|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
Towards Defence Cooperation:India-Australia TIES: An Evaluation, by Ashok Sharma, 11 April 2006 |
|
|
ROUND THE WORLD
New Delhi, 11 April 2006
Towards Defence
Cooperation
India-Australia
TIES: An Evaluation
By Ashok Sharma
School of International Studies, JNU
The visit of the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard to India last
month, is significant in many respects. It can be seen in the context of India’s emerging economic status in Asia, the Indo-US
nuclear deal signed between George Bush and Manmohan Singh the day before
Howard’s visit and uranium deal between Australia
and China during the recent visit
of Chinese premier Wen Jiabao to Australia.
India and Australia have many things in
common. Both the nations share common values of parliamentary democracy, their
commitment towards stopping of terrorism, prevention of proliferation of
nuclear technology and to achieve economic progress
for their country.
The delegation of 20 Australian top
businessmen from banks, transport
and resources companies as well as universities accompanied PM Howard to sign
number of agreements and memorandum of understanding. They focused on promotion
of business, tourism, science
technology, educational exchanges and cultural links.
This visit can be seen more in the context of India‘s rising
economic status. At present, India
is Australia's
12th biggest trading partner. Bilateral trade stands at slightly less than 5.5 billion US dollars, with India being Australia's sixth largest market
for exports. Australia sold India goods and
services worth $6.9 billion, while imports were $1.8 billion. Australian businesses have now begun to look at India to see
more dollar signs. India
with growth rate of 7 to 8 per cent, with highest growth rate of middle-class professional
manpower, comparatively young population and its stable economic growth attracts
many developed countries as trading partner.
John Howard’s visit to India
just after the leaders of Saudi Arabia,
the United States, France and Ireland
to India in recent months,
indicates that Australia
too wants to take advantage of Indian growing opportunities for trade in an
economy forecast to grow 8.1 per cent in the fiscal year ending March. India also
wants to become the member of Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC). Australia is hosting APEC 2007 Conference and India would
need Australian support to become a member. Indian software companies like TCS
and INFOSYS are establishing and competing in Australian market. There is a lot
of scope in the economic relations between Australia
and India.
In the education sector agreements
were signed between Indian and Australian institutions for exchange and joint
research programmes. These agreements were signed between IIT Mumbai and Monash University,
IIT Mumbai and University
of New South Wales, and
IIT Chennai and Queensland University of Technology. Howard has announced a grant of A$25 million for exchange and
collaborative programmes. These agreements are going to encourage exchange
programmes, both at the faculty and student level and research collaboration in
the areas of science and engineering.
Howard also launched a new push for more Indian students to
study in Australia.
India
is the second-largest source of foreign students and fourth-largest source of
immigrants over the past 10 years. In 2005, about 25,000 students came to Australia for
studies under different programmes. In fact, Australia is fast becoming the
desired destinations for Indian students. In 1995 just 270 Indian students were
present in Australia
while currently 27,000 Indians are studying in the country. It is reasonable
destination in terms of money, opportunities, tuition fees and cost of living
in Australia is cheaper than
UK
and US.
The UPA Government’s plan extending reservation in IITs and
IIMs upto 50 per cent on the basis of caste would further accelerate students
fleeing to Australian universities. These students are highly skilled and professional and these Indian Australians form a very
influential Diaspora. Although not very politically active the way Indian
Americans are but trends suggest that they have started playing a constructive
and facilitating role in Australia
–India
relations and are likely to accelerate in the near future.
According to MoUs both agreed to
enhance defence cooperation in the areas regarding exchange of views on
security and defence-related matters, training, maritime cooperation, defence
industries, defence research and development. It also envisages setting up of
India-Australia Joint Working Group on defence for guiding and monitoring the
on-going defence cooperation between the two countries. Other agreements
include a Trade and Economic Framework, an Air Services Agreement, MoUs on
Customs and Biotechnology and a Letter of Intent on the establishment of a
Strategic Research Fund.
To maintain pace of its economic growth India is now
exploring nuclear energy options.
Indo-US nuclear deal is an important step in this direction. Nothing
concrete has emerged from the talk between John Howard and Manmhohan Singh on
uranium supply to India
for civilian purposes. But in the long run Indo-US nuclear deal could clear
suspicion and doubts in Australia
about uranium supply since US and Australia have been very close
allies. On 16th 2006 Condolizza Rice discussed
Indo-US nuclear deal in her Australia
tour and said that whether to sell uranium to India
is an issue to Australia to
decide. She talked about India
as a rising power in Asia and need of a broader and deep relationship with India.
Australian foreign Minister Alexander Downer
supported the move and agreed with the United
States' view of India's importance in international
relations. In fact these trends also indicates possibility
of formation of troika between US-Australia-India on the issues of economic co-operation, energy, science
–tech, tackling terrorism, prevention of nuclear proliferations, balancing
Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region.But the uranium deal signed between Australia and China on 6th April 2006
makes it imperative to look the above growing Australia-India relations from
this angle too.
Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer and his
Chinese counterpart Li Zhaoxing signed two agreements – a Nuclear Transfer Agreement and a
Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in Canberra
in the presence of Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Chinese counterpart
Wen Jiabao. According to this deal China
can buy uranium for its nuclear power station from Australia. Australia has
40% of the world known reserves of uranium. China got this deal after months of
negotiations and lobbying. According to Australian Government the deal has been
signed under strict safeguards and arrangements ensuring that China does not
divert Australian nuclear fuel towards its nuclear weapons programme and it is
used only for civilian purposes. This visit by Chinese premier Wen Jiabao is
the first by a Chinese premier in 18 years.
Australian-China uranium deal, on the one hand,
exposes hypocrisy and double standards in Australian policy, because of its
refusal to sell uranium to India,
but giving the green light to China.
That too, despite the fact that China
helped Pakistan
to develop its nuclear weapon programme. This has led to the further
proliferation by father of Pakistani nuclear programme A.Q. Khan selling the
nuclear technology to Iran and Syria. Whereas India has shown commitment
towards democracy, international security and peace and has adhered to the
nuclear non- proliferation norms and has not indulged in any kind of nuclear
proliferation despite having not signed the NPT.
The deal has received some media coverage in the US.
Congress is likely to give it some
scrutiny as it decides whether to approve the recent Indo-US nuclear deal to
sell civilian nuclear technology to India. Although uranium shipments may not
start for many years, critics have also charged that the deal opens the way for
regional instability and environmental problems. Every nuclear weapon state,
except China, has publicly declared that it doesn't make fissile material that is highly enriched uranium for
military purposes. Australia is also being criticized for not pressing China to do the same as a condition of this
deal.
But when looked at from Australia’s perspective one
need not be too critical of Australian nodding to uranium sale to China. Australia refuses to sell uranium to
nations that have not signed the NPT. India falls into that category. United
States’ nuclear exception to India has yet to be cleared through Congress to become an act. Bush administration is lobbying
for India among NSG groups and as a result there is a positive sign but Australia
would prefer to see other NSG nations move on this matter.
This uranium deal with China also
shows that Australia is trying to have an independent foreign policy which
always does not get haunted by the United States. This becomes obvious when Mr.
Howard hailed the upswing in Canberra's ties with Beijing and gave a statement,
"We do not see any merit at all in any policy of containment towards
China." This also implies that Australia is concerned with its own
geo-strategic position in Asian region and business
consideration in present world of economic interdependence..
This Australia-China
uranium deal may not sound good to India but there are enough developments on
India-Australia in recent years which indicate that India-Australia
relationship has grown beyond cricket to a deeper engagement and will
strengthen the relations in the future.---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|
|
La Affaire Baalu:PM DEBASES PARLIAMENT, by Poonam I Kaushish, 3 May 2008 |
|
|
POLITICAL DIARY
New Delhi, 3 May 2008
La Affaire Baalu
PM DEBASES
PARLIAMENT
By Poonam I Kaushish
If the heat wave across North India is not bad enough,
political New Delhi
is reeling under the T.R Baalu inferno. Frankly, it’s much ado about nothing
given our present political culture, which rubbishes morality, probity and
accountability as old hat. Come on guys get real, our khaas aadmis rule by law. So discount instantly, all talk of the
Shipping, Road Transport and Highways Minister resigning. After all, why make a
big deal about him helping his sons. Do you expect him to help others’
children?
Besides, what about the Prime Minister’s role? Why is he
mute on La Affaire Baalu? Even
if his silence is smothering Parliament and undermining its authority. Why make
a song and dance about this? Silly, he is his khaas mantri of a khaas
party.
Sadly, this is no joking matter. It is all about moral turpitude, which started with infamous Baalu
confession in the Rajya Sabha. That he had “put in a word” to the Petroleum
Minister Murli Deora to provide gas to family-owned King Power Corporation,
being run by his sons Selva and Raj after he resigned as Managing Director
subsequent to becoming a Union Minister.
His case was ‘simple’. Baalu wanted resumption of natural gas
cheaper than the market price using his ministerial clout for his firm. So he
asked Deora to arrange a meeting with the GAIL Chairman to do the needful.
Smugly asserting that he “did nothing wrong and there was no nepotism.” Given
that the supplies had been disconnected when he resigned from the NDA
Government in 2003 and “the BJP took revenge on me”.
Evidently, the DMK Minister was making the point that he was
merely doling out natural justice to his sons. Perhaps on the plea that
ministerial posts are temporary and cannot take precedence over the permanent
role of a father! However, Baalu's own admission makes it clear that he did "use"
his office to benefit his family firms. If this is not dishonourable what is?
Is it correct for a Minister to abuse his official position to solicit personal
favours for his family? Does this not smack of conflict of interest and unduly
influencing the Petroleum Ministry?
Baalu has defended his actions by making two points. One,
that there was a Madras High Court order directing GAIL to supply gas to the
firm, which was not being adhered to. The recourse was to file a contempt
petition, why meet Deora and write to the PM? Two, he was trying to save his
sick companies from closing down and rendering workers jobless. There are more
than 6,000 sick industrial units in the Government and States. Why hasn’t Baalu
"put in a word" to the PMO to save these units?
Clearly, the Minister and the Government needs a quick recap
of history. Specifically, the infamous Mundhra scandal which rocked Parliament in
1958, leading to the then Finance Minister TT Krishnamachari’s resignation. The
cause celebre was the Government
asking the Life Corporation of India
to purchase Rs 12.4 million worth of shares in six companies belonging to Calcutta industrialist
Haridas Mundhra to bail him out.
The nation-wide furore led to the appointment of the Justice
Chagla Commission. During the inquiry, Krishnamachari tried to distance himself
from the LIC and the actions of his Finance Secretary. However Chagla held that
the Minister was constitutionally responsible for the actions of his Secretary
and could not take shelter behind them nor could he disown their actions. Look
at the irony. Baalu confesses of “putting in a word” yet the Government is mum about
asking him to resign, notwithstanding the Opposition clamour.
Amidst all this hangama
none has the time or inclination to see the body-blow dealt to Parliament.
By none less than the Prime Minister. Clearly, Manmohan Singh’s refusal to
answer the Opposition’s pointed queries on the PMO’s role in L’ Affaiire Baalu
goes against the tenets of democracy and dilutes Parliament’s authority to
demand accountability from the Head of Government. What is unpardonable is that
the PM quietly left the House even as MPs demanded an answer.
Remember, unlike the Presidential form of Government wherein
a President is not answerable for his actions, Parliamentary democracy’s
greatest strength lies in a MP’s right to ask any question of the Prime
Minister which he is obliged to answer. As also his basic right to information
and demanding accountability. By choosing to shy away from replying, Manmohan
Singh has raised more doubts about his Office’s role. Plainly, if the PM and
his officials had not issued any order/instructions to help the Union
Minister`s family.firm, why shy from stating this in Parliament? Certainly it
is not the job of the Petroleum Minister to speak for the PMO.
Baalu claims he never wrote to the PM's Office. But the PMO
wrote eight letters to the Petroleum Minister asking him to help Baalu’s firms
--- without Baalu asking? Is it “routine” for the PMO to forward eight letters
of a aam aadmi, Selvakumar Baalu “without
any recommendations” in a span of
four months (Nov 2007-Feb 2008)? Countered the Congress spokesman, “There is no
question of endorsing or agreeing with the contents. There is no question of
lobbying." Then, what is the point? Why forward the letters? Does the PMO
forward all mail without going into the merits or demerits of every letter? Has
the PMO been reduced to a Mail Forwarding Service sans recommendation?
Manmohan Singh needs to recall his predecessor Rajiv
Gandhi’s action when two French intelligence officers stole documents from the
PMO in 1985. In the ensuing furore, Rajiv made a statement in the Lok Sabha about
the incident and his Principal Secretary P C Alexander resigned. Though he did
not accept responsibility for the shocking negligence in his office, he
nonetheless resigned to uphold high moral principles.
Clearly, any Prime Minister who believes in accountability
and respects the canons of parliamentary democracy would clarify his position
in such matters in both Houses of Parliament.
Manmohan Singh is duty-bound to make a statement in Parliament on two
counts. Firstly, as head of Government, he cannot shirk his responsibility over
the misdeeds of a member of his Cabinet. Secondly, he is answerable for the
actions of the PMO.
He needs to heed some of Justice Chagla’s seven principles:
The Government should not interfere with the working of autonomous statutory
corporations and if it does, it should not shirk responsibility for directions
given. The Minister must take full responsibility for the actions of his
subordinates and cannot be permitted to say that they did not reflect his
policy or acted contrary to his directions.
And his advice: “In a Parliamentary form of Government,
Parliament should be taken into confidence at the earliest stage to avoid
embarrassment from other sources of information….." Will our khaas aadmis Manmohan Singh and Baalu
follow suit? ----- INFA
(Copyright,
India News & feature Alliance)
|
|
Pakistan’s Shaheen-II:RACE FOR MISSILE SUPREMACY, by Dr. Monika Chansoria,5 May 2008 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 5 May 2008
Pakistan’s
Shaheen-II
RACE FOR
MISSILE SUPREMACY
By Dr.
Monika Chansoria
(School of International
Studies, JNU)
South Asia has yet again plunged into a quest for missile
supremacy, with Pakistan
successfully test firing the Shaheen-II long-range, surface-to-surface
ballistic missile last month from an undisclosed location. Also referred to as
the Hatf-VI, the missile has a 2000 km (1,245 miles) range and is capable of
carrying nuclear as well as conventional warheads.
The Pakistan
army’s Strategic Forces Command launched the Shaheen-II during a field training
exercise on April 19, 2008. According to a statement released later by the
military, “Shaheen-II is a two-stage solid fuel missile that can carry nuclear
and conventional warheads with high accuracy. The launch of the missile was
part of the process of validation of the operational readiness of a strategic
missile group and technical improvements to consolidate and verify various
land-based strategic missile systems.”
Shaheen-II is the longest-range ballistic missile of the several
missiles in Pakistan’s
nuclear-capable arsenal qualifying to hit targets anywhere in India, Iran,
as well as Afghanistan
through to Central Asia.
Recently appointed Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza
Gilani witnessed the testing of Shaheen-II and termed it as an ‘important
milestone in Pakistan’s
quest for sustaining strategic balance’ in South Asia.
His presence was symbolic in that it was an indicator of the fact that the
newly-elected government in Pakistan
was well in control of the political and military establishments of the
country.
In addition, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee
General Tariq Majeed and Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar also witnessed the
missile test. Commenting on the reliability of Pakistan’s nuclear capability, Navy
Chief Admiral Muhammad Afzal Tahir congratulated those responsible for the
‘successful launch and the accuracy of the missile at the target. Pakistan could
be proud of the reliability of its nuclear deterrence and the country would
further enhance its nuclear capability.’
Islamabad’s foreign office spokesman said Pakistan’s strategic
force goals were determined by the requirements of minimum overt deterrence.
“We have to test these missiles from time to time. The reach of the missile
should be enough to deter aggression. When we do take the test, we inform
neighbours and concerned countries. It reflects Pakistan’s resolve to maintain
minimum credible deterrence as the cornerstone of its security policy.”
The National Defence Complex, a subsidiary of the Pakistan
Atomic Energy Commission directly manages the Shaheen project. However, unlike
the liquid-fueled Ghauri, the Shaheen-II uses a two-stage solid propellant
motor. Solid fuel can be left in the missile indefinitely, unlike liquid fuel,
and therefore, dramatically decreases the time it takes to launch the missile
thereby heightening deterrence.
Various defence analysts are of the opinion that Shaheen-II
is possibly a two-stage version of the M-9, or more likely a copy of the
Chinese M-18, which was publicly displayed at an exhibition in Beijing in 1988. The M-18 was originally
advertised as a two-stage system with a payload capacity of 400-500 kgs over a
range of 1,000 kms. US intelligence sources suggest that Pakistan remains heavily reliant on external
assistance for Shaheen-II programme and that China
is actively assisting Pakistan
through the supply of missile components, specialty materials, dual-use items,
and other miscellaneous forms of technical assistance.
Since the
late 1980s and early 1990s, Pakistan
has invested in both solid-motor and liquid-engine ballistic missile programmes
with significant Chinese and North Korean assistance, respectively. In the
early 1990s Islamabad
acquired Chinese M-11 missile parts along with a number of M-9 Short Range
Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs).
Furthermore, the Chinese assistance extended to training
Pakistani missile crews in the assembly, maintenance, and simulated launches of
these missiles. Chinese assistance most likely encompassed equipment and
technology transfers in the areas of solid-fuel propellants, manufacture of
airframes, re-entry thermal protection materials, post-boost vehicles, guidance
and control, missile computers, integration of warheads, and the manufacture of
transporter-erector launchers (TELs) for the missiles.
In 1991, the US
objected to Chinese sales of M-11 ballistic missile technologies to Pakistan and for the first time imposed
sanctions on China
in accordance with the newly passed Missile Technology Control Act. The
sanctions were imposed for alleged exports of M-11 ballistic missiles to Pakistan. Soon
after the US sanctions, Beijing agreed to observe
the MTCR guidelines.
Subsequently, Washington waived off sanctions only to
re-impose them back when evidence indicated continuing Chinese missile sales to
Pakistan from 1992-93. In December 1992, reports surfaced that China had transferred 34 complete M-11 missiles
to Pakistan and also
allegedly built a turnkey missile plant for Pakistan
at Tarwanah, a suburb of Rawalpindi,
in violation of its 1991 pledge. As a result, in May 1993, the Clinton
Administration re-imposed MTCR-related sanctions against China.
Apparently, development flight tests of the Shaheen-II began
in March 2004 when a 26-tonne missile was launched from Pakistan’s Somiani
Flight Test
Range in the Arabian
Sea. According to the Chairman of Pakistan’s National Engineering
and Scientific Commission, Samar Mubarakmand, the missile covered a distance of
1,800 kms during the test. Thereafter, reports in summer 2007 stated that Pakistan had
commenced the process of deployment of the Shaheen-II.
Besides, there could well be numerous factors that play a
crucial role in the growing dominance of the missile leg in Pakistan’s
weapons arsenal. Pakistan
has been unable to augment its fleet of modern combat aircrafts due to the past
US policy of military and
economic sanctions designed to arrest and slow down Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme.
Even though Pakistan
is now a US ally in the
global war on terrorism, Washington has been
rather hesitant to supply Islamabad
with advanced combat aircrafts as it would invariably add to the latter’s
nuclear strike capability. Furthermore, the country’s frail economy has
prevented the Pakistan Air Force from undertaking major fleet expansion and
modernization efforts by making the switch from US to European and Russian
suppliers. Finally, the unfolding and potential advances in India’s air-combat,
air-defence, and long-range reconnaissance capabilities seem to be channeling
Pakistani investments into bolstering its ballistic missile-based
capabilities.
For this
reason, the missile test by Pakistan
is yet another trigger at altering the existing strategic equation in South Asia. On its part, India for decades has countenanced
the Chinese-Pakistan nuclear and missile collaboration as one of the gravest
challenges posed to its peace and security and the testing of Shaheen-II is the
newest testament to the same. In all certainty, the near future is likely to
witness counter reactions to this recent initiation by Pakistan,
thereby plunging the subcontinent into yet another stage of a spiraling arms
race.--INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Global Food Crisis:DON’T PASS THE BUCK, MR. BUSH , by Radhakrishna Rao |
|
|
Events & Issues
New Delhi, 6 May 2008
Global Food Crisis
DON’T PASS THE BUCK,
MR. BUSH
By Radhakrishna Rao
The US President George W. Bush’s recent observation that
the growing prosperity of an
upwardly mobile Indian middle class is to blame for the global food crisis
appears far-fetched and totally in
variance with the prevailing ground
reality.
“Worldwide there is
an increasing
demand for food. There turns out to be prosperity in
developing world which is good. It
is going to be good for you because
you will be selling products in the countries, you know, big countries perhaps,
and it is hard to sell products into
countries that are not prosperous…It,
also, however increases
the demand”, was Bush’ words of wisdom.
He elaborated saying “So for example, just as an interesting
thought for you, there are 350-million people in
India who are classified as middle class. That is bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire
population .And when you start getting
wealth, you start demanding better
nutrition and better food and so demand is high and that causes prices to go
up”. Of course, Bush also cited changes in
climatic patterns and spiraling energy costs as some of the other contributors
to the global food price spiral.
Prior to what is being termed as a highly objectionable
statement by the head of the world’s largest economy, US Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice had created a near controversy by saying that the global food
price spiral was partly due to the growing
intake of food in countries like India and China.
The distorted thesis of Bush and
Rice that the severe food crisis haunting a large part of the world was a direct outcome of measures taken by
India and China to keep the foodgrains
within the confines
of their countries by imposing
severe export restrictions.
Right from the outset the Bush administration
has been blaming “event and
developments” outside its home country as the causative factors for problems
haunting the US. The
uncalled for bloody intervention in Iraq
is but one of the many instances of
the 21st century avatar of the so called “gun boat diplomacy”
perfected by the Bush Administration.
Surprisingly, while throwing
blame at the doorsteps of India
and China
for the current food crisis affecting
a large section of the global population, Bush would not agree with the widely
held view that the growing diversion
of corn produced in the US for the
production of ethanol as a fuel alternative was pushing
up food prices. “I don’t subscribe to the notion that ethanol is the main cost driver. The reason why food prices are
higher is, because, energy costs are high. And if you are a farmer you are going to pass on the cost in
the product you sell to the buyers” quipped Bush.
However, food policy analysts from across the world have been driving
home the point that diversion of
food crops for the production of eco- friendly and cost-efficient bio fuels is
a major contributor to the foodgrains’ shortage experienced by the world at
large. Similarly, there has been a
serious concern over the diversion of
prime farm land meant for growing
food crops to raise oil yielding
crops .Against
this backdrop, the competition between food and fuel is likely to hit the developing countries much harder that the industrialised
nations.
Rightly, Defence Minister
A.K.Antony has described Bush’s hollow argument as a “cruel joke”. Antony was clear in his perception that the widespread conversion of
agricultural land for commercial and bio-fuel cultivation purposes had, in fact, resulted in
food shortage at the global level. ”Policies of the US have also been responsible for
foodgrains shortage. Those who criticize should not set apart farm land for
other purposes .The countries including the US should rectify these mistakes” he
observed.
The argument put forth by Antony
receives support from the recent FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) data
which pins the blame on the US for the fast-spreading
global food crisis. In fact, FAO data revealed in
clear terms that the consumption of cereals is growing
far more rapidly in the US than in
India or China. A fact-filled
study of the global food market by FAO states that the consumption of cereals
by India is projected to
have grown 2.17 per cent from 193.1-million tonnes in
2006-07 to 197.3- million tonnes in
2007-08, while that in neighbouring China it had
gone up 1.8 per cent from 382.2-million tonnes to 389.1-million tonnes. More
importantly, during the same period
the consumption of cereals in the US has been
projected to have grown 11.81 per cent from 277.6-million tonnes to
310.4-million tonnes.
Indeed, following
the skyrocketing of oil prices in the global market, the US has been forced to use
30-million tonnes of corn to make bio-fuel. “About 30-million tonnes of corn
was used in the US to produce
biofuels last year,” observed Asia Director, International Food Policy Research
Institute, Ashok Gulati. Though the demand for foodgrains in the Indian market has been going up, the situation has been made worse by serious
supply constraints, he elaborated. ”Factors like the drought in Australia,
diversion of corn to biofuel by the US and speculative investment in
futures market globally have caused prices to flare” he said.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon has expressed
his concern over the rising food
prices causing a veritable “global
crisis”. Commenting on the worldwide
protests over the food prices’ spiral, Moon thus wanted the world leaders to
mull on a strategy aimed at devising
ways and means to enhance food security and improve food production and
distribution system.
Back home, Minister of State for Power and Congress leader
Jairam Ramesh has blamed the US-led developed world for diverting the precious crop land for biofuel production
for the current food crisis. “George Bush has never been known for his
knowledge of economics and he has just proved once again
how comprehensively wrong he is. To say that the demand for food in India
is causing global food crisis is
completely wrong”, he said.
However, the ruling
political elite in India has done
precious little either to curb the inflation
or to ensure food security for a large section of impoverished population.
While the urban middle class with its growing
purchasing power has been in a position to buy as much food as it needs, rural
poor, landless farmers, daily wage earners and the socio-economically
disadvantaged sections of the society are forced to make do with a decreasing intake
of food. It is a grim ground reality that malnutrition and a sort of semi-starvation
haunt a large segment of the Indian population. The callous and continuous neglect of the agricultural sector by
successive ruling dispensations in New Delhi has contributed in
a big way to the food crisis threatening
the country’s growth.
While both the Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister
P.Chidambaram are never tired of harping
on an “impressive GDP(Gross Domestic Product)growth”, they have no answer as to
how this achievement has helped the poor
and underprivileged to lead a life
without ”penury and suffering” .As
things stand now, the fast spreading food insecurity
that could breed violent street protests could become a major challenge
for India’s ruling elite, whose
concern at present appears to win
the elections at any cost. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|
|
Understanding Poverty:RURAL REJUVENATION VITAL, by Dhurjati Mukherjee,2 May 2008 |
|
|
People
& Their Problems
New Delhi, 2 May 2008
Understanding Poverty
RURAL REJUVENATION VITAL
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
An expert group of the Planning
Commission is reviewing the methodology used for poverty estimation and is
expected to submit its report to Parliament within three months. The group would go into the 13-point criteria
being used for estimation of below poverty line (BPL) households and
preparation of accurate BPL lists by States. Importantly, the identification of
individual poor households has come in for scrutiny from different quarters, to
assess the effects of the reforms initiated in the country since the last decade.
According the latest Economic
Survey (2007-08), the ratio of allocation of subsidies to the proportion of
BPL population was less than one per cent for many States, barring eight, between
2005-06 and 2006-07. And, as per the results of the 61st National Sample Survey,
in 2004-05, poverty estimates based on URP (uniform recall period) were 27.5
per cent of the total population below the poverty line, while corresponding
figures obtained from MRP (mixed recall period) it was 21.8 per cent. Earlier,
the government claimed that poverty had declined to 22 per cent from 36 per
cent in 1993-94, a decline of around 0.79 per cent during the period 1999-2005.
However, the Planning Commission, which placed the poverty level at 27.8 per
cent in 2004-05, disputed the earlier method.
The Commission in its Approach
to the 11th Five Year Plan (December 2006) pointed out: “Thus
the average decline in percentage of population below the poverty line over the
period 1993 to 2004 is 0.74 per cent points per year, much less than implicit
by the official 1999-2000 data. Because of the slower pace of reduction in the
percentage of the poor, the estimated number of poor is now estimated to be
approximately 300 million in 2004-05, larger than the official estimate of
1999-2000”. Thus it is quite clear that there is no evidence of a higher rate
of decline in poverty in the post-reform period and that inequality increased
significantly in this period as compared to the earlier decade.
However, according to unofficial estimates, the number of
poor may be around 300 million (officially around 237 million in 2004-05) of
which three-fourth live in the countryside Apart from this segment, there is
another major section of 150-250 million who have to struggle for existence
with very meagre earnings equivalent to $ 1.5-2 a day. One may also mention
that the number of rural landless families increased from 35 per cent in 1987
to 45 per cent in 1999 and further to 55 per cent in 2005.
The lowest poverty ratio was 5.4 per cent for Jammu &
Kashmir and highest poverty ratio was for Orissa (46.4 per cent). Five States
namely, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal
and Orissa accounted for 166 million poor – about 55 per cent of the total poor
estimated at 303 million. The highest
percentage of BPL was registered in Bihar with
12.2 per cent but the State clocked a subsidy distribution ratio of only 0.3 per
cent. UP at 19.6 per cent BPL clocked a subsidy distribution of only 0.8 per
cent, while both Maharashtra with BPL
population of 10.5 per cent and Orissa with 5.9 per cent showed subsidy
distribution of 0.8 per cent each.
The currently used Lakdawala panel
mode of estimating the poor and their number used the per capita consumption
expenditure as a key criterion to determine the incidence of poverty in the
country. This has been fixed at Rs 49.09 per month in rural areas and Rs 56.64
per month in urban areas at the 1973-74 national level prices.
As the level of consumption has
come in for criticism, the Planning Commission has rightly thought it necessary
to review the whole issue. Moreover, as food and nutrition requirement of the
human body has undergone change, a fresh assessment was required. The exercise
is also significant at this juncture as the government is keen to reach food to
all those who are hungry. But with high inflation and rising cost of essential
commodities, BPL families have been struggling to ensure two square meals a
day.
Meanwhile, it has been found that
the Rs 5,000-crore National Food Security Mission (NFSM), launched to ensure
food security for all by the year 2012, may be inadequate to meet the demand
for foodgrains in the country. While the total production has been estimated to
touch 230 million tonnes by the year 2012, this will fall short of the demand
by 4.15 million tonnes, according to experts.
The Food & Agriculture
Organization (FAO) has estimated that one-fifth of the Indian population is
undernourished because of poverty. While general consumption has been on the
rise, on the one hand, and a changing pattern discernible, on the other, there
would be increasing pressure on foodgrains. One cannot deny that the effects of
the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGP) and Bharat Nirman
will steadily have an impact on the rural areas and, as the poor and the
economically weaker sections use over 70-80 per cent of their income on food,
the demand projections may need to be revised.
The NFSM has been designed to only
produce more rice, wheat and pulses and does not take into account the demand
for coarse grains. But it is now considering it. This is necessary as demand
for coarse grains would increase immensely in the coming five years while, in
urban areas, the demand would be oriented towards meat, eggs and pulses.
In such a scenario, re-estimation
poverty would have to be simultaneously tackled with higher foodgrains output
so that the BPL population is assured of their daily meals. Moreover, the
economically weaker sections have also to be provided food at reasonable prices
in all parts of the country. This is indeed a big challenge for the government
during the coming years.
Thus, the basic element of poverty eradication strategy has
to focus on the development needs of the rural areas so as to rehabilitate the
poor, starving farmer and his family. More resources need to be allocated even
as some headway has been made in recent years by allocating increased resources
for infrastructure development.
Keeping in view the growing demand for food, there has to be
greater emphasis on modernizing agriculture and increasing foodgrain
production. This would entail ensuring three crops per year, encouraging
horticulture and floriculture production and keeping an eye on productivity
increase. Since land holdings have become smaller and smaller over the years,
some form of cooperatives should be formed to cultivate a few holdings together
and then share the produce equitably. The output would increase considerably
and benefit the poor farmer. But for this, the panchayats have to come forward
and ensure that the land yields optimum and value-based products while all
sorts of inputs have to be made available free of cost to these cooperatives.
Moreover, the government has to ensure that agricultural land should under no
circumstances be used for industrial/township development.
Well-known economist Ignacy Sachs had way back urged the
need for a second green revolution. This has been reiterated by Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh. At conferences he has noted that: as the share of agriculture in
national income has been falling rapidly and the population dependent on it has
remained more or less static, science and technology must look into
agricultural productivity and affordable technologies for energy and water, efficient
and relevant farm and non-farm technologies. If put into practice this will go
a long way in rural regeneration, which, in turn, will reduce poverty.--INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 Next > End >>
| Results 5383 - 5391 of 5987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|