PEOPLE AND THEIR PROBLEMS

New Delhi, 7 January 2006

Indian Floriculture Industry

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES  

By Radhakrishna Rao

While both the IT (Information Technology) and biotech industry in India have become a major contributor to the process of wealth creation and employment generation in the country, the high-tech floriculture continues to lag behind  in sofaras  emerging as the sunrise sector of the Indian economy is concerned. Indeed, in the race to export multi-hued and gorgeously patterned flowers, India continues to lag behind many third world countries, including Israel, Kenya and Colombia. However, with the demand for Indian cut flowers and floriculture products set to go up with the improved quality standard adopted by the Indian growers, Indian exporters are now concentrating on developing cut flowers of larger size and with improved vase life.

“Indian flower exports though small are growing at an encouraging pace. As against the earning of Rs.432.3-million in 2002-03, they totaled Rs.457.4-million in 2003-04; according to sources in Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Authority. The setting up of a global floriculture logistics hub in the Gulf city state of Dubai is expected to give a big boost to the Indian flower export enterprise.

Currently, the multi billion dollar global trade in flower products is concentrated in Netherlands. By routing the floricultural consignments through tax free Dubai, Indian suppliers would be in a position to cut money and time off the delivery chain. But the sources in Dubai floriculture hub insist that it is not seeking to take away business from Netherlands. This centre it is hoped will open up new routes for perishable goods between Africa and Asia.

In India, around 60,000-hectares are under flower cultivation. Because of its salubrious climate, diverse agroclimatic conditions, sunshine in winter, fertile soil and a rich genetic base as well a skilled labour force that comes cheap, India is ideally placed for the export oriented high tech floricultural industry.

Incidentally, Indian farmers grow more than 60 varieties against 168 rose varieties that are grown across the world, .Cut roses, gerbera and gladiolus are the three flowers that  rank top in exports. Though anthuriums too are gaining in importance, their production in India is quite low. As it is, India’s current share of flower export is less than one per cent of the international trade.

The state of Karnataka is the largest exporter of cut flowers and high quality floricultural products in the country. India’s only flowers auction centre, considered the second largest auction centre in the world, is located in Bangalore. The centre currently known as International Flower Auction Bangalore (IFAB) has given a big boost to the flower export from India.

A spokesman of IFAB sys, “internet auction facility will be available at the centre to determine the international market trends. Besides, they will also facilitate overseas bidders to participate in the auction”.  This flower auction centre is equipped with cold storage facilities and will provide consultancy services to the growers. On the other hand the Talegaon Floriculture Park in Maharastra houses 150 floricultural units.

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed by the rest of the country, the state of West Bengal  has emerged as a major exporter of floricultural products .Around 9,000 flower stems  are being sent to  Holland from West Bengal each week. The dynamic flower exporters from West Bengal are also looking at exploiting the potentials of Dubai floricultural hub. Flowers meant for export are mainly grown in the hilly Darjeeling, and in parts of the districts of North 24 Paraganas, Howrah and East Midnapore. The West Bengal Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation is getting orders from private parties based in London and New Jersey for the supply of Lotus and Marigold .These flowers are used by the expatriate Indians during the Hindu festivals.

While Thailand has been able to forge ahead with the export of a variety of orchids, Indian floricultural industry has not focused much attention on this flower variety found in abundance in the Western Ghats and north eastern parts of India .Because orchids  have a long shelf life in comparison to other flower varieties,  Indian can stand to gain substantially by taking to large scale export of orchids.

All said and done, the biggest drawback associated with the Indian floricultural export drive is India’s glaring failure to meet the international market’s primary requirement of pristine condition and timely delivery of flowers due to the lack of infrastructural facilities and an inefficient supply chain management. Clearly and apparently, the most important requirement of the floricultural industry is the maintenance of cold chain for keeping the flowers fresh. While Bangalore airport has already a cold chain meant exclusively for use by the exporters of rapidly perishable floricultural products, efforts are on set up similar cold chains in other airports in the country.

There are now around 200 export oriented floricultural units in India. Today Indian cut flowers are regularly exported to countries in West Europe, West Asia, North America, New Zealand and Singapore. In recent years Australia and Japan have emerged as favoured destinations for Indian cut flowers. The introduction of direct flights from  Bangalore to various parts of the world has given a big boost to the export of cut flowers from this “garden city”. About 200 acres in and around Bangalore are under high tech flower production.

According to Dr. George Eapen, a leading biotechnologist, “India can be major player in the world floricultural market due to the availability manpower at a relatively low cost”. Two major constraints facing the Indian floricultural sector are the poor availability of institutional finance and difficulties in securing high quality planting and seeding materials. But then with vigorous efforts made by the various organizations towards improving the lot of the floriculture sector in India, the country can surely afford to look towards a “colorful and multihued” export future.

A study by Tata Economic Consultancy Services says that the floriculturists should be allowed to repay their loans over a period of ten years Floriculture industry sources in India point out that the high rate of sickness of India’s floricultural sector is due to the fact that many of these units had failed to do proper homework before launching their  venture.---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 30 May 2006   

Official, At Last

Bush AND Immigration

By Dr. SAUMYAJIT RAY

School of International Studies, JNU

Oklahoma’s Republican Senator James M. Inhofe’s National Language Amendment to the new immigration reform bill in the United States Senate marks the culmination of a movement that began exactly 25 years ago. In 1981, Republican Senator Samuel I. Hayakawa of California introduced an English Language Amendment (ELA) bill in the U.S. Senate, aimed at amending the Federal Constitution to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States. The bill died at the committee stage.

The Inhofe amendment, apart from declaring English as America’s “national language”, relieves the federal government from any obligation to provide services to citizens and immigrants in any language other than English and requires every immigrant entering the United States legally to learn English. It also recognizes the pre-eminence of the English language in the American society. The amendment passed with overwhelming support on May18. Even though it was a bipartisan measure, more Republicans than Democrats voted for it.

It is not the first time, however, that a house of the U. S. federal legislature has accorded official status to the English language. In 1996, in the Republican 104^th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Speaker Newt Gingrich passed the Bill Emerson English Language Amendment Act declaring English the official language of the United States. Then President Bill Clinton had called the amendment “objectionable” and “in bad taste”. The Senate sat on it and the bill lapsed. Subsequent efforts to revive the bill failed.

The Inhofe Amendment also marks the culmination of years of painstaking effort by Official English advocates across the United States. The Official English movement—deridingly called the English Only movement by opponents—started when late Senator Hayakawa introduced his ELA in the Senate and followed it up by launching an organization named U.S. English in 1983. Supported by smaller Official English advocacy groups like ProEnglish and EnglishFirst, U.S.

English has been successful in getting English declared as the official language of government in 27 states. In all these states, Official English emerged as a ballot initiative, won more than 70% of the popular vote, and English became the official language either through a statute or an amendment to the state constitution. The 1996 legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives marked the first victory of the Official English movement at the federal level. The Inhofe amendment is the second.

The Founding Fathers did not regard it expedient to lay down in law what existed in fact. For all practical purposes, English was the official language of the United States. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in English, the debates in the Philadelphia constitutional convention were conducted in English, the Constitution and the laws were framed in English, the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution was also in English. But the Constitution of the United States does not stipulate English—or, for that matter, any other language—as the official language of the U.S. Government. Added to that were bilingual education and multilingual ballots, both of which seriously prevented immigrants to the United States from acquiring the English language.

The problem was compounded by unbridled immigration—both legal and illegal—to the United States in recent years. Most of these immigrants came from across the Mexican-American border, spoke no English, and settled down in certain areas in large numbers. Never before had immigrants entered America in such large numbers, and it was also the first time that so many immigrants came from one single country.

In 1999, El Cenizo, a small town on the Mexican-American border in Texas, banned the use of English and declared Spanish as its official language. Despite the hue and cry raised by Official English advocates and common Americans, then Texas Governor George W. Bush remained silent on the matter. So did then President William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton who, as Arkansas Governor, had accepted English being made the state’s official language.

The Official English movement has come a long way. From 1981 to 1994, Democratic majorities in both Houses of the U.S. Congress had thwarted its efforts to make English the official language of the United States. Though the Republican National Committee had seldom taken an official position supporting Official English, individual Republicans—Representatives and Senators—have always been in the forefront of the movement. In 1994, when Republicans regained control of the Congress after a gap of forty years, Official English became a priority. Undeterred by hostile charges of being nativist, racist, and Hispanophobic, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed an ELA for the first time in 1996.

Republicans are still in control of the Congress, winning seven back-to-back majorities from 1994. Whenever an ELA was introduced in the House of Representatives even after 1996, it was done with overwhelming Republican support (and stringent Democratic opposition). Two-term Republican president George W. Bush, though, has never cared to make his stand clear on Official English; during the 2000 campaign he had said he opposed English Only, and rooted for English Plus. His constraints were evident: he belonged to a state (Texas) with a huge Hispanic population, and he could not afford to lose Latino voter support. A fluent Spanish speaker himself, he could not publicly oppose the public use of Spanish.

But never had the Official English movement called for a ban on the use of non-English languages (329 languages are spoken in the U.S.). The issue is not English only, but English primarily. The movement’s demand has always been that public and official use of English be made compulsory, private use of non-English (or, minority) languages voluntary.

It now depends on the U.S. House of Representatives to approve the immigration reform bill—of which Senator Inhofe’s National Language Amendment is an important part—which the U.S. Senate has already passed. With a Republican majority in the lower chamber, that should not be a problem. And then, if English becomes the official language of the United States through an amendment to the federal Constitution, multilingual ballots would be eliminated, and bilingual education would turn purely transitional. English would finally get official status in the world’s first English-speaking Republic.---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 23 May 2006

India Is Unconcerned

GROWING US-PAK SECURITY TIES

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

The US-Pakistan security ties and defence relations are intensifying in the midst of an intense debate in the US and in India on the emerging strategic partnership between India and the US.

Interestingly, Indian strategic community and avid watchers of foreign affairs are these days least interested in events related to US-Pakistan relations. Unlike in the past, news relating to defence and security relations between Islamabad and Washington rarely hit the headlines in Indian media and edit-page articles on this issue have also become scarce and infrequent.

Attentive Indian public are more carefully monitoring the debate on the nature of emerging security ties with the US and are hardly interested in US-Pakistan relations. Of course, the public opinion and interests largely depend on news coverage and media highlights.

The Indian media did not highlight enough the recently-concluded five days of talks between American and Pakistan officials aimed at augmenting the strategic relationship between the two countries. The May 1-5 dialogue in Washington was the 17th annual meeting of the U.S.-Pakistan Defence Consultative Group.

While this round of meeting was focussed on counter-terrorism and ways to promote stability in South Asia, it was agreed that the Pentagon and the Pakistani military establishment would schedule bilateral military exercises and training activities in 2007. Pakistan has carefully watched, of course with certain amount of disappointment, the rising number of Indo-US military exercises in recent years.

Unthinkable during the Cold War days, the Indian and American military, spanning all services, have conducted numerous exercises in the heat of Agra, height of Ladakh, jungles of Mizoram, blue waters of the Indian Ocean and even the inhospitable climate of Alaska. The scope and sophistication of Indo-US military engagements, moreover, have expanded from exercise to exercise.

There is little doubt that Pakistan, a close strategic ally of the US for decades during the Cold War and frontline state in the war against terrorism since the 9/11 incident, has been helplessly witnessing growth of closer security ties between its erstwhile patron and its one and only rival in the region – India. The excitement over US decision to declare Pakistan a major non-NATO ally was actually short-lived, as the momentum of Indo-US defence and security interactions picked up. While clearing the sale of F-16 advanced fighter aircraft to Pakistan, the US also offered the sale of similar fighter aircraft to India. The Framework for Defence Cooperation signed between India and the US in June 2005 and the Indo-US Nuclear Deal announced in July 2005 have touched Islamabad’s nerves.

President George Bush’s visit South Asia in March last did not go very well for Pakistan. As the nuclear deal in India was inked with fanfare, President Bush openly expressed that Pakistan did not deserve the same. An explosion in Pakistan on the eve of President Bush’s visit was a stark reminder of the focus of the US engagement of Pakistan – countering terrorism. 

Against the backdrop of all these developments, Pakistan is trying hard to improve the image of its relations with the United States. While the American assistance to Pakistan has enabled it to improve its economic performance and rescue the country from becoming a failed state, the US pressure on the front of combating terrorism has created domestic problem for the Musharraf regime. The American military intervention in the North West Frontier Province has challenged Islamabad’s sovereignty at least in the eyes of anti-regime populace in Pakistan.

The supporters of the Taliban have not disappeared from Pakistan and are apparently jubilant over the resurgence of the Taliban forces in parts of Afghanistan. These groups are not only anti-American but also anti-Musharraf. The terrorist groups, which have found it increasingly difficult to continue their Jihad in Kashmir, are also disgruntled elements in Pakistan.

While the Bush Administration has profusely thanked Pakistan for its cooperation in countering terrorism, Musharraf desires to show to his own people that his cooperation with the US is not confined to combating terrorism (read some of his own people). He also wants to convey the message that he is strengthening the military preparedness of his country by forging closer ties with the US in the face of growing Indian power.

The recent defence dialogue in Washington between American and Pakistani officials have to be seen in this emerging context of US engagement in South Asia. The decision to expand military exercises and forge further cooperation in subjects, such as military equipment repair, technology transfers, upgraded or new weapons systems and the interoperability of equipment and tactics between the two nations has been taken to intensify overall security ties between the two countries.

However, the primary aim of the US has been to synchronize and expand efforts against violent extremists. Unlike in the past, the US does not seem to be interested in bolstering Pakistan’s military capabilities to make it even handed with those of India. While Pakistan has been campaigning against the Indo-US nuclear deal in Washington and elsewhere, the Bush Administration has not budged from its stand that India’s case is an exceptional and special one.

The hyphenated relations that the US had with India and Pakistan appear to be a thing of the past. For the first time, the US has positive relations with both India and Pakistan at the same time without invoking zero-sum perceptions in Islamabad and New Delhi. Simultaneously, there are two different trajectories of US relations with India and US counter-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan.

So long as Afghanistan remains a battleground and the US is committed to eliminate terrorists and extremists from that country and from certain parts of Pakistan, a cooperative regime in Islamabad is desirable. India has little to fear from US-Pakistan engagement. But at the same time, close monitoring of developments in this area is equally necessary.

The peace process in the subcontinent is the longest one so far between India and Pakistan. It has been unfolding under close American watch and encouragement. If it reaches its ultimate goal and India, Pakistan and the US become a stakeholder in South Asian peace, it could benefit the millions in the subcontinent and contribute to lasting peace in the larger Southern Asian region.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

ROUND THE WORLD

New Delhi, 9 May 2006

Iran’s Nuclear Postures

Towards Inevitable Confrontation

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

 Iran has threatened to walk out of the NPT, if it is pressured too much to give up its uranium enrichment programme. How is it going to help Iran? Will it make its nuclear programme more legitimate? Will it assist in warding off the threat of possible international economic sanctions or military intervention?

The United States and its European partners and the IAEA have complained that Iran has been clandestinely seeking to develop a nuclear weapon capability. It has been alleged that Iran has secretly sought to acquire nuclear programme related technology and equipment for about 18 years in the international nuclear black market.

Several years of pressures and months of negotiations have failed to bring Iran on to its knees. Iran appears hell bent to go its way as far as its domestic nuclear programme is concerned. Citing political arguments based on the concept of national sovereignty, economic compulsion based on diversification of its sources of energy and security-  related justification, based on the limits of oil and gas resources, Iran has shown its determination to acquire a full civilian nuclear power cycle capability. It has uranium mines and now it claims that it has developed the capacity to domestically enrich uranium to generate nuclear fuel to run nuclear power reactors.

Iran has been a member of the NPT, the most extensive and inclusive nuclear non-proliferation regime. It has been a member of the IAEA, the international nuclear watch dog. It claims rights under international law and under the NPT and IAEA provisions to pursue a civilian nuclear power programme.

The US and several other countries in the West, however, do not have confidence that Iran will confine its ambition only to acquire a capability to run a full cycle nuclear power programme. Tehran is suspected to have been keeping an ambition to develop nuclear weapons.

What are the bases of such suspicions? First of all, Iran has been under the rule of a theocratic system since 1979 and has adopted a policy of confrontation with the West. It has withstood the US pressure and policy of isolation for long by systematically trying to cultivate good relations with the major powers and other countries. It seeks to enhance its capability in the face of alleged persistent US hostility.

Secondly, Iran has witnessed the US role during the Gulf War I and Gulf War II;  and the fate of Iraq. It does not want to take any chances and seeks a capability that could prevent foreign military intervention. Thirdly, it has strong grievances against the Western silence over Israeli nuclear weapons capability. Fourthly, it has seen the emergence of a nuclear Pakistan which has often been dubbed as a failed state and which has survived the Western non-proliferation pressures despite its clandestine activities and involvement in nuclear black market. If Pakistan could, why cannot Iran?

That Iran may have an ambition to develop nuclear weapon capability is reflected in its uncompromising stances on this issue and its fearless rhetoric challenging the US and its allies, including Israel. Never before any Middle-Eastern country threatened to obliterate Israel from the global map, as Iran did recently. Israel, which has won all wars fought with various combinations of Arab countries, is also a nuclear capable country. Issuing a threat to Israel’s existence can have two meanings. One, the threatening country has nuclear weapons capability. Two, the leader issuing such threats has a target audience to woo and he does not mean what he says in true sense of the term.

The problem is that Iranian people cannot be fooled. They know the military capabilities of Israel and would not support any direct confrontation with that country. That means Tehran may have developed a capability to build a crude bomb and is indirectly demonstrating its capability by using a combination of defiant action and rhetoric.

Tehran broke the lock and resumed its nuclear programme contrary to IAEA directions. It stopped IAEA inspections of its nuclear programme. It also confidently rejected the EU-3’s diplomatic initiatives and proposals. Russia, which has very friendly and close ties with Iran, also came up with a sound compromise formula. But Iran discarded it. The US Security Council passed a resolution asking Iran to stop uranium enrichment within a month, but Iran turned it down. On the contrary, it declared its new technological breakthrough in the field of uranium enrichment. The latest in Iran’s defiant attitude towards the international community and determination to go ahead with its nuclear programme is its warning that it would walk out of the NPT.

Why is Iran so defiant? Can a leadership be so audacious without strength – in this case nuclear weapon capability? Iran’s political behaviour is to some extent perplexing. Currently, there is a lively debate in the US about the rights and wrongs of taking military action against Iran. Although very powerful arguments are being put forward against military intervention, the US Government does not rule out military option.

There is no doubt that the Bush administration wants diplomacy to complete its full course before it would decide on military means. The past mistakes in the case of Iraq have brought significant lessons for the US Administration and President Bush clearly would not like any repetition of those. The Congressional elections also pose another set of political problems for President Bush. On top of it all, his opinion ratings among the people has been rapidly sliding down. There is no guarantee that yet another military adventure would bring any political benefit to him.

If these factors, along with Russian and Chinese opposition to punitive measures against Iran, have enabled Iranian leadership to withstand the Western pressure, the world in general and Persian Gulf in particular are safer. Even then, Iran’s obstinate behaviour is increasingly making it difficult for Russian, Chinese and other friendly countries to unconditionally support its stand.

The question is what happens if Iran announces its nuclear capability after walking out of the NPT? Iran’s nuclear weapons will not be considered legal either under the NPT or otherwise. So it may very well stay out of the NPT and launch itself as a new nuclear weapon state. Analysts in several western nations do not believe that Iran currently has the nuclear weapon capability. But their prediction may go wrong, as it has been so in so many other instances. 

More hair-raising question is whether the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration would confront a nuclear Iran or make fences with it. (What with Washington dismissing. Iranian President Mahmohd Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush to “propose new ways” to resolve the matter) Will Iran face tough sanctions or even military intervention? Will Russians and Chinese come to the rescue of a nuclear Iran or sit idly and watch yet another case of US unilateral intervention? (Especially against the backdrop that both have rejected the US proposal to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which provides for enforcement i.e. more sanctions and war.  Instead they had suggested another Security Council rejection to demand Iran stop its nuclear programme) It is most likely that some sort of confrontation is in the making as far as US-Iranian relations are concerned.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)