders ranging from Arab nationalists, pro-Iranian Shi'ites and radical anti-American Islamists to U.S.-backed moderates (and possibly erstwhile Baathists) is noteworthy. How long can Mr. Obama shy away from showing statesmanship to the Hamas in Palestine and the Hezbollah in Lebanon — groups that have, like the Sadrists in Iraq, demonstrated their support via the ballot box? More important, is there scope for extending similar "pragmatism" to the Afghan conflict?

 

Although no two conflicts can be analogous, the contours of an Afghan settlement can be discerned from what has been happening in Iraq. By no means is Iraq's regional milieu less turbulent than are the raging storms in the region surrounding Afghanistan. Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran — they all have specific interests in Iraq. Iraqis and Afghans face similar problems of ethnicity and fragmentation of their political economies. Of course, Iraqi society is far more urbanised. But then, Afghanistan faces nothing like Kurdish separatism or Shi'ite-Sunni schism or the legacy of brutal authoritarianism. Yet, the big difference is that the Pakistani military leadership is yet to show the wisdom and cosmopolitanism of the Persian mind. It remains rooted in the tribal instincts of a zero-sum game. It continues to waffle on the core issue of Afghanistan's stability and takes recourse to detours — 'The road to Kabul runs through Kashmir,' etc.

 

The crucial difference is that in Iraq, General David Petraeus was allowed to do his job and the insurgency was checked so that the political processes could gain traction. The Taliban has to be weakened first. That is the game-changer in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has seemed to grasp this lately and the Pakistani generals are mighty upset about it. The strength of the Afghan Army and police is scheduled to reach 3,50,000 by 2013. Therefore, Mr. Obama should push back the July 2011 deadline for the start of the American drawdown. Hamid Karzai suggested 2014 as the key date for handing over the defence of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Concurring with Mr. Karzai will be Mr. Obama's "Afghan pragmatism".

 

(The writer is a former diplomat.)

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

NEWS ANALYSIS

AUNG SAN SUU KYI: I WAS BOTH PRISONER AND MAINTENANCE WOMAN

THE PRO-DEMOCRACY LEADER TELLS OF HER CAPTIVITY; THE MYANMAR CASE IS 'MORE DIFFICULT' THAN APARTHEID.

JACK DAVIES*

 

Finally free from the clutches of Myanmar's (Burma) ruling generals and the lonely life of house arrest they

subjected her to, Aung San Suu Kyi now finds she cannot escape from herself.

 

At the headquarters of her currently-outlawed political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), images of her are everywhere: on posters, calendars and pamphlets, T-shirts and earrings.

 

As she poses politely for photos, the Guardian asks who the golden bust behind her represents. "It's supposed to be me," she says. "I wish people wouldn't make busts or posters of me, it is a very strange thing to be looking at yourself all the time. It's not like this at my house, I promise you. I have pictures of my children." The building is filled to overflowing; a hundred conversations reverberate off the peeling wars and concrete floors. Today, there are more people than chairs, and those left without crouch against walls.

 

Spies watch

 

Across the road, perched on conspicuous orange motorbikes, the government's spies are kept busy, watching through camera lenses and binoculars. But Aung San Suu Kyi is unconcerned about the attention from the military's special branch. They will be her companion every day she is free.

 

"That is for them to worry about. I can only do what I feel I need to do, what I can do for the people of Myanmar," she says. "They will follow me, I cannot stop that. I cannot worry." Aung San Suu Kyi is 65, but looks 20 years younger. A hint of grey at her temples is the only physical sign of the strains of two decades spent resisting a brutal military regime. She has a piercing gaze, and her response is deliberate when pushed about the government's overt, hostile attention. She is not frightened that she could be detained again — a fate that has befallen her for 15 of the last 21 years.

 

"It is not a fear, it's a possibility that I live with. I understand that is the situation, and I have to accept it. They have done it before, and it is very possible they will do it again, but it is not something I fear every day. It is my situation." It is nearly a week since military officials came to her door at 54 University Avenue, Yangon (Rangoon), and told her she was free, noting perversely, her good behaviour.

 

Since then, she has been almost constantly in meetings of one sort or another. Diplomats and journalists have formed a queue to her door. She has taken phone calls from presidents and prime ministers. She has met with NLD party elders to discuss strategy and legal challenges.

 

But she has stopped too, amid the throng of admirers, to talk to people on the street, old women who claim kinship, children who have a flower for her.

 

She has spoken with her sons by phone every day — something she could never do before, though there is no word on when she will be allowed to see them — she has visited the high court to appeal against her party's disbanding, and visited an HIV/AIDS shelter. Everywhere she goes, she is mobbed.

 

She is happy, "because now I am free".

House arrest

 

She talks candidly about her years under house arrest, saying it was "far, far easier" than the time currently being served by Burma's 2,100 political prisoners. They must be freed before any real progress will be made, she insists.

 

Reluctantly, she concedes that there were moments of pessimism. "Despair is not the right word, but there were times that I would worry ... a lot, not so much for myself, for my situation, but for the future of the country." But she has little time for introspection and none for self-pity. The overwhelming feeling during the last seven-and-a-half years she spent confined to her damp, two-storey home was, she says, that "there weren't enough hours in the day".

 

"I had to listen to the radio for six hours every day, just to make sure I caught all of the Myanmarese programmes, just so I could keep up with what was going on. Because if I missed something, there was no one to come to tell me 'did you hear about' I needed to keep myself informed." She read, for work and pleasure, biographies and spy novels were favourites, and she meditated regularly. "And then there was the house to run and to maintain." She laughs at the ridiculous lengths the junta went to in its ad hoc imprisonment. "I was both prisoner and maintenance woman," she says, mimicking a feeble effort with a hammer.

 

"No one was allowed to come to fix the house. I had to fix everything that went wrong. The two people I was with (her live-in maids, a mother and daughter) were completely non-mechanical and non-electrical, so I had to learn with great difficulty how to do these things." She was not always successful. For several days following cyclone Nargis in 2008, the trio lived by candlelight.

 

But she is less interested in reflecting on the years of isolation than on what happens next in her country.

 

Comparison with South Africa

 

Internationally, Aung San Suu Kyi's release has been described as Myanmar's "Mandela moment", comparing it to the day in 1990 when Nelson Mandela walked free from prison in South Africa. She is wary of the comparison.

 

"I think that our situation is much more difficult than South Africa's. South Africa had already made some movement towards democracy when Mandela was released. Here in Myanmar, we are nowhere near that. We haven't even begun." South Africa's fault line was clear-cut, apartheid was based on race, she says. "Colour is something that everyone can see straight away. Here, it is less obvious who is who, because we are all Myanmarese. It is Myanmarese discriminating and oppressing Myanmarese.

 

"I have often thought everything would be much easier if all the NLD supporters were coloured purple. Then it would be obvious who is being jailed and who is discriminated against. And the international community would be angered more easily, they could easily say 'you cannot discriminate against the purples.'" Where Myanmar goes from here is unclear, she says, "we are a country in limbo."

 

She realises the power of her freedom to the people of Myanmar, though she is always conscious that there are many others in her movement, and thousands still in prison. "I don't believe in one person's influence and authority to move a country forward. I am honoured by the trust people have in me, but one person alone can not bring democracy to a country.

 

"Change is going to come from the people. I want to play my role ... I want to work in unison with the people of Myanmar, but it is they who will change this country." (Jack Davies is a Guardian reporter writing under a pseudonym)— © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2010

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

NEWS ANALYSIS

STUXNET WORM WAS PERFECT FOR SABOTAGING CENTRIFUGES

NEW FORENSIC WORK NARROWS THE RANGE OF TARGETS AND DECIPHERS ITS PLAN OF ATTACK. THE LATEST EVIDENCE DOES NOT PROVE IRAN WAS THE TARGET.

DAVID E. SANGER AND WILLIAM J. BROAD

 

Experts dissecting the computer worm suspected of being aimed at Iran's nuclear programme have determined that it was precisely calibrated in a way that could send nuclear centrifuges wildly out of control.

 

Their conclusion, while not definitive, begins to clear some of the fog around the Stuxnet worm, a malicious programme detected this year on computers, primarily in Iran but also India, Indonesia and other countries.

 

The paternity of the worm is still in dispute, but in recent weeks officials from Israel have broken into wide smiles when asked whether Israel was behind the attack, or knew who was. U.S. officials have suggested that it originated abroad.

 

Plan of attack

 

The new forensic work narrows the range of targets and deciphers the worm's plan of attack. Computer analysts say Stuxnet does its damage by making quick changes in the rotational speed of motors, shifting them rapidly up and down.

 

Changing the speed "sabotages the normal operation of the industrial control process," Eric Chien, a researcher at the computer security company Symantec, wrote in a blog post.

 

Those fluctuations, nuclear analysts said in response to the report, are a recipe for disaster among the thousands of centrifuges spinning in Iran to enrich uranium, which can fuel reactors or bombs. Rapid changes can cause them to blow apart. Reports issued by international inspectors reveal that Iran has experienced many problems keeping its centrifuges running, with hundreds removed from active service since summer 2009.

 

"We don't see direct confirmation" that the attack was meant to slow Iran's nuclear work, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said in an interview on November 18. "But it sure is a plausible interpretation of the available facts."

 

To hit certain equipment

 

Intelligence officials have said they believe that a series of covert programmes are responsible for at least some of that decline. So when Iran reported this year that it was battling the Stuxnet worm, many experts immediately suspected that it was a State-sponsored cyberattack.

 

Until last week, analysts had said only that Stuxnet was designed to infect certain kinds of Siemens equipment used in a wide variety of industrial sites. But a study released on November 19 by Mr. Chien, Nicolas Falliere and Liam O. Murchu at Symantec, concluded that the programme's real target was to take over frequency converters, a type of power supply that changes its output frequency to control the speed of a motor. The worm's code was found to attack converters made by two companies, Fararo Paya in Iran and Vacon in Finland. A separate study conducted by the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that finding, a senior government official said in an interview on November 18.

 

Then, on November 17, Mr. Albright and a colleague, Andrea Stricker, released a report saying that when the worm ramped up the frequency of the electrical current supplying the centrifuges, they would spin faster and faster. The worm eventually makes the current hit 1,410 Hertz, or cycles per second — just enough, they reported, to send the centrifuges flying apart.

 

In a spooky flourish, Mr. Albright said in the interview, the worm ends the attack with a command to restore the current to the perfect operating frequency for the centrifuges — which, by that time, would presumably be destroyed.

 

"It's striking how close it is to the standard value," he said.

 

The computer analysis, his November 17 report concluded, "makes a legitimate case that Stuxnet could indeed disrupt or destroy" Iranian centrifuge plants.

 

<>The latest evidence does not prove Iran was the target, and there have been no confirmed reports of industrial damage linked to Stuxnet. Converters are used to control a number of different machines, including lathes, saws and turbines, and they can be found in gas pipelines and chemical plants. But converters are also essential for nuclear centrifuges.

 

 

A game changer

 

On November 17, the chief of the Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity centre in Virginia, Sean McGurk, told a Senate committee that the worm was a "game changer" because of the skill with which it was composed and the care with which it was geared toward attacking specific types of equipment.

 

Meanwhile, the search for other clues in the Stuxnet programme continues and so do the theories about its origins.

 

From Israel?

 

Ralph Langner, a German expert in industrial control systems who has examined the programme and who was the first to suggest that the Stuxnet worm may have been aimed at Iran, noted in late September that a file inside the code was named "Myrtus." That could be read as an allusion to Esther, and he and others speculated it was a reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.

 

Writing on his website last week, Langner noted that a number of the data modules inside the programme contained the date "Sept. 24, 2001," clearly long before the programme was actually written. He wrote that he believed the date was a message from the authors of the programme, but did not know what it might mean.

 

Last month, researchers at Symantec also speculated that a string of numbers found in the programme — 19790509 — while seeming random, might actually be significant. They speculated that it might refer to May 9, 1979, the day that Jewish-Iranian businessman Habib Elghanian was executed in Iran after being convicted of spying for Israel.

 

Interpreting what the clues might mean is a fascinating exercise for computer experts and conspiracy theorists, but it could also be a way to mislead investigators.

 

Indeed, according to one investigator, the creation date of the data modules might instead suggest that the original attack code in Stuxnet was written long before the programme was actually distributed. According to Tom Parker, a computer security specialist at Securicon LLC, a security consulting firm based in Washington, the Stuxnet payload appeared to have been written by a team of highly skilled programmers, while the "dropper" programme that delivered the programme reflected an amateur level of expertise.

 

He said the fact that Stuxnet was detected and had spread widely was an indicator that it was a failed operation.

 

"The end target is going to be able to know they were the target, and the attacker won't be able to use this technique again," he said. (John Markoff contributed reporting.) —© New York Times News Service

 

***************************************

 

THE HINDU

POWER SHIP TO SUPPLY ELECTRICITY-STARVED PAKISTAN

 

The world's largest ship-based power plant has arrived off the Pakistani coast to try to mitigate the country's chronic electricity shortages, a company official said on November 19.

 

The new supply still won't come close to ending electricity shortages that plague Pakistan, increasing widespread public frustration with the U.S.-allied government as it struggles to contain the Taliban insurgency.

 

The ship, which burns furnace oil, will generate about 230 megawatts for the national power grid, said Asad Mahmood, a spokesman for the vessel's Turkish owner Karkey Karadeniz Electrik. The owner has a five-year contract with the Pakistani national power company.

 

Now anchored off the southern port city Karachi, the Kaya Bey will begin feeding into the national grid within four weeks after a dedication ceremony on November 21, Mr. Mahmood said.

 

The ship's contribution will only make a dent in the overall power crisis. Pakistan's energy demands outstrip supply by an estimated 5,000 MW, thanks to a lack of investment, soaring usage and a crumbling electricity generation infrastructure that heavily relies on hydropower.

 

Power outages last up to 16 hours per day in some areas and damage industrial growth. The situation is worst in summer, when temperatures soar but power cuts mean that fans and air conditioners won't work.— AP

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

EDITORIAL

HEED TRAI, START THE CLEANUP NOW

 

It is the mood of the present, generated by the resignation of controversial communications minister A. Raja and the sense of some political uncertainty that has ensued, that probably explains the recent recommendation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to cancel 62 of the 122 spectrum licences issued by the former minister.

Knowledgeable commentators had indeed begun to advise such a course so that some of the money lost to the national exchequer be recouped and politically connected offenders brought to book.

The licence-baggers were supposed to roll out their network in 10 per cent of every district within a year. Not only did they renege on this, they also got away without paying the penalty of `5 lakhs per week per circle for the first 13 weeks of delay, increasing progressively to `20 lakhs for delays up to 26 weeks. Could this have happened without a quid pro quo? The real story is that the licence-baggers were waiting for buyers for these licences so that they could exit the scene after making a killing. Many of them had nothing to do with telecommunications in the first place, but had the political clout to get the scarce and much-in-demand spectrum. For them it was a big money-making business, as illustrated by the case of Swan Telecom — earlier controlled by the builders DB Group. It used influence to get the licence for `1,651 crores and sold it to a party from the UAE for `4,000 crores without any network or even equipment being ordered. Others were waiting to do the same. They also realised that revenues per minute were dropping in the sector and wanted out.
With the Trai recommendation coming in, the government should act on it with dispatch unless it wishes to be regarded with suspicion even with Mr Raja gone. Noises are already being made about customers being harmed if the licences are taken away. Some would rather that penalties weren't collected, arguing speciously that these are enormous. The offending companies claim to have 1.3 crore subscribers, but there could be a well-founded view that the real figures might be just half of this. So it won't be a big deal if the licences are indeed revoked, repudiating the self-serving arguments being advanced. Let us not reward the offenders. A provision in the licence says that if for some reason a party cannot fulfil its obligations, then the government can take it over. Thus, it could be that either BSNL or MTNL can take over the subscribers who might find themselves at a loose end. Another measure that needs to be adopted is to auction the spectrum that has been taken over to the existing serious players, whose could number about 200 out of the 575 who applied for licences. The government is said to have about 10-15 megahertz of spare spectrum. This could be auctioned. Based on the price-level achieved for this transaction, it could auction the spectrum of the 62 licensees named by Trai. Only the serious players will remain under this method, and the government might stand to earn handsomely as it did for the 3G auction.

It is to state the obvious to suggest that the government must also immediately seek to trace the money that the national exchequer has lost, no matter how influential the carpet-baggers might be — whether they are politicians, bureaucrats or corporate entities. Here we are not talking of relatively small sums that could be hidden in a mattress, Sukh Ram style. Worse, the stakes are likely to get political soon, and a cleaning up of the Augean stables cannot be postponed for long.

 

***************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

OPINION

TOLERATING INTOLERANCE

FARRUKH DHONDY

 

"I loved a dog He loved me back Then he found a bitch —
Alas! Alack!"

From Laments of a Petwalla by Bachchoo

 

The old ones are, on occasion, the best:

"The difference between Iran and Britain? In Iran you commit adultery and get stoned, in Britain you get stoned and commit adultery, boo-boom!"

 

Thatone is descriptive and, looking at it all ways, harmless. Telling it, in Britain at any rate, shouldn't cause you to be arrested, prosecuted or persecuted. There is, as far as my lay knowledge stretches, no law against characterising Iran as a rather nasty place or against jesting about the loose morals of Brits. But as Milan Kundera made us aware in the masterpiece that brought him and his writing to the attention of the world, a joke, however harmless, can bring the horsemen of the Apocalypse in the shape of the secret police, the apparat of the Communist Party and the Stalinist abyss to your door. Kundera's novel is set in Soviet Czechoslovakia. The story begins with its hero being sent off to hard labour in the mines for sending a postcard to his girlfriend denigrating the optimism of Party propaganda as "the opium of the people" and wishing at the same time the renegade Trotsky a long life.

British mines have been, for the most part, shut since the regime of Margaret Thatcher and today's Party dissidents, as far as I know, can't be punished by being sent down them. So at least the fate of Kundera's hero doesn't await Counsellor Gareth Compton, the Conservative who was arrested and suspended indefinitely from the Tory Party for what he admits was a feeble attempt at a joke he posted on Twitter.

Mr Compton's Twitter account has been closed down and today he must feel much as Kundera's joker felt. Mr Compton has been charged by the West Midland's police for "sending an offensive or indecent message", racially aggravated it is said — and if he is brought to court and convicted, he faces being banned from his profession as a barrister.

Mr Compton was reacting to the broadcast opinion of the columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown who was invited onto Radio Five Live's Breakfast Show to talk about British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to China. There was a difference of opinion on whether he should condemn China's record on human rights. Ms Brown was of the opinion that no politician had any moral right to condemn human rights abuses, not even the stoning to death of women under Sharia law.

Mr Compton Tweeted his reaction to this opinion, or perhaps passed an implicit verdict on all her opinions expressed over the years, mainly in the Independent, saying "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing really".

Soon after, he posted another Tweet to say his previous Tweet was an ill-conceived attempt at humour and he didn't mean any offence.

It is reasonable to conclude that this regretful retraction was the result of a little reflection (or of instant warnings from friends) about the possible consequences for himself, of this impulsive burst of intended humour. It certainly wasn't a hasty retraction rescinding an order to inflict fatal harm on Ms Brown, because even a junior Conservative councillor from Erdington in Birmingham must realise that he is almost powerless to get the bins cleared on time, leave aside condemning anyone to death by stoning.

However unfunny the joke, the context, the culture, the country in which it was made, the concern that his leader Mr Cameron and Party have the moral duty to condemn the stoning to death of a woman in Iran, indicate that Mr Compton could have had no illusions or intention that his joke was any sort of "fatwa". It wasn't the word of an Ayatollah asking Muslims to murder Salman Rushdie. It wasn't the word of some cleric telling his congregation that British soldiers were kafirs who should be sent to hell by any means necessary. It was a laddish, ironic joke by someone who obviously wants stoning to death condemned.

Ms Brown is not herself without a sense of historic vengeance, though perhaps a little devoid of ironic appreciation. In one exchange some years ago, if I remember correctly, Gavin Essler, a TV journalist responded to something she was saying by asking, "What's wrong with white guys, by the way?"
Ms A-B replied, "I don't like them. I want them to be the lost species in a hundred years". Hitler was more ambitious.
And so to a confession: The evening before the Radio Five Live broadcast and Mr Compton's folly, I was invited to the premiere of a play by a touring Mumbai theatre group at a West London venue. The audience was largely of South Asian origin. After the play there was a reception in the foyer and I spotted the same Yasmin Alibhai Brown speaking to some friends of mine. I am not well acquainted with Ms Brown but have met her on several occasions and exchanged anodyne pleasantries. I went up to the group, greeted my friends and said, "Hello Yasmin".

She turned and left the group saying: "I am not speaking to you, you are dangerous".

However flattering it may be to be deemed and dubbed "dangerous", I was baffled as were my friends. They asked why I was dangerous. I said I was unaware of ever having given any offence, intentional or otherwise. I don't do Twitter and I am not on any blog or website.

Then it occurred to me that the snub may have been the result of Ms Brown knowing that I am acquainted with a niece of hers, one Farah Damji, a writer and self-confessed fraudster and convict and I have been told by both that they are not friends. But then a lot of people have come across and made the acquaintance of Farah Damji and surely Ms Brown doesn't believe that it makes them all "dangerous".

The snub remained mildly puzzling until I remembered that I once said to someone apropos of her columns that Ms Brown "had put the 'aunty' back in 'dilettante'". I am not conscious of having put such the remark out on Twitter but it obviously got back.

Now all I can do is put the chain on and wait for the knock at dawn.

 

***************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

OPINION

ENCASH OBAMA'S UNSC CHEQUE

DILIP LAHIRI

 

U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement in Parliament that "in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council (UNSC) that includes India as a permanent member" was greeted with immediate euphoria. However, its highly nuanced formulation has subsequently raised many questions.

 

The UNSC expansion involves a two-step process. An amendment of the UN Charter, requiring 128 votes in the General Assembly has to be followed by ratification by two-third of the UN membership, including the five permanent members of the Security Council (P5). The resolution for the only other expansion in 1963 was adopted in the General Assembly with France and the USSR voting against, and the US and UK abstaining. However, all permanent members eventually ratified the charter amendment, allowing the expansion to go forward. The crux of the matter now is to find a formula which can win 128 votes in the General Assembly.
The current line-up is that the G4, consisting of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, have proposed an increase of the UNSC from the current 15 to 25, with six additional permanent members (themselves and two from the African Union). They have sought to finesse the veto question by postponing the issue for 15 years. The African Union (AU) has a variant which wants expansion to 26 with the veto either being abolished or extended immediately to the six additional permanent members.

The most vociferous opponents of this approach are a group of countries unalterably opposed to one or other of the G4, called "Uniting for Consensus" (UfC), led by Italy and Pakistan. Their proposal is for 10 new non-permanent members eligible for immediate re-election, no expansion in the permanent category, with all decisions in this matter being taken by consensus. The numbers in the above group are not large enough to block an expansion resolution. A straw vote a few years ago of countries supporting UNSC expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories gathered 140 votes, well above the 128 required for passage of an expansion formula.

Faced with the prospect of prolonged deadlock, France and the UK have proposed an intermediate reform which would add a number of temporary seats that would become permanent after some time if the members so wished. The UfC has opposed the proposal due to the danger, as they see it, of temporary members being transformed into permanent members.

The biggest obstacle at this time to achieving the 128 vote target is the position of the African group, which insists on designating the two proposed permanent members from Africa, without being able to decide among several claimants. None of the claimants are prepared to chance a vote without the endorsement of the 53-member strong African group.

Other major obstacles to achieving the 128 vote target are the opposition of the US to more than a limited expansion of the UNSC beyond, say, 20, and the demand of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the League of Arab States for an assured share of the cake.

Voting in contested elections for the Security Council is a highly chancy exercise. Committed votes often do not materialise, as India found to its cost when losing two elections against Japan and Pakistan. In this year's contest for two non-permanent seats between Germany, Canada and Portugal, Canada reportedly had 136 written commitments, but ended up getting 113 in the first round, and 78 in the second before it withdrew.
While the UNSC restructuring may not be an immediate prospect, there could be very quick movement if the question of the two permanent members from the African group could be resolved, or an appropriate resolution, based on the UK-French intermediate proposal, came up for voting in the General Assembly. If the African group got its act together , there is no reason why the G4, acting together with Nigeria and South Africa, and with the support of UK and France, should not be able to garner the 128 votes for their endorsement as permanent members.

With this background, the real substance of Mr Obama's support can be analysed.

w Is it a big deal? Absolutely. US support may not be a sufficient condition for obtaining a permanent seat, but it is certainly a necessary condition. Active opposition by the US would have made 128 votes unattainable.
w Does it commit the US to support India for early realisation of this objective? Not necessarily. The words "in the years ahead" are similar to Mr Obama's Prague declaration on a nuclear weapon free world which was, according to him, unlikely to happen in his lifetime.

w Does it commit the US to support a vote, which may be essential to clinch matters? No, not unless explicitly agreed.

w Does this commit the US not to oppose expansion of the UNSC including India beyond 20, as has been their consistent position in the past? No.

There is, therefore, much work to be done with the UN membership and much to consult and clarify with the US. The Japanese were promised support by the US on this matter in even more explicit terms decades ago, but have still to cash in their cheque.

The one luxury India cannot afford is to get persuaded by the siren songs of the "sour grapes" advocates who say that the UN Security Council seat, particularly if without the veto, is not worth so much effort, that it is demeaning to have to keep asking motley countries for support, or that permanent membership will be offered to India on a platter as our political and economic strength grows.

For all its weaknesses, the UNSC is the only body whose decisions under Chapter 7 relating to peace and security are required to be implemented by all countries under international law. Permanent membership of the Security Council is an important determinant of rank in the international pecking order. India will repent at leisure if it gives up the race now only to find, after some years, that countries with lesser weight but greater perseverance have left us irretrievably a rung lower in the international hierarchy.

 

Dilip Lahiri is a former ambassador to Japan

 

***************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

OPINION

MONITORING MINDS

SHOBHAA DE

 

Poor Pamela Anderson. Imagine the woman's plight… her entire identity is located in her mammary glands. The world largely knows her for the size of her breasts. It is as if the rest of her doesn't exist… doesn't really count. Pam is a woman attached to the world's most talked-about boobs. And most people talk to her chest. Good sport

 

that she obviously is, this famous Playboy Bunny is not complaining. She admitted candidly to a Mumbai reporter, "My assets get me in the door". That's truthful. But that's also smart. Here's a woman who has made a small fortune flaunting her twin peaks. Her cup size is what has taken her places. She is not embarrassed to admit as much. If anything, her bouncies are her best friends. The Baywatch star is, finally, in the land of the Kamasutra… clad in a clingy, diaphanous white sari, Pam richly deserves the nearly one crore rupees a day she'll be earning as a participant in a much-watched reality show. With her entry, all the other Bigg Boss bombshells (past and present) appear totally pheeka… underdeveloped.
Perhaps, it is the arrival of Bazooka Pam that prompted the Indian government to suddenly wake up to the "X-rated" content of some shows and clamp a few meaningless restrictions on them. By trying to push back the slots of shows that beam "objectional and vulgar" content to 11 pm, some prudish babus must be patting themselves on the back for saving the country from moral degradation. Give us a break, fellas. The information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry officials should get a few basics in place first. Bared breasts and crude abuses no longer send shock waves across the nation. We, in India, are used to the sight of uncovered bosoms (women happily breastfeed their babies in crowded train compartments) and the gaalis Rakhi Sawant spouts on her show are mild compared to what one hears from politicians and members of Parliament in public. Balasaheb Thackeray spares nobody when he decides to lash out — his abuses cover generations and involve animals, sisters, mothers, brothers, friends and enemies. So what? Does that lead to rioting on the streets? If this silly directive is designed to protect our children, someone please tell those fellows, desi children rarely sleep before midnight. We are not British. Our kids are seen and heard. Annoying but true. In which middle class Indian family are the bachchas packed off to bed at 7 pm after supper at 6 pm? Television time largely remains unmonitored and unrestricted. It is considered bonding time. Families that watch heaving bosoms and hectic pelvic thrusts together, stay together. Big deal. What kids watch (or aren't supposed to) ought to be the parents' and not the government's responsibility. Going by this new "adults only" ruling, what about commercial Hindi films that feature the most provocative "item songs" and are peppered with abuses with actors screaming "bastard" routinely? Kids watch those and worse… so why the double standards? One set of rules for television programming, another for cinema?
Our society is schizophrenic and confused. News bulletins carry detailed reports about a villainous cop called S.P.S. Rathore, who molested Ruchika Girhotra, a teenager, but are not allowed to carry clips from reality shows that are deemed offensive. What could be worse or more obscene than the smug smile of a sexual predator whose defenceless victim (Ruchika) committed suicide? There are rapist cops on the loose in nearly every city of India. The TV reportage of such cases is anything but coy, restrained or discreet. Sensationalising news while focusing on the gory aspects of crime has become the rule, given the unhealthy TRP wars being fought fiercely by the big players. So-called "talent hunts" on television, featuring precocious kids indulging in the most risqué dance moves, remain unmonitored and accessible to any and everybody. In any case, what's the Internet for if not to surf? How many parents check what their precious bachchalog watch obsessively for hours on end?
This new government diktat is meaningless and unfair. All reality shows are phoney, most are fixed. This is the space in which appalling taste meets eager eyeballs. So be it. The ultimate power remains in the hands of viewers. The person who holds the remote control, is the sole decision-maker as to what is acceptable viewing and what isn't. Indians are not sheep. Let us, the viewers, be the ones to take a call on whether or not we wish to ogle Ms Anderson's ample assets or clean our ears after Ms Sawant is done with her raving and ranting on camera. Whether it is the bleeped out cuss words on Emotional Atyachaar or the aggro attitude displayed by Roadies on a rampage — this is the 21st century, folks. Anything goes! So long as it sells. Before the government gets into the act and dictates what our kids can watch and when, how about a thorough scrutiny of what constitutes actual pornography in today's transparent times — like the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings? That is perhaps the only time concerned parents feel like shielding the eyes and plugging the ears of impressionable kids. Pamela's boobs harm nobody. But the atrocious behaviour of some of our netas definitely damages the delicate psyches of India's youth. Pamela will pick up her pay packet and jet off to Malibu to be with her two sons, Dylan, 13, and Brandon, 14. We, in India, will be left panting for more. Unless, of course, those amazingly canny TV bosses locate an international has-been with even bigger body parts, or a local starlet with a filthier vocabulary than our Rakhi's.
Tauba! Tauba! What will those moralistic masterjis in the I&B ministry do then? 3.30 am may become the new slot for prime time viewing. Even at that ghastly hour, our pesky kids will be wide awake and watching. Bottoms up, everyone.

 

— Readers can send feedback to www.shobhaade.blogspot.com

 

***************************************

 

 

******************************************************************************************

DNA

EDITORIAL

MIND YOUR MANNERS

AKSHAYA MISHRA

 

Look, who's talking manners. It's Navjot Singh Sidhu, and the man who must learn it, the former cricketer feels, is Rahul Gandhi. Well, in the good old days, when TV was not a pervasive presence, it would have evoked some chuckles and a bit of that snide 'look at yourself in the mirror'

 

remark. Not anymore.

 

With basic instincts ruling the roost in the age of real and reality shows, Sidhu might well be right. Rahul comes across as an old school gent. He'd better watch TV more.

 

Illuminating. That is what you might call your everyday TV experience. It throws light on all the dark aspects of the human character that good upbringing and sober pontificating from elders seek to hide. So there you have it all: Scheming housewives, nasty in-laws, diabolical relatives and twisty, evil plots. Give it to the idiot box.

 

Nobody gives the myth of the great

 

Indian family such daily battering as TV does. But we all enjoy that, don't we?

 

Now, back to manners. Reality TV has redefined them as possibly no saint or holy book could. It has brought street language, profanities included, to homes and made it acceptable too. Dolly Bindra is a cute darling. She picks up fights and lets out

 

invective-loaded curses. Rakhi Sawant delivers justice in a show where participants hurl shoes and bad language at each other. There are more blips than words in conversations in many shows.

 

But vulgarity is what sends TRPs soaring. Manners are for the sissies. Here's a curious case of a parent trying to

 

decipher the language of his five-year-old twins. "Papa, you, blip, blip. How come you blip, blip?''

 

The 'blip, blips' were an imitation of the cover-up for bad language used on TV shows, the man realised later. The kids had turned it into a game of missing words.

 

"What if the boys pick up the real words and replace the blip, blips with them?'' he wondered, panicking a bit. Reality shows do to the manners what a rapist does to his victims, he says often.

 

But to be fair to these shows, they have been designed to bring out the worst in the participants. Notoriety is an essential qualification here. "Switch off if you are not interested. You have been forewarned,'' the makers would say.

 

But what about regular shows? They also have turned sophistication into a virtue of nerds. "Provoke them, bring the animal in the man out and rip apart that veneer of dignity." This seems to be the standing guideline here. Watch anchors butting in during debates, participants getting into a shouting match and nobody really making a point while everybody is busy proving a point.

 

No wonder, TV has spawned a

 

personality type, exclusively designed

 

for it. The prerequisites are clear: a loud mouth and go for the jugular mindset. Manners, of course, have to wait. These are obsession of losers. For Rahul Gandhi, it will take a lot of unlearning.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

CANCELLING THE LICENCES

TIME FOR TRAI TO DO SPRING CLEANING

 

AS the Opposition has forced Parliament to adjourn and the Supreme Court has become proactive in pursuing the Raja case to its logical conclusion, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) too has jumped in to remove the stink left behind by the disgraced Telecom Minister from the DMK. TRAI has asked the government to cancel 62 licences of five telecom operators for network rollout failures. The CAG has found that 85 of the 122 licences were issued to companies that did not meet the eligibility criteria. It has slammed the ministry for not recovering the Rs 679 crore penalty from the licence-awardees for missing the network rollout deadlines.

 

Obviously, Raja was not working alone in handing over licences to the favourite companies on the so-called first-come, first-served basis. There were bureaucrats helping the boss in the shady deals. Some of them continue to be in positions of power. While Raja has been shown the door, they too need to be removed and brought to justice. The new minister, Mr Kapil Sibal, should also re-examine the government case in the Supreme Court, which is largely in defence of Raja. The Telecom Ministry's affidavit reportedly claims that the courts have, at best, " a limited role in looking at policy matters". The government should ask the Supreme Court for more time and present a fresh affidavit in keeping with the changed scenario.

 

Though the "licence-permit raj" has been banished from parts of the polity, it has continued to flourish right under the nose of the "original reformers". The wily DMK leadership knew the "revenue-generating potential" of ministries like Telecom and Highways and insisted on getting these lucrative portfolios for the party MPs, extracting a good price for its support to the UPA government. The Congress has itself to blame if part of the telecom scam mud is hurled at its top leaders. The party not only gave in to DMK blackmail but also tried to defend the indefensible.

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

ON A STICKY WICKET

YEDDYURAPPA MUST QUIT ON MORAL GROUNDS

 

MR B.S. YEDDYURAPPA'S continuation as the Chief Minister of Karnataka has become untenable following reports of his alleged involvement in a multi-crore land scam in the state. Ironically, at a time when the Bharatiya Janata Party is in the forefront of the Opposition campaign against corruption, it is applying different standards for the Congress and the BJP. While it is demanding a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into three scams — 2G Spectrum allocation, Commonwealth Games and Mumbai's Adarsh Housing Society scandal — and asking the Prime Minister to "come clean" about his purported delay in responding to Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's petition seeking his sanction to prosecute former Telecommunication Minister A. Raja, the BJP doesn't see the need to direct Mr Yeddyurappa to quit office on moral grounds.

 

Bowing to mounting pressure, Mr Yeddyurappa's son and daughter have surrendered their respective plots to the government. These plots were illegally de-notified and then allotted to them. The surrender amounts to admission of guilt by the Chief Minister. While Mr B.Y. Raghavendra, MP, surrendered a 50x80 feet plot allotted to him in the upscale RMV Extension in Bangalore, Ms Umadevi sought cancellation of two acres of industrial land allotted to her near Harohalli by the Karnataka Industrial Development Board. The State Cabinet has also ordered a judicial probe into the allotment of land by successive governments in the state in the last 10 years. What is the BJP government's intention of ordering a probe that also covers the governments of Mr S.M. Krishna, Union External Affairs Minister, Mr Dharam Singh (both Congress) and Mr H.D. Kumaraswamy (Janata Dal-Secular)? Doesn't this amount to sidestepping the main issue of Mr Yeddyurappa's alleged involvement in the land scam? In any case, a free and fair investigation into the scandal is not possible as long as Mr Yeddyurappa is at the helm of affairs in the state.

 

Moreover, if Congress leaders like Mr Ashok Chavan and Mr Shashi Tharoor have quit their respective posts because of the public perception of their roles, Mr Yeddyurappa falls in the same category and hence cannot claim any immunity from action. Surely, the BJP leaders in Bangalore and New Delhi cannot take the high moral ground and preach principles to the Congress while prescribing different standards for their own people. It would only be fair if Mr Yeddyurappa resigns voluntarily and upholds the sanctity of the high office.

 

***************************************

 

THE TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

NEPAL'S MAOIST PROBLEM

ACCUSING INDIA WILL NOT DO

 

IF the Maoists are to be believed, India is responsible for most of the problems Nepal has been faced with since the end of the monarchy there. Whenever they find an opportunity they accuse India of "intervention" in Nepal. In their opinion, India is also responsible for Nepal's inability to elect a leader to form a government in Kathmandu. The Himalayan nation has been run by a caretaker government since the Madhav Kumar Nepal ministry resigned five months ago. It must have a democratically elected government soon for peace and stability in the country. But the Maoists seem to be preoccupied with seeing an end to "unequal" treaties like the Nepal-India Friendship Treaty of 1950.

 

The Maoists have made the maximum contribution to the present state of uncertainty in Nepal. The Madhav Nepal coalition government, which had been doing reasonably well, had to resign owing to the unrealistic demands of the Maoists. The failure to find a new leader to head the government has brought the country to the edge of a precipice. Somehow caretaker Finance Minister Surendra Pandey succeeded in presenting the annual budget on Friday despite the opposition from the UCPN (Maoists). The government was on the verge of collapse without any provision for funds to run its affairs.

 

Now the peace accord signed by Nepal's political parties stands threatened with the Maoists insisting on allowing their armed cadres — members of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) — to attend the November 21 plenary session of the UCPN (Maoists). Besides the caretaker government, the UN peace mission in Nepal has urged Maoist supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias Prachanda, to keep the PLA away from the plenum, keeping in view the Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. So far, the Maoists are refusing to listen to any advice. They do not seem to have abandoned their earlier agenda of having a communist dictatorship. As pointed out by India's Ambassador in Kathmandu Rakesh Sood, they recently gave training to a group of Indian Maoists in Nepal. This shows that the Nepalese Maoists remain a threat to peace and stability not only in Nepal but also in India.

 

 ***************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE TRIBUNE

ARTICLE

AMERICA'S $4-TRILLION QUESTION

TOUGH TIMES AHEAD FOR OBAMA

BY INDER MALHOTRA

 

PRESIDENT Barack Obama's visit to India has been hailed on both sides as a great success, and justifiably so. For the rest, however, he is getting no kudos from his countrymen. On the contrary, on his return home, the United States is seething with resentment against its President's inability to accomplish anything during his stay in Seoul, especially at the G-20 summit. Not only did South Korea refuse to sign a trade agreement with him but also the G-20 "rebuffed" him on more counts than one. It "shunned" a US plan to "reconcile" the divisions over trade imbalances and exchange rates, and even refused to heed his request to sharpen its criticism of China for keeping the exchange rate of its currency artificially low. Ironically, countries like Germany and Brazil rubbed in that the infusion of $600 billion in the US economy by its Federal Reserve was nothing short of "competitive devaluation".

 

Even more hurtfully, his major domestic difficulties hounded him through his Asian journey. At a Press conference in the South Korean capital he tried to deal with at least two of these. The first was a report that a bipartisan commission presented during his absence on how to reduce the burgeoning budget deficit. Some of its recommendations have evoked a howl of protest. For instance, the recommendation for higher taxes on high-income groups and abolition of deduction on mortgages above a certain limit are anathema to the Republic Party that has just won the control of the House of Representatives. The reaction to the suggestion for increasing from 65 to 69 the age at which social security becomes operational has also been hostile. The commission's idea of adding 15 cents a gallon to the tax on gasoline has predictably proved highly unpopular in a country that practically lives on wheels.

 

President Obama pleaded with the American people not to reject the commission's bipartisan findings out of hand but to give them fair consideration in their entirety. After all, the commission had also recommended a $100-billion cut in defence expenditure, reducing farm subsidy by $ 3 billion and lowering of corporate tax.

 

However, the bipartisan Deficit Commission's report is something that would be discussed by the two Houses of the US Congress for months, if not much longer. What is hurting the Obama administration the more is an extremely difficult yet emotive issue that has to be resolved within the next four weeks or it might not be resolved at all. It is the future of President George W. Bush's tax cuts, and the Americans rightly call it the $4-trillion question because that is its cost over a decade.

 

Mr Bush's tax cuts to everyone, including the richest, would end on December 31, if they are not extended beyond that date. Since well before the mid-term elections President Obama's position has been that tax cuts of all middle-class households earning less than a quarter million dollars a year and constituting 98 per cent of the tax payers be made permanent but those given to the richest families should be abolished. But the Republicans firmly demand that all tax cuts be made permanent.

 

This, argues the President, would "bust the budget" The Republicans waved it aside contemptuously during the elections and are deriding it now. Because they have surged to power in the legislature, they think they can get what they want.

 

Mr Obama is, therefore, on the horns of a difficult dilemma. If he succumbs to the Republicans dictate, he alienates a great many of his core supporters. If he digs his heels in, he could sink deeper in the morass. For, come January 1 and all middle-class Americans would lose their tax benefits and thus be plunged into greater misery than the economic recession has already heaped on them. To save them from this fate, the future of the Bush tax cuts must be decided by the Lame Duck Congress in which the Democrats have a majority. This Congress will go out of business when its last session ends just before Christmas. Unpredictability about the new Congress has escalated the anxiety of the overwhelming majority of the people. This should explain why at his Press conference at Seoul, as in his first Press conference at the White House after the stinging defeat, Mr Obama spoke of his willingness to "compromise" with the Republicans during the last session of the Lame Duck Congress. But the real question is what kind of a compromise would be feasible?

 

Quite clearly, the President and his party cannot agree to making the tax cuts of the rich permanent though they may be forced to extend them temporarily. In that case the Republicans, assuming that they are inclined to compromise at all, would almost certainly insist that all extensions should be temporary. Interestingly, a number of non-partisan individuals have strongly urged that all the Bush tax cuts be extended for a two-year period at the most and the whole issue be reviewed well before the expiry of the new deadline. That means that the controversy would be at its height during the 2012 Presidential poll.

 

The American concern for the super-rich is surprising. So much so that those who argue that the rich should forgo the tax cuts because this would mean only a "small hit, not a body blow", are usually shouted down. Nobody bothers that the money thus saved from letting the high-end tax cuts expire — estimated at $40 billion in 2011 and more later — could be used for creating new jobs, the most pressing need of the hour.

 

The context in which the rich are being coddled is no less than staggering. When the Bush tax cuts came into force in 2007, the top 1 per cent of the Americans — "the uppermost of the upper crust" — were claiming almost a fourth of the total national income, their highest share since 1928. Remarkably, when Ronald Reagan ushered in the brave new era of "modern conservatism" the share of the top 1 per cent was "one-tenth".

 

It is fashionable to claim even in this rather troubled era of globalisation that rapid economic growth has a "trickle down" effect that should be welcome to the poor. In the words of an American economist, all the fruits of government policy since Mr George Bush evidently "trickle upwards, to the top, mostly to a tiny sliver atop the top".

 

 ***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

MIDDLE

A FLY ON THE WALL

BY RACHNA SINGH

 

WOULD you like to be a 'fly in the ointment'? A 'bee in the bonnet'? A 'snake in the grass'? A 'wolf in sheep's clothing'? I'm sure not. Neither have I ever desired to join the animal ilk.

 

But of late I am being driven by an unknown compulsion to be a fly on the wall. Let me assure you it has nothing to do with being an animal-o-phile in general or a fly-o-phile in particular. Nor does it have anything to do with a 'karma' dependent human-animal reincarnation. It also has nothing to do with any Freudian voyeuristic compulsions (thank God!).Why then was a happy human suddenly gripped by a desire to be a fly on the wall? 

 

It all started some years back. I was given an assignment which involved representing cases in the tribunal. After the arguments in court in a couple of big cases, I was convinced that the cases would be adjudicated in my favour. But to my utter disbelief the decisions were contrary to my expectations. I gathered from informal sources that the 'other party' had taken some out-of-court pleas that had swung the cases in their favour. At such a time how I wished I was privy to the all-important pleas. How I wished I was a fly on the wall.

 

At another time, I was working 'busy as a bee' in my workplace, in the happy expectation of being granted a coveted field assignment. But one fine day as I entered my office 'bright-eyed and bushy-tailed', I was told that a junior colleague had been given the assignment in my stead. How had this unhappy state of affairs come about?  Was it my work? Or was it some extraneous consideration? How could I find out? Simple. By being a fly on the wall. 

 

With the passage of time the compulsion slowly faded but only to raise its insistent head at important times in my life. When my beloved jade figurine went missing. When my interview for a coveted assignment was being rated. When a cyst was being examined for malignancy. Oh how I wished at times like these that I was a fly on the wall and witness to all that was happening behind closed doors. 

 

Many of my friends disagree and righteously point out that being privy to existential or other secrets would take the zing out of life. That it is the inaccessibility of the shadowy depths of the world that add excitement and interest to life. And to be a fly on the wall would take away that extra 'zing'. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are not.

 

**************************************

 

THE TRIBUNE

DEFENCE DEALS: STING OF THE US LAW

PROCUREMENT OF AIRCRAFT FROM THE US IS WELCOME, BUT RESTRICTIONS THAT AMERICAN LAWS PLACE ON MILITARY SUPPLIES TRANSCEND THE ARMED FORCES AS USERS, HAVING STRATEGIC RAMIFICATIONS AND IMPINGING ON NATIONAL SECURITY. ADEQUATE THOUGHT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE EVOLVING INDO-US MILITARY PARTNERSHIP AND A LOT OF HARD WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO UNDERSTAND AND BRIDGE SENSITIVE DIFFERENCES

AIR MARSHAL B.D. JAYAL (RETD)

 

PROPOSING a National Aeronautical Policy in 1994, then President of the Aeronautical Society of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, had stated, "Aviation is one of the most significant technological influences of modern time and empowers the nation with strength for international partnership. It is a major tool for economic development and has a significant role in national security and international relations".

 

Not surprisingly, one of the high points of the recent visit of the US President to India, which was as much to promote US exports as fostering next steps in strategic partnership, was a single deal for procuring ten C-17 Globemaster III strategic heavy-lift aircraft worth about 4.1 billion dollars.

 

Earlier, the IAF had signed for six C-130J Hercules transport aircraft modified and equipped for special operations and three Boeing-737 business jets for VVIP duties. Besides, Indian Navy is procuring eight P-81 long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft. The first two procurements are through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route, involving direct government-to-government dealing. Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) procures the equipment on behalf of India and charges a commission. The Boeings and P-81s went through the direct sale route, though these are subject to "End Use Monitoring Agreements".

 

The Defence Procurement Procedure-2008 makes exceptions to the open tender route in cases involving imperatives of strategic partnerships or major diplomatic, political, economic, technological or military benefits. The above procurements fall under this category and to the IAF, which often falls victim to decision-making processes lasting decades, this quick procedure will be welcome. To the bureaucracy still recovering from the Bofors syndrome, government-to-government deal also makes for smoother decision-making, as the specter of agents and scandals does not haunt the process.

 

For long, the IAF has had on its wish list, weapons and platforms of US origin for reasons of superior technology, high operational performance and very competitive life cycle costs, but geopolitical considerations have come in the way. In lieu, the IAF has made good with procurements from other countries and frequently modified them to maximise operational capability. This has had two beneficial fallouts. First, successfully integrating weapons and systems from varied sources, thus producing a unique operational system, and secondly, gaining valuable knowledge and expertise in integration, testing and certification of complex airborne systems. It would be fair to say this techno-operational approach to achieving flexibility with weapon systems is now part of IAF psyche and it would be loathe to surrender it. Future procurements should preferably be in tune with this philosophy.

 

The sting in the FMS tail, to which little attention has been paid, is the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) mandated by US law that is far more intrusive than mere monitoring end use. Pentagon's Security Assistance Management Manual also stipulates specific conditions under which FMS equipment can be used limiting it mainly to a self-defence role. It also inhibits any non-original equipment manufacturer integration. CAG in its scrutiny of the purchase of the landing dock ship, USS Trenton, now INS Jalashwa, had also commented on both these constraints. It also observed that binding the navy to support only from the original equipment manufacturers created permanent dependence. It has recently been reported that the army has expressed unhappiness with the support to their Weapon Locating Radars procured in 2002 through FMS, resulting in poor serviceability.

 

In the world of complex geopolitics where one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, self-defence for one can easily be viewed as offence to another. Some restrictions that US laws place on military supplies through the FMS route hence have strategic ramifications that transcend the armed forces as users and impinge on national strategic autonomy itself. If the armed forces are unhappy with FMS conditions, they are justified.

 

It is likely the US industry, which used considerable political capital to support the Indo-US nuclear deal, pressured US State Department to resolve the EUMA issue with India in order to gain access to the lucrative Indian aeronautics market. This was an important agenda on Secretary of State Clinton's visit last year and she appears to have convinced the Indian government, albeit with some cosmetic giveaways.

 

Whilst the aforementioned aircraft purchases relate primarily to support functions, India has issued an open

tender for Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, which once implemented, will be the single largest defence deal in the Indian history. Amongst the six contenders are two US manufacturers. All contenders have been evaluated by the IAF and the report is with the MoD. Respective governments will actively lobby for a programme of such vital strategic-cum-commercial implications. To the operational, technical and economic aspects of the decision-making will now be added diplomatic and strategic elements. One hopes that our tenders have clearly spelt out conditions that are acceptable. If, in spite of this the US contenders remain in the running, it can only be good news for the IAF and the aeronautics sector, as it implies the US military aeronautics market will remain open through the normal commercial route minus strategically crippling conditions. All this, however, is in the realm of speculation and hope.

 

India has been criticised for not having a strategic culture. Whether or not one accepts this thesis, it is clear that adequate thought has not been given to the larger canvas of our evolving strategic partnership with the US in the realm of defence procurements considering various US laws mandating such sales. First there was debate on the EUMA and now India is hesitant in signing the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA). Under US laws, both pacts need bilateral confirmation to ensure sensitive technology control transfers. Failing agreement, India will be denied advanced avionics and communication equipment on all the above projected aircraft sales. The same would possibly also apply to the MMRCA. These are critical limitations and should have been resolved prior to entering into sale agreements. Today, it is not just the flying platforms, but avionics and systems that confer on aircraft potent operational capability. Minus such sensitive technology and systems, some of these platforms will be severely limited in their capability. Limited by FMS agreements the IAF and IN will not even be able to upgrade them with systems from other sources.

 

US laws on sale of defence equipment are not India specific, but apply to all their customers. But the US, by virtue of its being a technology and economic powerhouse, has only sold weapons to alliance partners and client states. India, on the other hand, is just emerging from its non-aligned mindset and such conditions will rest uneasily with its people and the armed forces. If the two countries are to exploit the power of technology towards mutual economic benefit and to enhance the evolving strategic partnership, hard work needs to be done to understand and bridge these sensitive differences.

 

The writer is a former AOC-in-C of South-Western Air Command

 

***************************************

                                                                                                                                            

TRIBUNE

FOCUS MORE ON TECHNICAL SUPPORT

WG CDR D.P. SABHARWAL (RETD)

 

INDIAN Air Force, by any standards, is an ageing force when one looks at its fleet. Its fighters are over 25 years old. The Jaguars, Mirages and MiG-29s were procured in mid-80s. Same is the story with the transport fleet of AN-32s, IL-76s and helicopters. IAF, for almost a decade, has been operating without a genuine Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) aircraft. There have been many reported deals, which include 10 billion dollars for procuring Su-30 aircraft, 964 million dollars for upgrading MiG-29s and another 10.4 billion dollars for medium multi-role combat aircraft. Procurement of transport aircraft, attack helicopters and trainers is also on the cards. On a conservative estimate, IAF will invest 40-50 billion dollars for modernising its fleet.

 

Amidst purchases to retain the cutting edge in the battlefield, the IAF has also initiated a Rs 375 crore ($85 million) programme for modernisation and refurbishment of its Base Repair Depots (BRD) and Equipment Depots (ED). The programme, to be executed on a turnkey basis, shall be covering 27 locations across the country. The projects will be completed within the next 3-5 years. The process of short-listing companies is over and 12 out of original 31 bidders have been selected. The contracts are to be awarded in 2011.

 

BRDs and EDs play a pivotal role in keeping the flying machines operational. Though routine maintenance and minor repairs are carried out in flying units, much more is required to keep the aircraft airworthy. Spares and other materials like fuel, oil, lubricant, gases and weapons are held by the EDs. Needless to say, these EDs must have proper storage facilities, material handing equipment and above all fool-proof accounting systems in place. Most of these requirements are lacking today.

 

BRDs are primarily involved in the overhaul of equipment in addition to carrying out major modifications and defect investigation of equipment, which are tasks beyond the capability of the units operating these systems. There are eight BRDs dealing in aircraft, missiles, avionics and communications. Two at Kanpur and one at Nasik deal with fighter aircraft and their engines. The one at Chandigarh, biggest of all the BRDs, deals with helicopters and its engines. The BRD at Pune deals with radio equipment and the one at Delhi look after radar and communication equipment along with power generation and air conditioning equipments.

 

In a BRD, the aircraft is dismantled and stripped down to its last component. Each component is visually inspected, then checked with gauges and instruments and finally tested for performance, leading to three options: First, if the component is beyond economical repair, it is discarded and replaced. Secondly, the component may be worn out and require re-work. Thirdly the component may still be within permissible limits and hence can be fitted back after cleaning, greasing and other routine operations. It is the second option that is the most demanding. The work required to refurbish a component to original design condition involves many steps like degreasing and cleaning in salt/oil baths, machining, electro-plating, heat treatment, painting and testing Tthese need special purpose machines and equipment.

 

All BRDs were set up over 40 years ago when they were supposed to overhaul simpler aircraft. Though old machinery has been replaced from time to time, it has been a piecemeal exercise akin to fire-fighting. Major facilities in most BRDs are vintage, needing replacement. The current modernisation programme envisages procurement of machines, machine tools, electronics and electrical test equipment, general purpose measuring equipment, calibration and test equipment, refurbishment of electro-plating and heat-treatment processes. The project includes installation of material handling, packaging and allied machinery, besides upgradation of existing hangars which require proper lighting, flooring, pressure pipelines, mechanised doors, earthing pits and bird proofing. Bays and labs attached to hangers require modular equipment, air curtains, installation of gantry and lift, fire alarms and electro-magnetically shielded cabins.

 

The modernisation programme is no doubtlaudable, yet akin to a drop in the ocean. The required work, to say the least, is enormous but the funds earmarked are meagre. Spending Rs 375 crore amongst 27 depots means the biggest depot may get Rs 40 crore or so at the most. The replacement of antique test bed at 3 BRD itself would consume more than half of that amount. Therefore, the budget for this programme, which amounts to just about 0.2 per cent of the expenditure on fleet modernisation, needs enhancement.

 

Another vital area that needs a look into is manpower. It is said that a machine is as good as the man behind it. Every operation in a BRD demands highly trained technicians. Alas, there is no dedicated training programme for technicians posted to BRDs as is the case with technicians posted to a squadron, who undergo a special course at designated "Type Training Schools". There is another linked issue. Once a technician develops expertise, which takes two-to-three years, he is posted out just after another two years or so. This is highly deplorable. There is a need to have a policy that 70-75 per cent of the trained manpower at any BRD should remain there till retirement. It is not a tall order in today's world where there is a high premium on highly skilled and professional technicians.

 

The writer is an aeronautical engineer and has served in Base Repair Depots

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

MUMBAI MIRROR

VIEWS

VISVESARAYA'S SECOND CANDLE

A GLORIOUS SHINING EXAMPLE FROM THE LIFE OF A GREAT CIVIL SERVANT

 

We are getting deluged by stories of scams involving civil servants. Some have signed subsidised flats for themselves. Some have allotted prime land for their own housing societies. Some have chosen to stay in government provided housing and rented their ill gotten flat at exorbitant rents to plush companies. It could be that many people were influenced by their peers. 

 

If everyone is doing it (i.e. dipping into the flowing Ganga), then only a fool would refrain, wouldn't you say? Taking advantage of a public position for private gain seems to be the dharma of a civil servant, so how can anyone resist this dharma? It is but natural to dip a little bit. 

 

After all these are not scams worth thousands of crores like the Telgi scam, or Satyam or the now famous 2G. You might get an argument that only a naïve public servant will remain scrupulous. All else are tainted or compromised. When they rub shoulders with politicians, and with their brethren (and sisters too) indulging in minor dipping into state treasury, it is impossible to find a role model. Right? 

 

Wrong folks. Not only are there many honest civil servants across all sections (secretariat, sales tax, public works department, income tax, customs), but there is in fact a shining example from their tribe. 

 

He is like their "kula daivat", sort of a giant sacred mascot, the real original model of an upstanding civil servant. He was awarded the country's highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna in 1955. He didn't lead a short life, but died at the ripe old age of 101 in 1962. He was in active public life for forty four years after his retirement in 1918. 

 

Yes we are talking about the country's most famous engineer, technologist, administrator and civil servant, Sir M. Visvesvaraya (SMV). 

 

SMV was born in 1861 in Kolar district of the then Mysore state, and earned his B.A. in 1881. He then went to Pune to get his engineering degree from Pune College of Engineering in 1884, where he topped the final examination, and was appointed as the Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department (PWD) of the Bombay Presidency (as the state was called then). 

 

His subsequent life was that of innovations, home bred solutions to difficult problems and a continuous quest for perfection. For example he found a solution to get drinking water in Sikkur (Sindh) using sand as a filter. He built a dam in Khadakvasla, designing the sluice gates in such a way so as to increase capacity and reduce flooding. 

 

When he was denied a promotion to Chief Engineer (because a Britisher was preferred) he resigned, and was immediately picked up by the Maharajah of Mysore. Impressed with his work, in three years the Maharajah made him Dewan (like a Chief Minister). In his life he was involved in many great works like the Krishnaraja Sagar Dam, Bhadravati Steel factory, Bank of Mysore, an automobile factory (Premier), an aircraft factory (which became Hindustan Aeronautics), etc. Nehru even took him to Patna. 

When he was awarded the Bharat Ratna, he warned that he wasn't going to stop criticising the government. One of his memorable, and "Adarsh" incident was the day of his retirement. He went in a company car, and returned home in his own car, since he had retired. 

 

The action which spoke the loudest (as a civil servant), was his practice of reading at night in candlelight. He kept two candles, one of which was extinguished at 7pm and then the other one was lit. He said that for after hours private reading, he could not use the government provided candle, but the one paid for by himself. 
    With such a shining candle from our own history, we don't need any other "adarsh" civil servant. 

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************BUSINESS STANDARD

EDITORIAL

SOLUTIONS EXIST

HOWEVER MUCH THE MEDIA MAY BARK, IT USUALLY HAS NO BITE; THAT HAS TO COME FROM SUITABLY EMPOWERED INSTITUTIONS

T N NINAN

 

The press (including this newspaper) has been screaming blue murder about the spectrum scandal from the time it was perpetrated in broad daylight, nearly three years ago. Not only did nothing happen, the man at the centre of the scandal retained the telecom portfolio when the second UPA government was sworn in, last year. The story with the Adarsh building scam was no different; there were newspaper reports on the subject several years ago, even as it was happening; again, no one took notice and a 31-storey building went up — again in broad daylight. As for the third scandal to occupy the public mind in recent weeks, the Commonwealth Games, the press kept pointing fingers for many months; yet those in charge continued their merry way. So what is it that has brought scams to the boil suddenly, and caused powerful heads to roll? For an answer, go back to Watergate and the early 1970s.

 

 The Washington Post and The New York Times went after the break-in into the Democratic Party office in Washington's Watergate building, and linked the burglars to the Nixon campaign committee and the White House. The Post reporters were subsequently lionised in a film (All the President's Men). But if you think that President Nixon was brought down by just journalistic heroics, you would be dead wrong, because reporters could only take the story up to a point. Bringing down the US president needed the combined efforts of people empowered to summon witnesses and demand evidence (like the incriminating tapes of presidential conversations): Judge John Sirica, Senate Committee Chairman Sam Ervin, and Special Prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski.

 

The parallels with current events in India are obvious. What has got the spectrum scam to boil over, and force the resignation of Andimuthu Raja as telecom minister, is the damning report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). What got the Organising Committee of the Games into trouble was the concurrent audit of expenditure by the CAG, ordered as it happens by Mani Shankar Aiyar when he was the sports minister; the CAG reports confirmed, even before the Games were held, that something was seriously amiss. The prime minister himself is now in a spot because the court has asked some questions. In other words, however much the media may bark, it usually has no bite; that has to come from suitably empowered institutions.

 

There is no shortage of scams in India. Indeed, they unfold every day — the Yeddyurappa land grab in Karnataka; the collapse of an illegal building in the Capital and the bribe-taking that permitted its construction; the real estate hijack being scripted even as one writes, by Delhi bureaucrats, legislators and others who want to gift themselves Games Village flats at less than market rates… It is easy to respond to all this with a resigned shrug of the shoulders (corruption is everywhere, the coalition has to survive, etc.), and ignore media reports that act as warning shots. But as the prime minister must now know, that can be a dangerous course.

 

The purposeful response has to be to work for systemic solutions to the country's No. 1 scourge. Some have

already been put in place, like the Right to Information law. The courts encourage public interest litigation, and sector regulators, at least sometimes, act as a check on ministerial arbitrariness. But also needed is a Central Bureau of Investigation that is independent of the government of the day, a properly led Central Vigilance Commission, and Lok Ayuktas with suo moto powers. The speed with which the spectrum scam has snowballed should spur even those in office to see the merit of such safeguards; they will prevent a whole government, including honest men in it, from being engulfed by scandals.

***************************************

 

BUSINESS STANDARD

EDITORIAL

FINANCIAL ENGINEERING

INVESTMENT BANKS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INNOVATE AND TAKE RISKS, BUT MUST BEAR THE FULL COST OF ANY MISTAKES

DEEPAK LAL

 

The story of financial engineering, which created more and more complex debt instruments in which tail risk was ignored, is well known (see Gillian Tett: Fools Gold; Raghuram Rajan: Fault Lines). It was induced by the low interest rates during the Great Moderation, and exacerbated by the Greenspan Put. Two lessons, however, are important. First, (as argued in my last column) it was the policy of the US government, ever since the Great Depression, to promote housing through the financial system which led to the subprime mortgage crisis. Second, it was the moral hazard begun with the LTCM bailout, and the subsequent bailouts of financial firms which were not commercial banks and whose bankruptcy did not threaten the deposit base, which led to the mispricing of risk: with financial intermediaries coming to believe that if their increasingly risky bets were successful, they stood to make immense financial gains, and if they turned sour, the authorities would get taxpayers to bail them out.

 

 These distortions in the US financial system were then internationalised by asset-backed securities which increasingly came to be held by banks around the world. Packaging a host of different securities, including subprime mortgages, into increasingly opaque securities in the belief that this diversification of the assets in each security basket would lower the risk of holding the security, made these securities even more insecure. It was like packaging different types of meat into pies and selling them around the world. When then it turned out that there was an infected piece of meat which had been baked into many of the pies in the form of subprime mortgages which turned sour with the downturn in the US housing market, none of the holders of the pies around the world knew if their pies contained the infected meat. All interbank lending based on these opaque, asset-backed securities ceased, and a global financial crisis was triggered.

 

The immediate official response to the crisis, in which the insurer AIG was bailed out, which then led it to fully repay its counterparties like Goldman Sachs, bailing them out in turn, only justified the beliefs of those who had undertaken the imprudent lending that any losses would be borne by taxpayers. Moral hazard increased even further. It was further accentuated with the classification of institutions as being "too big to fail", and has given an incentive for the creation of even larger universal banks "too big to fail". With the authorities egging on the conversion of previous investment banks into bank holding companies, the US financial structure has become even more oligopolistic.

 

Much worse, the recently passed Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act now formalises the Federal Reserve's role in being the supervisor and lender of last resort of the whole US banking system. There is some obeisance to separating the "gambling" investment from the "utility" commercial banking part through the Volcker rule. Though, as the Financial Times reports, the Wall Street banks have already found a loophole which allows them "to continue to invest billions of dollars of their own capital in spite of new rules aimed at stopping them from taking risky bets" (November 11, p.16). As they are now universal banks, they can continue gambling, knowing that they will be bailed out if their losses threaten the deposit base.

 

As I and many others have argued, as long as there is deposit insurance, something like the Glass-Steagall Act separating investment from commercial banking needs to be instituted. There is, however, the alternative view that the Glass Steagall Act had already been eroded, and its repeal was a sensible measure of deregulating the financial system. Much of this argument is based on assessing whether the Glass Steagall Act was necessary or an immoderate response to the Great Depression. Calomiris (US Bank Deregulation in Historical Perspective, Cambridge, 2000), citing many studies which have examined the claim that there was a conflict of interest in mixing commercial and investment banking, whereby "banks might coerce client firms or cheat purchasers of securities", argues that this argument has now been discredited. But he also notes that another concern behind the Glass Steagall Act "was largely that of economists who correctly worried about the abuse of deposit insurance and the discount window — the possibility of government subsidisation of risk in new activities" (p.xiv). This is the worry which has not gone, particularly as he notes that deposit insurance is the only part of the 1933 Banking Act which now remains "and it is difficult to imagine circumstances that will lead to its repeal" (p.xviii). This is the nub, and it is difficult to see why he would, therefore, oppose keeping investment and commercial banks separate. It is deposit insurance alone that provides a reason for public regulation of any aspect of banking. If the Glass Steagall firewall between commercial and investment baking is maintained, there is no reason why the investment banks should not be set completely free. They should be allowed to follow whatever innovations and risk-taking they choose in competitive markets, but must be made to bear the full costs of any mistakes.

 

By contrast, under the Dodd Frank Act, as Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute (Fiancial Services Outlook July-August 2010) has argued, all "financial firms will, under this new structure, inevitably be subordinated to the supervisory judgments about what the firms can safely be allowed to do... Where financial firms once focused on beating their competitors, they will now focus on currying favour with their regulator, which will have the power to control their every move. What may ultimately emerge is a partnership between the largest financial firms and the Federal Reserve — a partnership in which the Fed protects them from failure and excessive competition and they, in turn, curb their competitive instincts to carry out the government's policies and directions". In short, it is likely to substitute a sclerotic corporatist economic model, replacing the highly competitive and innovative model which, despite its flaws, has brought untold prosperity around the world.

***************************************

BUSINESS STANDARD

COLUMN

RIGHT FACTS, WRONG ARITHMETIC

CAG'S CALCULATIONS OF THE NOTIONAL LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER IN THE 2G SPECTRUM ALLOCATION ARE EXAGGERATED

ALAM SRINIVAS

 

Let us start with a few caveats. This piece doesn't imply that the former telecom minister, A Raja, was correct in selling 2G spectrum cheap in January 2008. It doesn't indicate that there were no irregularities or a strong whiff of corruption in the manner in which spectrum was allocated to new and existing telecom players. What this article proves is that though the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had the right facts, its calculations about the benefits that accrued to private players were wrong.

 

The estimate of Rs 1,76, 645 crore being touted as the "notional loss to the exchequer" is a highly optimistic figure. Even the lower figures, between Rs 57,666 crore and Rs 69,626 crore, that CAG has calculated through other criteria may be way off the mark. The "real" loss to the government in the 2G spectrum scam would have been close to Rs 40,000 crore, which is still a huge figure by any stretch of imagination.

 

 According to the CAG report, the higher figure of Rs 1,76,645 crore was arrived at by comparing the prices paid by telecom operators for 2G spectrum in 2008 to those paid during the auction of 3G spectrum in 2010. It justifies this by quoting from a Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) report (2010) that "2G services today are actually offering 2.75G services. Therefore, 'while comparing spectral efficiency and other factors, it is fair to compare the existing 2.75G systems with 3G systems.'"

 

However, this is an unfair method to compute the notional value of 2G spectrum in 2008. Trai, in its September 2006 report, had recommended a reserve price of Rs 1,010 crore for the auction of 3G spectrum; this figure was enhanced later by the Empowered Group of Ministers to Rs 3,500 crore. But the fact remains that 14 months before the allocation of 2G spectrum, Trai's reserve price for 3G was less than what was paid for 2G (Rs 1,658 crore).

 

In addition, the economics of the telecom sector had changed between 2008 and 2010. In 2008, mobile services became commoditised; margins were under pressure due to a steep fall in tariffs and ever-decreasing ARPUs (average revenues per subscriber). This was witnessed in the re-rating of telecom stocks, which took a severe beating in the stock market, partly due to the global recession and partly due to the pessimistic future of the sector.

 

Combine this with the fact that the allocation of 2G spectrum to new licensees meant the entry of newer players and, hence, implied more competition. This, in turn, would have resulted in a further squeeze on revenues, ARPUs, and margins. Given these reasons, any new player was liable to pay less for 2G spectrum allocation in 2008.

 

Between 2008 and 2010, the market dynamics changed. Despite competition, the market grew by leaps and bounds. Raja said that his allocation policy resulted in a huge increase in the number of subscribers — from 300 million to 650 million. But thanks to this, the existing players, especially biggies like Airtel, Reliance and Vodafone, were desperate to acquire 3G spectrum in 2010 merely to sustain their normal services like voice calls, with customers complaining about call drops all the time. Hence, they were liable to bid much more to acquire 3G spectrum than what they did for 2G.

 

It should be added here that in some respects, comparing 2G and 3G is like comparing apples with oranges. 2G is used more for low-value services like voice calls and text, while 3G is supposed to generate higher margins through high-value services like data transfer. Hence, the value of a 3G licence should technically be more than a 2G licence; even if 2G operators are currently offering 2.75 G services, the data download can't be compared with 3G.

 

The other method that CAG employed to compute the losses was to compare the price paid for 2G spectrum in January 2008 to sale of equity by new licensees, who acquired it in the second half of 2008. For instance, Swan Telecom sold 50 per cent of its stake in two tranches, which valued the company at just over Rs 7,000 crore, or over four times the Rs 1,658 crore it paid for the spectrum. Unitech sold 67.25 per cent at a price that valued the company at just over Rs 9,000 crore. Using these examples, CAG computed that the loss was between Rs 57,666 crore and Rs 69,626 crore.

 

Such calculations are beset with problems. Although CAG justified this by saying that the new buyers only paid for spectrum in such sales, this can't be taken for granted. One always pays a premium to a seller who already holds the licence, especially since the new buyer would have had to wait for the auction of 3G spectrum (in 2010) to find a foothold in the Indian market. Time saved (in this case one-and-a-half years), in business parlance, is premium paid.

 

Finally, CAG used a third route to calculate the losses. "On November 5, 2007 S Tel Ltd, which had applied for unified access service (UAS) licence in September 2007, in its communication addressed to the Hon'ble prime minister voluntarily offered to pay an additional revenue share of Rs 6,000 crore to the DoT for a pan-India licence", and through a further communication to the telecom ministry on December 27, 2007, "enhanced its offer… to Rs 13,752 crore". If the last figure is taken as the real value of 2G spectrum, the notional loss works out to Rs 67,364 crore.

 

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) pointed out to CAG, the S Tel offer came with a few "attached conditions to their offer which were not acceptable to the government". The CAG report doesn't mention these conditions. Well, if these included restriction on the number of new players in the future, it can be concluded that STel was willing to pay a premium over the actual price of the spectrum. Therefore, unless we know the conditions, this example cannot be used to calculate the losses.

 

So, the actual loss to the exchequer was definitely lower than Rs 57,666 crore, calculated according to the stake sale by Swan Telecom. If one feels that Etisalat paid a premium of, say 20 per cent, to buy a huge stake in Swan, the figure comes to less than Rs 50,000 crore. If the premium rate is raised to 25 per cent, the figure will be closer to Rs 40,000 crore.

 

alamsrinivas@gmail.com  

 

***************************************

BUSINESS STANDARD

COLUMN

MAY DELHI KEEP SHINING

DELHI, IN A SMALL WAY, HAS BECOME A PLEASING CITY. HOW I WISH IT WILL REMAIN SO AND MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR EVEN THOSE WHOM CHANGE HAS NOT YET TOUCHED

SUBIR ROY

 

On the face of it, Delhi has never felt or looked better — unless you go back to the days when it was a different kind of city. Of dry hot summers and cold clear winters, acquiescing to the label of "administrative village" unkindly stuck upon it, sporting a single, really big hotel and boasting one major classical music festival.

 

The Commonwealth Games have spruced it up the way Asiad did in its own way over a quarter century ago. Then it got its first set of flyovers which enabled longer commutes to work — a process that has gone to insane lengths today of travelling one way 30 km or more.

 

 Major roads have been freshly resurfaced, lines on them neatly drawn. The roadsides are sporting neat signs telling you where the "pedestrian crossing" is, where it is "no stopping no parking", and the ultimate exhortation, "give way". Not very many must know what it means and should the import be absorbed, it will lead to a fundamental change of character in a city where you are a wimp if you cannot shove and push your way forward, on two legs or four wheels.

 

Spaces at roadsides and under flyovers have grown new greenery and the most striking is NDMC's Delhi, which, looking neat in the worst of times, is now looking picture perfect.

 

The other big change is in transportation, the transformation in the bus fleet. Gone are the filthy, horrendous apparitions in blue, replaced by various modern, low-floor vehicles, the queen among them the red ones offering the most comfortable rides and wider views than the eyes can take through entire glass sides.

 

I was so impressed on my first sighting of them, while out walking early on a Sunday morning, on reaching the Outer Ring Road next to Vasant Vihar, that I crossed over, took a ride to Nehru Place, crossed over again and rode back, all under one hour. It didn't come cheap at Rs 20 per ride but this is precisely what you need to tempt people away from travelling in cramped cars with restricted views through what, in comparison, are mini-windows.

 

But it was during this first darshan of mine of the new Delhi that I found another India too. At the Nehru Place roadside, I sought out one of those tea stalls that are hardly clean but serve some of the best tea to go with the early morning chill, rich in cream and flavoured with adrak at Rs 5 or less. Next to the tea stall, a man, who was barely more than a vagrant, was dusting and seeking to fold the torn blanket with which he had covered himself on the pavement during the night. But he couldn't, as he indulgently tried to halfheartedly shake off two roadside puppies who had taken it upon themselves to play with his blanket and tear it even more. There is no level at which man and dog are not friends, I thought.

 

Back at Vasant Vihar, I went looking for the morning papers, all of them, as scribes do, in one of the poshest of posh colonies' markets. But none was to be had. There was no newspaper stall, I was told by the owner of a book and gift shop. When I observed that reading and wealth hardly went together, he vigorously nodded, bearing out what his little shop indicated, that business was none too good. Try sector one market in R K Puram, the shop owner said and I set out in an auto rickshaw in search of my daily newspaper fix. R K Puram, where middle to lower middle level government employees live, eventually obliged and I returned to where I was staying after spending Rs 30 to buy all the English language newspapers and Rs 60 for the auto ride.

 

Then as I kept looking for Delhi, old and new, I found bits of both, sometimes rolled into one. New little gardens have been created around roads, fenced by light wire nets supported by short poles, allowing you a good view of the plants. And there they were, the fences at places falling down and the newly planted plants wilting, for want of watering. In fairly quick time, a lot of these garden patches will be gone, overtaken by good old-fashioned dirt.

 

On my second morning, I again set out to locate a newspaper stall, this time at a market in the Shanti Niketan neighbourhood, with the same result. Helpful people guided me down roads behind the market, past signs reading Nanak Pura, on a down market journey through roads that quickly got dirty without a trace of any Commonwealth Games facelift. In a crumbling, refuse-strewn market I found the newspaper stall, with all the papers, including the business ones.

 

I again met change and continuity side by side when I arrived famished early for an appointment in Jor Bagh. So, I sought out Pigpo (there can be only one of its kind anywhere), acquired 90 grams of ham in two slices which tasted divine and I wolfed down at a speed becoming someone half my age. Then, to beat the chill of the drizzle, I looked for the halwai shop which had been there at the market corner, for a glass of tea. But the halwai shop was gone, having given way to another that generated more revenue per square foot of shop floor.

 

Delhi, in a small way, in bits and pieces, had become a more pleasing city. How I wish it will remain so and make life better for even those whom change has not yet touched.

 

subirkroy@gmail.com  

**************************************

BUSINESS STANDARD

COLUMN

OF FRENEMIES AND COEPITITION

DEVANGSHU DATTA

 

It is normal for two students in the same course to be friends and rivals. They are in competition for grades and later, they will angle for the same jobs. But it's in their interests to share notes and cover for each other when bunking, etc.

 

 They are "frenemies". Frenemy is a portmanteau of "friend" and "enemy". The word is used to describe relationships between entities that act in tandem when their interests coincide while competing against each other at other times. Many business situations create frenemies and so do geopolitical equations. The word was coined to describe interactions between the western allies and the USSR in the WW-II period.

 

Frenemies indulge in "coepitition", a portmanteau combining "cooperation" and "competition". Every industry association exemplifies coepitition — business rivals join hands to lobby. Another common example of coepitition is setting industry technical standards, units of measurement, etc.

 

Politics is an industry, or if you prefer, a meta-industry, which generates extremely complex coepitition. Political parties have interests; every individual politician has interests. Those interests collide and coincide with the interests of other politicians and they may cut across party lines.

 

Coepitition is especially marked in coalitions. Coalitions occur after cut-throat but inconclusive electoral competition. Then hard-nosed bargaining becomes inevitable. Politicians are, therefore, inured to cursing each other in public and settling down behind closed doors to talk.

 

It helps if ideological biases can be shelved in favour of practical dialogue. Successful politicians are very good at that. Keeping communications open with the frenemy is integral to coalitions. One of the most convenient ways to do that is to use trusted mediapersons as go-betweens.

 

India is the most evolved coalition marketplace in the world. It has seen nothing but coalitions at the Centre since 1989, and multiple coalitions in various states as well. Each coalition involved multiple bargains forged by a common focus on return on investment (RoI).

 

During this process, the political industry developed a very complex relationship with the media. It is in the interests of every politician to get on with the media. It is also in the interests of every politician to deny the media damaging information.

 

This sets up frenemy relationships, between politicians and mediapersons, and between parties and media organisations. Those frenemy linkages are often invoked when inter-party and even intra-party dialogue is required. Again, the only common factor governing those relationships is RoI (the return is not necessarily monetary).

 

Luckily, the media is comfortable with coepitition. By definition, the media is everyone's frenemy. It's the media's job to dish dirt. Every consumer wants to know the dirt about every other entity, and to keep its own dirt out of the public domain. This is true of the media as well. It is the largest industrial consumer of dirt and would much rather maintain its collective credibility by not having its own chuddis washed in public.

 

This week, a couple of media organisations broke ranks to publish some tapes and transcripts that throw a fascinating spotlight on the neta-patrakar nexus. Assuming the tapes are genuine, those conversations between various frenemies of the Indian state had a bearing on your future electricity and telephone bills, which is where the neta-patrakar nexus affects you.

 

The frenemy relationship between the media and politicians has evolved in an organic response to the market opportunities created by crony capitalism and coalitions. It can neither be regulated out of existence, nor can it be wished away. Anybody who can model the dynamics is likely to be a candidate for the Nobel.

 

In a narrower context, the media has to find ways to cope with the shifting dynamics. The media's USP is credibility. It risks losing that credibility when it indulges in excessive coepitition with its frenemies, but a certain amount of coepitition is inevitable. Where do you draw a line in the sand?

***************************************

BUSINESS STANDARD

COLUMN

SALMAN RUSHDIE'S MAGIC CARPET OF STORIES

V V

 

Well look at where have stories landed you now. You follow me? What starts with stories ends with spying, and that's a serious charge, boy, no charge more serious. You'd have done better to keep your feet on the ground but you had your head in the air. You'd have done better to stick to Facts, but you were stuck with Stories… Stories are trouble. An Ocean of Stories is an Ocean of Trouble. Answer me this: What's the use of stories that aren't even true?
— Salman Rushdie: Haroon & the Sea of Stories

 

Salman Rushdie is one of the great story-tellers of our time as his protagonist says in his latest book, Luka and the Fire of Life (Cape, Special Indian Price Rs 499): "Man is a story-telling Animal and that in his stories are his identity, his meaning and his life blood… Do rats tell tales? Do porpoises have narrative purposes?" Two decades ago, Rushdie wrote Haroon & the Sea of Stories to amuse his elder son; he has now come with a sequel for the younger son from the world of Magic, straight from the head of the Shah of Blah, the Ocean of Notions, Luka's great story-telling father, Rashid. Like Alice's Adventurers in Wonderland, Luka, at one level, is a children's classic that offers the imaginative child an escape from the humdrum of daily life and the hard quotidian stuff of home. Yet, at another, it is also a story that adults would enjoy because the World of Magic is also a world of allusions as it goes against the River of Time towards the Lake of Wisdom and Mountain of Knowledge on board of the Flying Carpet of King Solomon as it navigates a journey Back to the Future.

 

 The story goes something like this. On a starry night in the city of Kahani in the land of Alifbay, the twelve-year-old Luka's story-telling father Rashid falls mysteriously into a deep sleep from which there appears no chance of recovery. To save him from slipping away forever, Luka has to go on a journey through the Magic World to steal the Fire of Life.

 

As Luka races towards his goal, against the ultimate enemy, Time itself, he collects a strange bunch of companions: there are Memory Birds, who swim across the River of Time; there is a dog called Bear and a Bear called Dog; there are flying dragons and a coyote. Fortunately, Insultana's Flying Carpet is adjustable: it can be fitted into a pocket or expanded to accommodate all the creatures. But no journey is without its share of problems; there are the detractors who want to scuttle the search for the Fire of Life. Also, not all the animals can be easily brought on board the flying carpet, especially the "mighty Slippy, that gigantic, white, eight-legged steed with two legs at each corner".

 

But Luka is blessed with incredible good luck. Not only does the rag-tag bunch stick together through thick and thin but Luka's magic wand comes in handy when he is attacked by fire-breathing monsters who are out to derail his quest for the Fire. The main enemy is not earthly powers but Time itself; or the know-all Three Jos: Jo-Hua (whatever has happened or the Past), Jo-Hai (whatever is given or the Present) and Jo-Aiga (what is to come or the Future). Time itself has to be defeated, which for his father is running out, and to do this, all things foul and fair are justified. So, there is a great deal of sheer fun and games on the way:

 

"The whole World of Magic was on Red Alert. Jackal-headed Egyptian deities, fierce scorpion and Jaguar men, giant one-eyed, man-eating Cyclopes, the flute-playing centaurs, whose pipes could entice strangers into cracks in the rocks where they would be imprisoned for all time, Assyrian treasure-nymphs made of gold and jewels, whose precious bodies could tempt thieves into their poisoned nets… Valkyries on cloud-horses in the sky… huge rocs larger than the one that bore Sinbad the Sailor to its nest… mermaids, krakens, zaratans…"

 

Rushdie's imagination runs riot, drawing on his reading of the vast corpus of classical and contemporary literature but a great deal more on magic realism, a debt he has acknowledged elsewhere. Here fantasy and reality are entwined in a dreamlike verbal tapestry in which the fantastic is treated as matter-of-fact and reality as a mesmeric invention. It is this method which gives Luka and his other stories a unique character that makes them different from the fairy-tale stuff of others.

 

But there is a problem and it is this. Luka isn't a simple, straightforward story for kids because there are far too many references to mythology, both theirs and ours. How many would know them? Many readers won't be familiar with them. But for those who know (and these aren't western readers), it is great fun. That Salman Rushdie hasn't lost his roots might well be his greatest strength.

***************************************

BUSINESS STANDARD

COLUMN

 AIR INDIA'S SWEET SECRETS

HOW THREE BOXES OF SWEETS LEFT BEHIND ON A PLANE LED TO A SUIT AND A SETTLEMENT

SUNANDA K DATTA-RAY

 

As a regular Air India passenger, I am not surprised to learn that the airline loves sweeteners. They come in many forms, like extension of service beyond the age of superannuation or productivity-linked incentives. The simplest sweetener was issuing 121 free tickets within a matter of months to an officer for his spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, all in the family way. Hindu Joint Family way, that is.

 

But the sweetener that has now been brought to my notice left a bitter taste even though it was probably bought in Delhi's Bengali Market. The news comes by way of my old paper, The Straits Times, or rather, it's stable-mate, The Sunday Times, and bears the impeccable imprimatur of the Law Correspondent, K C Vijayan. It concerns my old friend, Shriniwas Rai, a sweet-spoken Gorakhpuri whose many distinctions include serving as a nominated member of Singapore's parliament for some years while I lived there and authoring a little book titled The Common Heritage: A Survey of Hindi Words in Malay that almost claims Malay as another Hindi dialect.

 

 Now, I wouldn't be surprised if Malays took umbrage at that, but the mystery of the missing sweets suggests that Air India staff (unlikely to be Malay) had it in for him and his wife when they were flying back to Singapore from Delhi by AI 480 on March 21. According to the sequence that unfolded in the court of the deputy registrar, James Leong – remember, we are talking of Singaporeans who rush to sue at the drop of a hat (or sweet) and often even when it doesn't drop, and I hope to god they won't sue me for libel for saying so – the Rais suddenly realised to their dismay after landing at Changi airport that they had left behind on the plane a bag containing three boxes packed with sweets.

 

Homecoming wouldn't have been at all sweet, so off they went to Baggage Claims where the officer telephoned Air India but surprise! surprise! no one answered. So the Rais went to the airline's terminal office where the duty officer swore solemnly that no one had ever set eyes on any bag containing boxes of sweets and that it must all have been a sweet dream. The next stage I must quote from Vijayan's report: "But when he (Shriniwas Rai) was about to leave the office, he spotted a box of the sweets with its contents half empty, according to court papers filed. An airline official whom he then spoke to apologised and said the sweets had been consumed and the remaining two boxes had been given to the crew."

 

Finders keepers, as we used to say? Or do Air India staff just have a sweet tooth? Here's where the plot thickens. "The boxes were delivered to the Rais' home within two hours," says Vijayan. But nary a word about whether they were full, half-full or empty. That's sweet secrets for you.

 

Like a good Singaporean (never mind he was born in Uttar Pradesh), Rai filed a suit against Air India on November 1. The date of hearing came … and went, another flight missed. Later, the airline explained "there was some miscommunication between the Air India-appointed lawyer and the local manager". It was like our London-Calcutta AI 112 stuck for five hours at Delhi, also on November 1. The pilot said the new airport staff wasn't up to handling the sophisticated equipment; the airport authorities said Air India didn't have handlers. Miscommunication.

 

Anyway, Leong didn't wait. When counsel didn't show up, he gave default judgment against Air India for damages and costs. The court would assess the amount of damages at another hearing. But Air India quickly came to an out-of-court settlement with Rai. How much? Rai isn't telling. But he has vowed to give the money to the Singapore Indian Development Association or SINDA, a worthy self-help group.

 

That recalls the small but unexplained deduction from my first pay slip in Singapore. What's this? I asked. It's for SINDA, they said. Every Indian contributes. It's compulsory. No, it isn't, I retorted. Not for this Indian. I choose my charities. And anyway, SINDA helps only Singaporeans. I am not one. Eventually, after a lot of argument, they stopped the deductions and reimbursed what had been taken. It was a question of principle but I felt a bit bad about SINDA. I am glad it will now have Shriniwas Rai's bounty. I hope he stung Air India hard.

 

sunandadr@yahoo.co.in 

***************************************

BUSINESS STANDARD

COLUMN

THE BARE AND SIMPLE FACTS

RAMA BIJAPURKAR

 

There is this interesting scene from a movie on the singer-saint-composer Tyagaraja. He goes, at the behest of his guru, to a musical gathering at Thanjavur where the assembled virtuosos are sneering at him as a janaranjakudu (an unsophisticated, common mass entertainer). One of the assembled virtuosos sings first, rendering a technically astonishing, intricate piece that requires a great deal of musical discernment and knowledge to appreciate. Tyagaraja then sings one of his hauntingly beautiful kritis, "yendara mahanubhavulu, etc." (to all the great ones, my salutations). Amid the thundering silence that follows, the virtuoso says, "I have so far done callisthenics on the swaras (the notes) and thought that was music, but now, I have had an epiphany!'

 

I thought of this story as I was looking at some really basic data, unembellished by any rocket science analytics. The data related to the two magical weapons that we think will annihilate all obstacles and take us to superpower glory. One is the demographic dividend and the other is middle class.

 

 This column presents simple data with obvious takeaways on the demographic dividend from a 2009 survey by NCAER Centre for Macro Consumer Research (NCAER-CMCR) and pleads with policy makers for a segment-wise, targeted employment generation policy (not employment guaranteed through manual labour policy or even a sporadic skills development set of programmes, but a holistic policy that looks at what people we have, what they can do, what jobs need to be done/can be done, and how to fit the two). It also pleads for marketers to think about youth markets as beyond denim branded jeans and style-statement colas or clothes to the hopes, aspirations and desires of these consumers and how best to make them a part of the digital new age world — and yes, also to give them style-statement colas and denim jeans and stylish shoes that don't cost an arm and a leg. More than that, to talk to them and educate them in the broadest sense through IT platforms that are youth-attractive and so on. The next column will discuss the fabled middle class of India.

 

Let us define youth as 15 to 24-year-olds because they an important segment for immediate demographic dividends and also because they are socially the most precious for our stability and the kind of new-age society we hope to build. At this age, they are old enough to work because 16 to 18 is school closure time, because 24 is the outer limit for many, when you get ready to shoulder the responsibilities of grihasta, siblings, parents, and also for society you are at the peak of recency of education and maximum life energy.

 

Also, let us forget percentages for now because they are falsely comforting. In India, even a small percentage is a large number, and needs targeted attention because of its damage potential. 

 

In 2009, India is estimated to have 205 million, 15 to 24-year-olds: 139 million are rural and 66 million urban (all figures rounded off). If our demographic dividend is to not be frittered away, we can't wait to fix urban first, and experiment with a few rural BPOs, and skill development-cum- placement services. We have to do much more. To get a sense of perspective, even if we replicated the entire ITeS and insurance industries, the two most people-intensive businesses, in rural India, it would be a small blip in terms of jobs needed. That holds true even for urban India. 
 

 

Of the 205 million 15 to 24-year-olds, 47 million (23 per cent) are illiterate, 39 million in rural India and 8 million in urban India. The urban Indian illiterate young can probably manage to get absorbed into various services, with self-help adult literacy classes, technology-enabled for them by the government and CSR, making them more productive, and enabling higher wages. But it's the 40 million illiterate young in rural India that we need to think about. What can they be made to do? Skill training for mechanics, drivers, small enterprise owners. 
 

 

That leaves 158 million literate young: 37 million have primary education only, 109 million, secondary and only 13 million graduate-plus qualifications. The middle-of-the-road education story — what do we do with them? 
 

 

Let's take the 20 to 24-year-olds. What do they do today? Twenty-two per cent are still studying and we need to find jobs for them. Twenty-four per cent are unpaid housewives. Only 14 per cent get a regular salary, and 5 per cent are self-employed in agriculture. The rest are casual labourers while about 8 per cent have no job at all. How do you graduate them into a new kind of more productive value-added labour? Gadgets? 
 

 

Finally, let's take the 13 to 19-year-old literate youth. As many as 122 million are still largely rural, 38 million have stopped with primary education, but 43 million are in middle school and 26 million in matric. How do we hold on to them and make something out of them? The HRD ministry has a lot of innovative work to do

 

The writer is an independent market strategy consultant

***************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

THE PM'S CHALLENGE

ACCEPT POLITICAL AUTHORITY

 

WHEN the hon'ble Supreme Court asked why the Prime Minister had not acted on Mr Subramanyam Swamy's request for prosecuting the then telecom minister A Raja, it raised two issues: one of procedure, and the other, of political morality. The procedural answer is that the PM had replied to Mr Swamy, essentially repeating what he had told the nation, replying to a question at the press conference he held on May 24, that an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation was already on and action depends on its outcome. The moral question, yet to be answered, is why the PM had allowed someone being investigated by the CBI to continue in his council of ministers, why seemingly arbitrary allocation of licences and spectrum was allowed. The answer is complicated. It is worth pointing out that no one has even tried to introduce into this mix any element of personal turpitude on the part of Dr Manmohan Singh. But political morality is not a personal attribute. It depends on the will to wield authority as well. That restricts the explanation to a combination of two things: the fracturing of political authority and accountability in a coalition set-up and an unusual separation of political authority from the office of administrative leadership of the government, that of the PM. The equations of power within a coalition are broadly determined by numerical strength of each bloc, vulnerability in terms of the likelihood of a member crossing over to the Opposition, availability of potential sources of support outside the coalition in case of need, etc. Beyond this is a small but vital space that is determined by the coalition leader's personal standing vis-à-vis the team he leads. While Dr Singh commands respect for his knowledge, commitment and integrity, he has divested himself of that one vital ingredient that makes respect compelling: political authority. 

 

Many think this stems from the delegated nature of his power. That is an inadequate explanation: Mrs Sonia Gandhi trusts him enough to delegate political authority as well. The problem is that he chooses not to assume the authority he is vested with. This will not work. Dr Singh must assert his political authority as the PM to convert personal morality into political morality.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

STIGLITZ HAS A POINT

INVEST IN EDUCATION

NOBEL laureate Joseph E Stiglitz has rightly advised India to create a learning society for sustained and inclusive growth. His advice, in the latest edition of the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture, to build human capital and foster innovation makes eminent sense. Vastly expanding the opportunities for education is a must for India to reap the demographic dividend in full measure. More important, the country needs to produce quality talent, given that only 15% of our graduates are employable today. However, action at the level of higher education alone will not do. Students entering colleges should have a minimum level of knowledge that secondary schooling is supposed to provide. Very few actually do. The backbone for quality talent, therefore, is primary education. Merely spending money will not ensure improvements. We need to raise the efficacy of public spending in education. Stiglitz is spot-on when he says that policies to promote learning processes are specially important for developing countries. Clearly, the gap in knowledge between developed and developing countries can be bridged only if development policy focuses on enhancing learning. This calls for reforms in governance. Teachers who do not turn up in schools and those who are not equipped to teach are part of a sociopolitical reality. This must change. A change would mean empowering people at every level and decentralising administration. Simultaneously, intervention is necessary to disrupt the close correlation between socioeconomic status and educational attainment, mediated by nutrition intake and mental stimulation in the most critical growth phase, infancy. 

 

The government should also make the integration of research and teaching, particularly in science and education, mandatory. It should incentivise knowledge and innovation, making the academic community alive to the demands of industry. While the government must step up its allocations to higher education and research, there is enormous scope to supplement these with private funds, by way of grants and research funding from industry and tuition fees by those who can afford them. India cannot hold back serious educational reform any longer.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

MEGA PERKS

A COFFEE CUP SOLUTION

 

NOW that the (in)famous cannabis cafes of Amsterdam are likely to be made out of bounds for foreigners if the new coalition Dutch government has its way, the 'invention' of an American coffee shop owner may become a favoured fix — 'dieci' or 10 powerpacked shots of espresso in a single cup. Or, more appropriately, a mug or a jug. While such a high caffeine intake could actually prove fatal for the faint-hearted, the gigantic serving would certainly shorten the wait between successive strong doubles that coffee aficionados crave when the caffeine count falls. Especially since that hiatus is set to get longer with the king of (coffee)bean counters, Starbucks, decreeing that its baristas will now slow down dispensations — first in the US only, of course — in answer to criticism that its beverages had become increasingly average-tasting and hurriedly served. Then if harried coffee drinkers want multi-tasking and simultaneous order execution in busy cafés, they would have to head for India, where it has been elevated to a very profitable art. 

 

The bean's pep-up effect thanks to caffeine needs no reiteration, but since the stimulant was removed from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list of banned substances list in 2004 (making performance-enhancing mega-doses legal), the Brooklyn barista's concoction could also have a great market in sports arenas. 'Sip and sprint' could be a great catchline for the new brew except that experiments have proved caffeine is better for 'sub maximal' muscular activity, which makes it more suitable for marathon runners or chess players. Or for other kinds of sustained low-intensity activity such as turning pages or tapping keyboards. That, naturally would make it a perfect perk for Wall Street mavens across the river, making that long haul back to the black.

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

COMPETITION LAW & INCLUSIVE GROWTH

LIMITING ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR WILL BE A DAUNTING TASK, BUT WITHOUT AN EFFECTIVE COMPETITION POLICY, INDIA CANNOT BRIDGE THE URBAN-RURAL DIVIDE AND ACHIEVE INCLUSIVE GROWTH, SAYS MADHAV MEHRA

INDIA has achieved spectacular economic growth during the past decade that has understandably led to a growing conviction among Indians that the 21st century belongs to this country. Unfortunately, the growth has not translated into human development that has to be the overriding purpose of the public policy. India is still home to world's largest number of illiterate, undernourished and hungry people. Of the 771 million illiterate people in the world, 268 million are Indians. Over the last decade, literacy has increased in India by 12%. The 2010 Human Development Report puts India at shameful 119. Its gender inequality, at 122, is worse than even Pakistan. 

 

To ensure that the benefits of market liberalisation reach the poor, the Planning Commission has aptly adopted 'inclusive growth' as a guiding principle. The good news is that inclusive growth is achievable: all it needs is a trigger to spark a nationwide revolution in innovation. Competition law can provide that spark. By curbing the abuse of dominance, it opens the terrain for radical innovators to achieve the twin objectives of offering new technologies and better products at lower costs and throw out old technology incumbents. 

 

In Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, James Utterback illustrates how no real innovation has come from within the industry. It has always been an outside job. All through human history, rank outsiders brought new technologies that overturned age-old successful companies after protracted battles in which dominant players abused their market dominance to delay new products as long as possible for the cutting edge technologies that eventually replaced them. His case studies include the 50-year battle in which refrigeration replaced New England's block ice industry and the 30-year battle to replace gas lighting with electric lighting. 

 

In the book, Utterback writes: "Industry outsiders have little to lose in pursuing radical innovations. They have no infrastructure of existing technology to defend or maintain and, as is made clear through the case of ice innovators in the southern US, they have every economic incentive to overturn the existing order. Industry insiders, on the other hand, have abundant reasons to be slow to mobilise in developing radical innovations…. Owners and managers of dominant firms who are deliberate in their pursuit of radical innovation are remarkable and few." 

 

The irony is that each startup repeats the behaviour once it achieves success. Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb, is a classic example. A radical innovator himself who once fought the entrenched gas-lighting companies with the slogan 'we will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles', he fought protracted battles against his competitors by offering better technology. Alarmed by the success of his competitor George Westinghouse, Edison launched a smear campaign against alternating current, going to the extent of electrocuting animals in public to demonstrate its lethal consequences. 

 

History shows that success is its own enemy and incumbents are often unable to forget what made them great. Radicalinnovators unleash Schumpeter's creative destruction and break their moulds. No wonder that from the Forbes' list of 100 top companies of 1917, not one is making money today. 

 

OUR country today suffers from many entry barriers. Motorists cannot use steel radials because tyre cartels would not permit them. Governments themselves are a source of anticompetitive behaviour though public restraints. Movie buffs would have been denied the pleasure of watching Salman Khanstarred Dabaang, Aishwarya and Abhishek Bachchan film Ravan and Ranbir Kapur and Priyanka Chopra film in Anjana Anjani but for the intervention of Competition Commission of India. The local associations had banned their screening by abusing their dominant position. 

 

For competition regime to work, transparency has to be its handmaiden. In this world of uncertainty, the only thing certain is that "thou shalt be found out." To take a few recent examples, had Toyota, BP, CWG organising committee or Indian Premier League been transparent in their conduct, they could haveavoided the flak that engulfed them. We are living in one of the most inequitable worlds in history. About 1,181 individuals have more wealth than the rest of six billion. In Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy, Raghuram Rajan demonstrates how sharpening inequalities have been the root cause of the shifting of earth's tectonic plates in 2008. He blames India's skewed growth on its policymakers being too close to big business. 

 

Competition policy is a complex, cross-cutting and inter-connected instrument. Its implementation requires a holistic and integrated mind with ability to hold two opposing views in mind. Its enforcement is a public policy challenge than a legal argument. It's is an economic law and must aim to secure economic justice. We need the regulatory resolve, legislative learning and judicial wisdom to make it work. Our focus should be to constantly disrupt the status quo, leverage dissent and diversity, and encourage fearless and frank dialogue through full disclosure and transparency. 

 

Limiting anti-competitive behaviour is daunting. We have to navigate a delicate and difficult terrain of dodgy vested interests and political pressures. The 2% Haryanavis who won 40% medals in CWG should be our model. They destroyed the established icons through disruptive innovations in training, practice equipment and coaching, beating the established ways of jugaad. Their feats should inspire judicial activism to overcome purist, doctrinaire approaches, bureaucratic dogmas, legislative lethargy and administrative challenges to make law as a driver of innovation to usher a new era of competition regime. That is the only way to ensure enduring and sustainable prosperity for our children. 

 

Rigours of competition regime will make it hard to live with. But living without them will be catastrophic. Let us use competition law to bridge the divide between India and Bharat. 

(The author is the founder of International Academy of Law and president of UK-based World Council For Corporate Governance)

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

ET I N T E R A CT I V ERAJJU D SHROFF

'LET'S GIVE A BETTER DEAL TO FARMERS'

RAMKRISHNAKASHELKAR 

 

US PRESIDENT Barack Obama recently spoke of India and US jointly strengthening agriculture and sparking a second evergreen revolution. A breakthrough in agricultural research and technology is imperative to raise yields across crops, give a better deal to farmers and provide food security to millions of poor. Rajju D Shroff, chairman of Delhibased Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) and managing director of United Phosphorous, is convinced about better farm practices leading to adramatic improvement in yields. 

 

"In Tamil Nadu, Rallis India successfully demonstrated a 40% jump in pulses yield with proper farm practices. This was replicated by United Phosphorous for sugarcane in south Gujarat. However, we need to increase the awareness among farmers to adopt better practices. Experts from UPL guided farmers on scientific methods such as seed dressing where the seeds are dipped with fungicides before they are sown to prevent soil-borne diseases, the distance at which they should be planted, how much and when water, fertilisers, and what preventive pesticide-sprays should be used. The results made our demonstration farm alive learning example for farmers from all parts of the country," Shroff says. 

 

CCFI plans to bring together stakeholders not just from the agrochemicals industry, but also sectors like seeds, farm machinery, irrigation and the dairy sector to brainstorm on ways to improve low farm yields. "We expect these issues to be debated well at a seminar early next month on rural prosperity through better agriculture," he says. 

 

The production of pulses, for instance, has stagnated over the years, forcing the country to depend on imports. Prices have soared globally, too. Clearly, augmenting domestic production is the key challenge before the technology mission on pulses. 

 

According to Shroff, a major problem bogging down farm yields is the supply of spurious agrochemical products. Duplicate pesticides, valued at . 1,500 crore, are sold in the domestic market annually. "Those indulging in the supply of spurious pesticides escape with minor penalty. This has encouraged even larger players to indulge in such malpractices. Recently, for instance, a publicly listed company was found to be illegally exporting herbicide glyphosate to an African country using the brand name and registration number of another listed company. The CCFI has sought a cancellation of the former's licence," he said. 

 

Shroff says it is not easy to discover spurious products and hundreds of small offenders who go scot free. "Spurious products give insufficient pest protection. Farmers lose money buying these products and also their crops to pest attacks, leading to a vicious cycle of debt and poverty," he says. 

 

The other problem that the CCFI wants to deal with is the poor public perception of the agrochemical industry, with reports on pesticide residues, many of which are dubious. "We have proved, many times, that the data used by researchers is faulty. Most of them are unwilling to share their raw data. So, we are using the RTI Act to obtain data, but that is a time-consuming process. Unfortunately, even the legal system today doesn't take any punitive action against claims that have been proven as false," he said. 

 

In one case, an NGO found traces of harmful agrochemicals in vegetables in Delhi's mandi, but it was eventually proven that the data was fabricated. In another instance, pesticides were claimed to have found in vegetables that have been banned not just in India but the world over for decades. If the products have long been discontinued, how can one find its traces today? 

In fact, the country's premier institute for agricultural research Indian Agricultural Research Institute conducts annual surveys of agricommodities at farm level with over 5,200 samples. "Their research shows not more than 3% of samples at the farm level have agrochemical traces. Even in a country like Germany around 5% of farmgate samples have agrochemical traces," Shroff says. 

 

The process of negating false claims takes long. In fact, India's agrochemical consumption is abysmally low at below 600 gram per hectare as compared with between 3 kg and 10 kg in advanced countries such as the US or Japan. Raising consumption — right type of agro-chemicals at right time — holds a key to improving to farm yields. This has been demonstrated in other developed countries, he claims.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

GU EST COLU M N

CANCUN MUST NOT REPEAT COPENHAGEN

MUKUL SANWAL 

 

THE increasing global recognition of India's claim to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council requires us to take greater responsibility for global concerns. Therefore, the announcement that we will be flexible and play a leadership role in the next round of climate negotiations at Cancun is timely. It is, however, important to guard against a repeat of the earlier situation where we pledged national actions at Copenhagen only to add reservations when we recorded them with the UN. The US made its pledge conditional on legislative approval in the political agreement itself, in effect taking no commitments. So, what are the areas where we can be flexible? And what do we want in exchange? 

 

We have already shown flexibility with respect to both finance and technology transfer. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that emerged at the Rio meet in 1992 did not specify what is to be done and paid for and by whom and for what purpose. In the subsequent debates over whether developing countries should reduce their emissions and, if so, how much financial support should be provided, the principle remains undefined. Therefore, we can show leadership by suggesting that incremental steps continue to be taken, with the issue being finally decided in the next major review of the convention in 2020. 

 

In the interim, rather than discuss how much of resources should come from developed country budgets, we should change the paradigm and suggest that such resources be provided to enable adaptation measures in the least developed countries. This would also reiterate our earlier announcement that we will not seek any part of the $30 billion pledged as fast-track finance. Similarly, whether or not the intellectual property regime needs to be amended for climate change actions remains a source of tension. 

 

Cancun will also require us to make policy choices on the evolution of climate governance. We are being told by the UN that a package deal need not include legally-binding emission reduction commitments. We can certainly be flexible with respect to the actual numbers to be inscribed, but should not agree to an agenda that would blur the differentiation between developed and developing countries with respect to emissions reduction commitments. The parties to the Kyoto Protocol now argue that, despite an unambiguous commitment, they will agree to a second commitment period only if the US is included, and the latter will make commitments only if China (now the largest emitter) and India (which will become the third largest emitter) make symmetrical commitments. Rather than adopt an adversarial view, we should suggest new rules to determine legall- binding criteria for burdensharing that will apply to all countries. 

 

The policy problem is that current scenarios of the future focus on 'flows' of greenhouse gases, whereas climate change is caused by their concentration in the atmosphere. For bending the curve from a reference line to acceptable global emission pathway international cooperation in the form of sharing the costs requires a peaking year, and review of national actions to ensure it. However, defining the reference line and the assumptions about national and global economies remains controversial, and even the IPCC is considering a global carbon budget. 

 

Arelated concern is that ecosystem services delivered outside national boundaries — by the atmospheric and terrestrial natural resource — have been ignored in the negotiations, effectively setting their value to zero. The current framework ignores the fact that energy and ecological services are directly related to human well-being. Development of infrastructure, urbanisation, manufacturing and food production all need carbon space, essential for eradication of poverty. National carbon budgets are a necessary basis for developing and assessing national strategies. 

For sharing the remaining global carbon budget, we can be flexible and agree to make do with the budget available to a mid-level developed country and move away from debates around historical responsibility. Agreeing to take responsibility corresponding to the development level of the country will have wider acceptability and legitimacy. 

 

Finally, we should take the leadership in discussing options for making the societal transformation to achieve sustainable development. The global community would then ask a different set of questions, instead of the current narrow focus on mitigation and adaptation. They would, for example, need to identify which longer-term trends should be modified, and the best way of doing so at the national level. Multilateral cooperation would then be based around laying out a timetable for joint R&D of new technologies, to meet the scale and speed of the response. Equity would be redefined as patterns of resource use that can in principle be adopted by all countries. We should suggest new rules rather than only oppose existing one. 

    (The writer has worked at the policy level in the 

    government of India and the UN 

    Climate Change Secretariat)

 

India needs to be strategic in the climate negotiations, while ensuring that the priority of poverty eradication is not diluted 

We should suggest new rules to determine legally-binding criteria for burden-sharing that will apply to all 
We should take the leadership in discussing options for charting a path towards sustainable development

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

CO S M I C U P LI N K

PRAYER CHANGES NOTHING BUT YOU

TEJINDER NARANG 

 

THE real purpose of prayer is to elevate us from physical to spiritual. It is a silent yearning of the soul for oneness with the lord. However, our daily prayers are wish/demand lists for our physical, mental and material well-being. 

 

Questions a mystic, "Do you remind god of the hours for the sun to rise and for the moon to set in?" Such a lord — If he cannot be a knower then how can he be agiver? Life is riddled with the fear of unknown, constant transition and illusion. Just as our existence is shadowed/ threatened by death all the time, acquisition of wealth, power, position, family comforts, etc, are intimately mingled with fear of losing them. All that is gained is threatened to be lost. How can what is based on fear be source of bliss? We pray in unawareness of consequences of our wish list, without realising that affluence, authority and attachments, etc, push us into another cycle of intense misery. 

 

Given the profanity of human passions and greed, if lord were to accept all that we pray for, the world would have been torn into chaotic pieces. Lord, in perfect wisdom kept absolute power of dispensation at his total discretion. Prayers, when the heart is absent and lips are moving have limited results and satisfy our egos only or help in giving vent to the stress of daily life. The real prayer is done in solitary intimacy with the lord. It might have tears of emotional turbulence of heart — a blessed sadness of separation from the heavenly father. When a child holds the hand of heavenly father, he has nothing to fear. Then come what may, mystery and mess of life can be lived through peacefully. 

 

Can prayer alter the events of life? The answer is 'No' and 'Yes'. Destinies of human beings are karmically interwoven. An example — a person falling sick has to be attended by doctors/nurses/ family members/ pharmacist, etc, — so sickness creates karmic interaction of the patient with others who are connected with healing process. Illness cannot be prevented as karmic matrix cannot be interfered. But 'yes'— prayer, provides spiritual strength to mind for abiding in 'thy will' and this facilitates that period of illness be lived through with patience and fortitude. Prayer thus reduces severity of distress and to that extent the course of life stands altered. 

 

Bad phases in the walk of life are akin to bushes, thorn and stones. Once human consciousness is pious and benevolent, the outer world also responds likewise. So it is the change within that brings change with out.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

                                                                                                               DECCAN CHRONICAL

EDITORIAL

HEED TRAI, START THE CLEANUP NOW

 

It is the mood of the present, generated by the resignation of controversial communications minister A. Raja and the sense of some political uncertainty that has ensued, that probably explains the recent recommendation of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India to cancel 62 of the 122 spectrum licences issued by the former minister. Knowledgeable commentators had indeed begun to advise such a course so that some of the money lost to the national exchequer be recouped and politically connected offenders brought to book. The licence-baggers were supposed to roll out their network in 10 per cent of every district within a year. Not only did they renege on this, they also got away without paying the penalty of `5 lakhs per week per circle for the first 13 weeks of delay, increasing progressively to `20 lakhs for delays up to 26 weeks. Could this have happened without a quid pro quo? The real story is that the licence-baggers were waiting for buyers for these licences so that they could exit the scene after making a killing. Many of them had nothing to do with telecommunications in the first place, but had the political clout to get the scarce and much-in-demand spectrum. For them it was a big money-making business, as illustrated by the case of Swan Telecom — earlier controlled by the builders DB Group. It used influence to get the licence for `1,651 crores and sold it to a party from the UAE for `4,000 crores without any network or even equipment being ordered. Others were waiting to do the same. They also realised that revenues per minute were dropping in the sector and wanted out. With the Trai recommendation coming in, the government should act on it with dispatch unless it wishes to be regarded with suspicion even with Mr Raja gone. Noises are already being made about customers being harmed if the licences are taken away. Some would rather that penalties weren't collected, arguing speciously that these are enormous. The offending companies claim to have 1.3 crore subscribers, but there could be a well-founded view that the real figures might be just half of this. So it won't be a big deal if the licences are indeed revoked, repudiating the self-serving arguments being advanced. Let us not reward the offenders. A provision in the licence says that if for some reason a party cannot fulfil its obligations, then the government can take it over. Thus, it could be that either BSNL or MTNL can take over the subscribers who might find themselves at a loose end. Another measure that needs to be adopted is to auction the spectrum that has been taken over to the existing serious players, whose could number about 200 out of the 575 who applied for licences. The government is said to have about 10-15 megahertz of spare spectrum. This could be auctioned. Based on the price-level achieved for this transaction, it could auction the spectrum of the 62 licensees named by Trai. Only the serious players will remain under this method, and the government might stand to earn handsomely as it did for the 3G auction.

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

EDITORIAL

TOLERATING INTOLERANCE

BY FARRUKH DHONDY

 "I loved a dog

He loved me back

Then he found a bitch —

Alas! Alack!"

From Laments of a Petwalla by Bachchoo

The old ones are, on occasion, the best:

 

"The difference between Iran and Britain? In Iran you commit adultery and get stoned, in Britain you get stoned and commit adultery, boo-boom!"

 

That one is descriptive and, looking at it all ways, harmless. Telling it, in Britain at any rate, shouldn't cause you to be arrested, prosecuted or persecuted. There is, as far as my lay knowledge stretches, no law against characterising Iran as a rather nasty place or against jesting about the loose morals of Brits. But as Milan Kundera made us aware in the masterpiece that brought him and his writing to the attention of the world, a joke, however harmless, can bring the horsemen of the Apocalypse in the shape of the secret police, the apparat of the Communist Party and the Stalinist abyss to your door. Kundera's novel is set in Soviet Czechoslovakia. The story begins with its hero being sent off to hard labour in the mines for sending a postcard to his girlfriend denigrating the optimism of Party propaganda as "the opium of the people" and wishing at the same time the renegade Trotsky a long life.

 

British mines have been, for the most part, shut since the regime of Margaret Thatcher and today's Party dissidents, as far as I know, can't be punished by being sent down them. So at least the fate of Kundera's hero doesn't await Counsellor Gareth Compton, the Conservative who was arrested and suspended indefinitely from the Tory Party for what he admits was a feeble attempt at a joke he posted on Twitter.

 

Mr Compton's Twitter account has been closed down and today he must feel much as Kundera's joker felt. Mr Compton has been charged by the West Midland's police for "sending an offensive or indecent message", racially aggravated it is said — and if he is brought to court and convicted, he faces being banned from his profession as a barrister.

 

Mr Compton was reacting to the broadcast opinion of the columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown who was invited onto Radio Five Live's Breakfast Show to talk about British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to China. There was a difference of opinion on whether he should condemn China's record on human rights. Ms Brown was of the opinion that no politician had any moral right to condemn human rights abuses, not even the stoning to death of women under Sharia law.

 

Mr Compton Tweeted his reaction to this opinion, or perhaps passed an implicit verdict on all her opinions expressed over the years, mainly in the Independent, saying "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing really".

 

Soon after, he posted another Tweet to say his previous Tweet was an ill-conceived attempt at humour and he didn't mean any offence.

 

It is reasonable to conclude that this regretful retraction was the result of a little reflection (or of instant warnings from friends) about the possible consequences for himself, of this impulsive burst of intended humour. It certainly wasn't a hasty retraction rescinding an order to inflict fatal harm on Ms Brown, because even a junior Conservative councillor from Erdington in Birmingham must realise that he is almost powerless to get the bins cleared on time, leave aside condemning anyone to death by stoning.

 

However unfunny the joke, the context, the culture, the country in which it was made, the concern that his leader Mr Cameron and Party have the moral duty to condemn the stoning to death of a woman in Iran, indicate that Mr Compton could have had no illusions or intention that his joke was any sort of "fatwa". It wasn't the word of an Ayatollah asking Muslims to murder Salman Rushdie. It wasn't the word of some cleric telling his congregation that British soldiers were kafirs who should be sent to hell by any means necessary. It was a laddish, ironic joke by someone who obviously wants stoning to death condemned.

 

Ms Brown is not herself without a sense of historic vengeance, though perhaps a little devoid of ironic appreciation. In one exchange some years ago, if I remember correctly, Gavin Essler, a TV journalist responded to something she was saying by asking, "What's wrong with white guys, by the way?"

 

Ms A-B replied, "I don't like them. I want them to be the lost species in a hundred years". Hitler was more ambitious.

 

And so to a confession: The evening before the Radio Five Live broadcast and Mr Compton's folly, I was invited to the premiere of a play by a touring Mumbai theatre group at a West London venue. The audience was largely of South Asian origin. After the play there was a reception in the foyer and I spotted the same Yasmin Alibhai Brown speaking to some friends of mine. I am not well acquainted with Ms Brown but have met her on several occasions and exchanged anodyne pleasantries. I went up to the group, greeted my friends and said, "Hello Yasmin".

 

She turned and left the group saying: "I am not speaking to you, you are dangerous".

 

However flattering it may be to be deemed and dubbed "dangerous", I was baffled as were my friends. They asked why I was dangerous. I said I was unaware of ever having given any offence, intentional or otherwise. I don't do Twitter and I am not on any blog or website.

 

Then it occurred to me that the snub may have been the result of Ms Brown knowing that I am acquainted with a niece of hers, one Farah Damji, a writer and self-confessed fraudster and convict and I have been told by both that they are not friends. But then a lot of people have come across and made the acquaintance of Farah Damji and surely Ms Brown doesn't believe that it makes them all "dangerous".

 

The snub remained mildly puzzling until I remembered that I once said to someone apropos of her columns that Ms Brown "had put the 'aunty' back in 'dilettante'". I am not conscious of having put such the remark out on Twitter but it obviously got back.

 

Now all I can do is put the chain on and wait for the knock at dawn.

 

***************************************

 

DECCAN CHRONICAL

EDITORIAL

CHINA, GERMANY, GOP BULLYING FED

BY PAUL KRUGMAN

 

What do the government of China, the government of Germany and the Republican Party have in common? They're all trying to bully the us Federal Reserve into calling off its efforts to create jobs. And the motives of all three are highly suspect.

 

It's not as if the Fed is doing anything radical. It's true that the Fed normally conducts monetary policy by buying short-term US government debt, whereas now, under the unhelpful name of "quantitative easing", it's buying longer-term debt. (Buying more short-term debt is pointless because the interest rate on that debt is near zero.)

 

But Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, had it right when he protested that this is "just monetary policy". The Fed is trying to reduce interest rates, as it always does when unemployment is high and inflation is low.

 

And inflation is indeed low. Core inflation — a measure that excludes volatile food and energy prices, and is widely considered a better gauge of underlying trends than the headline number — is running at just 0.6 per cent, the lowest level ever recorded. Meanwhile, unemployment is almost 10 per cent, and long-term unemployment is worse than it has been since the Great Depression.

 

So the case for Fed action is overwhelming. In fact, the main concern reasonable people have about the Fed's plans — a concern that I share — is that they are likely to prove too weak, too ineffective.

 

But there are reasonable people — and then there's the China-Germany-GOP axis of depression.

 

It's no mystery why China and Germany are on the warpath against the Fed. Both nations are accustomed to running huge trade surpluses. But for some countries to run trade surpluses, others must run trade deficits — and, for years, that has meant us. The Fed's expansionary policies, however, have the side effect of somewhat weakening the dollar, making US goods more competitive, and paving the way for a smaller US deficit. And the Chinese and Germans don't want to see that happen.

 

For the Chinese government, by the way, attacking the Fed has the additional benefit of shifting attention away from its own currency manipulation, which keeps China's currency artificially weak — precisely the sin China falsely accuses America of committing.

 

But why are Republicans joining in this attack?

 

Mr Bernanke and his colleagues seem stunned to find themselves in the crosshairs. They thought they were acting in the spirit of none other than Milton Friedman, who blamed the Fed for not acting more forcefully during the Great Depression — and who, in 1998, called on the Bank of Japan to "buy government bonds on the open market", exactly what the Fed is now doing.

 

Republicans, however, will have none of it, raising objections that range from the odd to the incoherent.

 

The odd: on Monday, a somewhat strange group of Republican figures — who knew that William Kristol was an expert on monetary policy? — released an open letter to the Fed warning that its policies "risk currency debasement and inflation". These concerns were echoed in a letter the top four Republicans in Congress sent Mr Bernanke on Wednesday. Neither letter explained why we should fear inflation when the reality is that inflation keeps hitting record lows.

 

And about dollar debasement: leaving aside the fact that a weaker dollar actually helps US manufacturing, where were these people during the previous administration?

 

The dollar slid steadily through most of the Bush years, a decline that dwarfs the recent downtick. Why weren't there similar letters demanding that Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman at the time, tighten policy?

 

Meanwhile, the incoherent: Two Republicans, Mike Pence in the House and Bob Corker in the Senate, have called on the Fed to abandon all efforts to achieve full employment and focus solely on price stability. Why? Because unemployment remains so high. No, I don't understand the logic either.

 

So what's really motivating the GOP attack on the Fed? Mr Bernanke and his colleagues were clearly caught by surprise, but the budget expert Stan Collender predicted it all. Back in August, he warned Mr Bernanke that "with Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory", they would be "opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better". In short, their real fear is not that Fed actions will be harmful, it is that they might succeed.

 

Hence the axis of depression. No doubt some of Mr Bernanke's critics are motivated by sincere intellectual conviction, but the core reason for the attack on the Fed is self-interest, pure and simple. China and Germany want America to stay uncompetitive; Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House.

 

And if Mr Bernanke gives in to their bullying, they may all get their wish.

 

***************************************

 

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

EUROPE, US ALIGNED FOR THE FUTURE

BY BARACK OBAMA

 

With this week's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) and United States-European Union summit meetings in Lisbon, I am proud to have visited Europe a half-dozen times as President. This reflects an enduring truth of American foreign policy — our relationship with our European allies and partners is the cornerstone of our engagement with the world, and a catalyst for global cooperation.

 

With no other region does the United States have such a close alignment of values, interests, capabilities and goals. With the largest economic relationship in the world, trans-Atlantic trade supports millions of jobs in the United States and Europe and forms a foundation of our efforts to sustain the global economic recovery.

 

As an alliance of democratic nations, Nato ensures our collective defence and helps strengthen young democracies. Europe and the United States are working together to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote peace in West Asia and confront climate change. And as we have seen in the recent security alert in Europe and the thwarted plot to detonate explosives on trans-Atlantic cargo flights, we cooperate closely every day to prevent terrorist attacks and keep our citizens safe.

 

Put simply, we are each other's closest partners. Neither Europe nor the United States can confront the challenges of our time without the other. These summits are thus an opportunity to deepen our cooperation even further and to ensure that Nato — the most successful alliance in human history — remains as relevant in this century as it was in the last. That is why we have a comprehensive agenda at Lisbon.

 

First, on Afghanistan, we can align our efforts to transition to an Afghan lead, even as we sustain an enduring commitment to the Afghan people.

 

Our Nato-led coalition in Afghanistan is comprised of 48 nations — including contributions from all 28 Nato allies and 40,000 troops from allied and partner countries, whose service and sacrifice we honour. Our shared effort is essential to denying terrorists a safe haven, just as it is necessary to improve the lives of the Afghan people. With the arrival of additional coalition forces over the last two years, we finally have the strategy and resources to break the Taliban's momentum, deprive insurgents of their strongholds, train more Afghan security forces, and assist the Afghan people.

 

In Lisbon, we will align our approach so that we can begin a transition to Afghan responsibility early next year, and adopt President Hamid Karzai's goal of Afghan forces taking the lead for security across Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

 

And even as America's transition and troop reductions will begin this July, Nato — like the United States — can forge a lasting partnership with Afghanistan to make it clear that as Afghans stand up and take the lead, they will not stand alone.

 

As we move forward in Afghanistan, Nato will also transform itself in Lisbon with a new Strategic Concept that recognises the capabilities and partners we need to meet the new threats of the 21st century. This must begin by reaffirming the lifeblood of this alliance — our Article 5 commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all.

 

To ensure that this commitment has meaning, we must strengthen the full range of capabilities that are needed

to protect our people today and prepare for the missions of tomorrow. Even as we modernise our conventional forces, we need to reform alliance command structures to make them more effective and efficient, invest in the technologies that allow allied forces to deploy and operate together effectively, and develop new defences against threats such as cyber attacks.

 

Another necessary alliance capability is missile defence of Nato territory, which is needed to address the real

and growing threat from ballistic missiles. The Phased Adaptive Approach to European missile defence that I announced last year will provide a strong and effective defence of the territory and people of Europe and our deployed American forces. Moreover, it forms the foundation of greater collaboration — with a role for all allies, protection for all allies, and an opportunity for cooperation with Russia, which is also threatened by ballistic missiles.

 

In addition, we can work to create the conditions for reductions in nuclear arsenals and move toward the vision I

outlined in Prague last year — a world without nuclear weapons. Yet so long as these weapons exist, Nato

should remain a nuclear alliance, and I've made it clear that the United States will maintain a safe, secure and

effective nuclear arsenal to deter any adversary and guarantee the defence of our allies.

 

Finally, at Lisbon we can continue to forge the partnerships beyond Nato that help make our alliance a pillar of

global security. We must keep the door open to European democracies that meet the standards of Nato

membership. We must deepen cooperation with organisations that complement Nato strengths, such as the European Union, the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. And with the attendance of President Dmitri Medvedev at the Nato-Russia Council summit, we can resume practical cooperation between Nato and Russia that benefits both.

 

For just as the United States and Russia have reset our relationship, so too can Nato and Russia. In Lisbon we can make it clear that Nato sees Russia as a partner, not an adversary. We can deepen our cooperation on Afghanistan, counter-narcotics and 21st century security challenges — from the spread of nuclear weapons to the spread of violent extremism. And by moving ahead with cooperation on missile defence, we can turn a source of past tension into a source of cooperation against a shared threat.

 

For more than six decades, Europeans and Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder because our work together advances our interests and protects the freedoms we cherish as democratic societies. As the world has changed, so too has our alliance, and we are stronger, safer and more prosperous as a result. That is our task in Lisbon — to revitalise our alliance once more and ensure our security and prosperity for decades to come.

 

- Barack Obama is the President of the United States

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

MONITORING MINDS

BY SHOBHAA'S TAKE

 

Poor Pamela Anderson. Imagine the woman's plight… her entire identity is located in her mammary glands. The world largely knows her for the size of her breasts. It is as if the rest of her doesn't exist… doesn't really count. Pam is a woman attached to the world's most talked-about boobs. And most people talk to her chest. Good sport that she obviously is, this famous Playboy Bunny is not complaining. She admitted candidly to a Mumbai reporter, "My assets get me in the door". That's truthful. But that's also smart. Here's a woman who has made a small fortune flaunting her twin peaks. Her cup size is what has taken her places. She is not embarrassed to admit as much. If anything, her bouncies are her best friends. The Baywatch star is, finally, in the land of the Kamasutra… clad in a clingy, diaphanous white sari, Pam richly deserves the nearly one crore rupees a day she'll be earning as a participant in a much-watched reality show. With her entry, all the other Bigg Boss bombshells (past and present) appear totally pheeka… underdeveloped.

 

Perhaps, it is the arrival of Bazooka Pam that prompted the Indian government to suddenly wake up to the "X-rated" content of some shows and clamp a few meaningless restrictions on them. By trying to push back the slots of shows that beam "objectional and vulgar" content to 11 pm, some prudish babus must be patting themselves on the back for saving the country from moral degradation. Give us a break, fellas. The information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry officials should get a few basics in place first. Bared breasts and crude abuses no longer send shock waves across the nation. We, in India, are used to the sight of uncovered bosoms (women happily breastfeed their babies in crowded train compartments) and the gaalis Rakhi Sawant spouts on her show are mild compared to what one hears from politicians and members of Parliament in public. Balasaheb Thackeray spares nobody when he decides to lash out — his abuses cover generations and involve animals, sisters, mothers, brothers, friends and enemies. So what? Does that lead to rioting on the streets? If this silly directive is designed to protect our children, someone please tell those fellows, desi children rarely sleep before midnight. We are not British. Our kids are seen and heard. Annoying but true. In which middle class Indian family are the bachchas packed off to bed at 7 pm after supper at 6 pm? Television time largely remains unmonitored and unrestricted. It is considered bonding time. Families that watch heaving bosoms and hectic pelvic thrusts together, stay together. Big deal. What kids watch (or aren't supposed to) ought to be the parents' and not the government's responsibility. Going by this new "adults only" ruling, what about commercial Hindi films that feature the most provocative "item songs" and are peppered with abuses with actors screaming "bastard" routinely? Kids watch those and worse… so why the double standards? One set of rules for television programming, another for cinema?

 

Our society is schizophrenic and confused. News bulletins carry detailed reports about a villainous cop called S.P.S. Rathore, who molested Ruchika Girhotra, a teenager, but are not allowed to carry clips from reality shows that are deemed offensive. What could be worse or more obscene than the smug smile of a sexual predator whose defenceless victim (Ruchika) committed suicide? There are rapist cops on the loose in nearly every city of India. The TV reportage of such cases is anything but coy, restrained or discreet. Sensationalising news while focusing on the gory aspects of crime has become the rule, given the unhealthy TRP wars being fought fiercely by the big players. So-called "talent hunts" on television, featuring precocious kids indulging in the most risqué dance moves, remain unmonitored and accessible to any and everybody. In any case, what's the Internet for if not to surf? How many parents check what their precious bachchalog watch obsessively for hours on end?

 

This new government diktat is meaningless and unfair. All reality shows are phoney, most are fixed. This is the space in which appalling taste meets eager eyeballs. So be it. The ultimate power remains in the hands of viewers. The person who holds the remote control, is the sole decision-maker as to what is acceptable viewing and what isn't. Indians are not sheep. Let us, the viewers, be the ones to take a call on whether or not we wish to ogle Ms Anderson's ample assets or clean our ears after Ms Sawant is done with her raving and ranting on camera. Whether it is the bleeped out cuss words on Emotional Atyachaar or the aggro attitude displayed by Roadies on a rampage — this is the 21st century, folks. Anything goes! So long as it sells. Before the government gets into the act and dictates what our kids can watch and when, how about a thorough scrutiny of what constitutes actual pornography in today's transparent times — like the live telecast of parliamentary proceedings? That is perhaps the only time concerned parents feel like shielding the eyes and plugging the ears of impressionable kids. Pamela's boobs harm nobody. But the atrocious behaviour of some of our netas definitely damages the delicate psyches of India's youth. Pamela will pick up her pay packet and jet off to Malibu to be with her two sons, Dylan, 13, and Brandon, 14. We, in India, will be left panting for more. Unless, of course, those amazingly canny TV bosses locate an international has-been with even bigger body parts, or a local starlet with a filthier vocabulary than our Rakhi's.

 

Tauba! Tauba! What will those moralistic masterjis in the I&B ministry do then? 3.30 am may become the new slot for prime time viewing. Even at that ghastly hour, our pesky kids will be wide awake and watching. Bottoms up, everyone.

 

— Readers can send feedback to

www.shobhaade.blogspot.com [1]

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

ENCASH OBAMA'S UNSC CHEQUE

BY DILIP LAHIRI

 

U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement in Parliament that "in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council (UNSC) that includes India as a permanent member" was greeted with immediate euphoria. However, its highly nuanced formulation has subsequently raised many questions.

 

The UNSC expansion involves a two-step process. An amendment of the UN Charter, requiring 128 votes in the General Assembly has to be followed by ratification by two-third of the UN membership, including the five permanent members of the Security Council (P5). The resolution for the only other expansion in 1963 was adopted in the General Assembly with France and the USSR voting against, and the US and UK abstaining. However, all permanent members eventually ratified the charter amendment, allowing the expansion to go forward. The crux of the matter now is to find a formula which can win 128 votes in the General Assembly.

 

The current line-up is that the G4, consisting of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, have proposed an increase of the UNSC from the current 15 to 25, with six additional permanent members (themselves and two from the African Union). They have sought to finesse the veto question by postponing the issue for 15 years. The African Union (AU) has a variant which wants expansion to 26 with the veto either being abolished or extended immediately to the six additional permanent members.

 

The most vociferous opponents of this approach are a group of countries unalterably opposed to one or other of the G4, called "Uniting for Consensus" (UfC), led by Italy and Pakistan. Their proposal is for 10 new non-permanent members eligible for immediate re-election, no expansion in the permanent category, with all decisions in this matter being taken by consensus. The numbers in the above group are not large enough to block an expansion resolution. A straw vote a few years ago of countries supporting UNSC expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories gathered 140 votes, well above the 128 required for passage of an expansion formula.

 

Faced with the prospect of prolonged deadlock, France and the UK have proposed an intermediate reform which would add a number of temporary seats that would become permanent after some time if the members so wished. The UfC has opposed the proposal due to the danger, as they see it, of temporary members being transformed into permanent members.

 

The biggest obstacle at this time to achieving the 128 vote target is the position of the African group, which insists on designating the two proposed permanent members from Africa, without being able to decide among several claimants. None of the claimants are prepared to chance a vote without the endorsement of the 53-member strong African group.

 

Other major obstacles to achieving the 128 vote target are the opposition of the US to more than a limited expansion of the UNSC beyond, say, 20, and the demand of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the League of Arab States for an assured share of the cake.

 

Voting in contested elections for the Security Council is a highly chancy exercise. Committed votes often do not materialise, as India found to its cost when losing two elections against Japan and Pakistan. In this year's contest for two non-permanent seats between Germany, Canada and Portugal, Canada reportedly had 136 written commitments, but ended up getting 113 in the first round, and 78 in the second before it withdrew.

 

While the UNSC restructuring may not be an immediate prospect, there could be very quick movement if the question of the two permanent members from the African group could be resolved, or an appropriate resolution, based on the UK-French intermediate proposal, came up for voting in the General Assembly. If the African group got its act together , there is no reason why the G4, acting together with Nigeria and South Africa, and with the support of UK and France, should not be able to garner the 128 votes for their endorsement as permanent members.

 

With this background, the real substance of Mr Obama's support can be analysed.

 

* Is it a big deal? Absolutely. US support may not be a sufficient condition for obtaining a permanent seat, but it is certainly a necessary condition. Active opposition by the US would have made 128 votes unattainable.

 

* Does it commit the US to support India for early realisation of this objective? Not necessarily. The words "in the years ahead" are similar to Mr Obama's Prague declaration on a nuclear weapon free world which was, according to him, unlikely to happen in his lifetime.

 

* Does it commit the US to support a vote, which may be essential to clinch matters? No, not unless explicitly agreed.

 

* Does this commit the US not to oppose expansion of the UNSC including India beyond 20, as has been their consistent position in the past? No.

 

There is, therefore, much work to be done with the UN membership and much to consult and clarify with the US. The Japanese were promised support by the US on this matter in even more explicit terms decades ago, but have still to cash in their cheque.

 

The one luxury India cannot afford is to get persuaded by the siren songs of the "sour grapes" advocates who say that the UN Security Council seat, particularly if without the veto, is not worth so much effort, that it is demeaning to have to keep asking motley countries for support, or that permanent membership will be offered to India on a platter as our political and economic strength grows.

 

For all its weaknesses, the UNSC is the only body whose decisions under Chapter 7 relating to peace and security are required to be implemented by all countries under international law. Permanent membership of the Security Council is an important determinant of rank in the international pecking order. India will repent at leisure if it gives up the race now only to find, after some years, that countries with lesser weight but greater perseverance have left us irretrievably a rung lower in the international hierarchy.

 

- Dilip Lahiri is a former ambassador to Japan

*************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

ENCASH OBAMA'S UNSC CHEQUE

BY DILIP LAHIRI

 

U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement in Parliament that "in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council (UNSC) that includes India as a permanent member" was greeted with immediate euphoria. However, its highly nuanced formulation has subsequently raised many questions.

 

The UNSC expansion involves a two-step process. An amendment of the UN Charter, requiring 128 votes in the General Assembly has to be followed by ratification by two-third of the UN membership, including the five permanent members of the Security Council (P5). The resolution for the only other expansion in 1963 was adopted in the General Assembly with France and the USSR voting against, and the US and UK abstaining. However, all permanent members eventually ratified the charter amendment, allowing the expansion to go forward. The crux of the matter now is to find a formula which can win 128 votes in the General Assembly.

 

The current line-up is that the G4, consisting of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, have proposed an increase of the UNSC from the current 15 to 25, with six additional permanent members (themselves and two from the African Union). They have sought to finesse the veto question by postponing the issue for 15 years. The African Union (AU) has a variant which wants expansion to 26 with the veto either being abolished or extended immediately to the six additional permanent members.

 

The most vociferous opponents of this approach are a group of countries unalterably opposed to one or other of the G4, called "Uniting for Consensus" (UfC), led by Italy and Pakistan. Their proposal is for 10 new non-permanent members eligible for immediate re-election, no expansion in the permanent category, with all decisions in this matter being taken by consensus. The numbers in the above group are not large enough to block an expansion resolution. A straw vote a few years ago of countries supporting UNSC expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories gathered 140 votes, well above the 128 required for passage of an expansion formula.

 

Faced with the prospect of prolonged deadlock, France and the UK have proposed an intermediate reform which would add a number of temporary seats that would become permanent after some time if the members so wished. The UfC has opposed the proposal due to the danger, as they see it, of temporary members being transformed into permanent members.

 

The biggest obstacle at this time to achieving the 128 vote target is the position of the African group, which insists on designating the two proposed permanent members from Africa, without being able to decide among several claimants. None of the claimants are prepared to chance a vote without the endorsement of the 53-member strong African group.

 

Other major obstacles to achieving the 128 vote target are the opposition of the US to more than a limited

expansion of the UNSC beyond, say, 20, and the demand of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the League of Arab States for an assured share of the cake.

 

Voting in contested elections for the Security Council is a highly chancy exercise. Committed votes often do not

materialise, as India found to its cost when losing two elections against Japan and Pakistan. In this year's contest for two non-permanent seats between Germany, Canada and Portugal, Canada reportedly had 136 written commitments, but ended up getting 113 in the first round, and 78 in the second before it w