. |
. |
EDITORIAL Pak persistent belligerency and compulsive hostility towards this country notwithstanding, there is the imperative need of not doing anything that would aggravate the people to people relations between the two countries. There are fundamentalist elements on either side who continue to work overtime to cause permanant damage to Indo-Pak relations. It does not mean that Pakistan government gets clean chit for all its evil acts perpetrated on this country and the ones in the pipeline. Military rulers of Pakistan have done nothing so far to indicate their sincerity in having normal relations with India. It is pertinent to note that our diplomatic response ...more The budget for the year 2000-2001 presented to assembly is one of the softest ever with almost nil burden on the already hard-pressed people of this state. Unlike last year's budget which went in for across the table enhancement in all taxes for mopping up around Rs 500 crore, this budget attempts at very moderate mobilisation of just 30 crore and that too which will not eat into the pockets of common man. Enhancement of duty on cigarettes, IMFL/Beer to CSD/civilian use, entry tax on goods imported...more |
|
Nuclear doctrine Ghalib's Haveli: A battle
half won University and college students across the country may have to shell out much more as tuition and other fees from the 2000-2001 academic session. ...more Tata's gesture on cogentrix
a boost to FDI Liquor industry in |
 |
||
EDITORIAL Pak persistent belligerency and compulsive hostility towards this country notwithstanding, there is the imperative need of not doing anything that would aggravate the people to people relations between the two countries. There are fundamentalist elements on either side who continue to work overtime to cause permanant damage to Indo-Pak relations. It does not mean that Pakistan government gets clean chit for all its evil acts perpetrated on this country and the ones in the pipeline. Military rulers of Pakistan have done nothing so far to indicate their sincerity in having normal relations with India. It is pertinent to note that our diplomatic response to all the overtures shown by Pak government for dialogue have also been stonewalled by our government. To be precise, India has made it amply clear that unless Pakistan stops cross border sponsorship of terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir and respects LoC there is no point in having any dialogue. Since Pak response manifests in accelerated insurgency and other hostile acts, India is right on course to watch the hostile neighbour before entering into any dialogue. In fact, respective stands of both nations have hardened vis-a-vis resolving Kashmir imbroglio. Pakistan says that Kashmir alone is the core issue and all other issues have no substance while our Prime Minister says without mincing any words that the only point to be discussed as regards Kashmir is the vacation of Pak aggression from PoK and restoration of composite status of J&K as it existed before tribal invasion in 1947. But this is obviously the stand at government to government level and India does not trust Pakistan any more after the Kargil intrusions and occupation of strategic heights by Pakistan army. To that extent it is good policy. It may also be mentioned that at the diplomatic level, staff in both the High Commissions located in Delhi and Islamabad has come under acute stress. Not only our mission personnel enjoying diplomatic immunity have been handpicked and roughed up but also declared persona-non-grata. There has been instant reaction with corresponding and equal expulsions of Pak mission staffers. This game has not ended and perhaps there would be more expulsions either side. This is part of the diplomatic warfare. But it is to be noted that at no stage either India or Pakistan has worked for severing of diplomatic relations. In diplomatic language it is called stand-off or stalemate. This means even governments in both the countries, be it military rulers in Pakistan or the democratic Indian regime, have never thought of breaking relations. This is despite the fact that India and Pakistan had three regular wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971. In addition, there was the Kargil war in May/June last year. One can as well add the proxy war which is in 11th year. Yet diplomatic relations are on. This is the position of government to government policy which does leave enough of room for ultimate normalisation of relations. Such comparison can also be made in world diplomatic relations. Although Soviet Union and America remained engaged in severe cold war and at times even it hotted up, they have consistently maintained diplomatic relations. Same is true between China and America when former's embassy in Yugoslavia was deliberately bombarded by American forces. China protested, it soured Sino-American relations, America paid compensation and that is that. Likewise, even after Chinese aggression in 1962, relations between India and China remained very cool but at no time broken off. Net result is that both nations now talk peace and even preparing themselves to go for strategic partnership in warding off American hegemonic designs of unipolar world. Although Indian Airlines hijack was facilitated from Nepalese soil which is the hub of ISI activities, India hopefully looks for better understanding even in security related matters. It thus follows that people to people contacts hold the key to ultimate normalisation because it generates tremendous goodwill in both countries. Delhi-Lahore bus falls in the same category. Attack on this bus by some zealots and bigots is no solution to the stand-off in relations. Likewise, Samjauta Express between Lahore and Amritsar must continue. What is needed pertains to better security management so that no unwanted persons enter the country and counterfeit notes are seized at the border itself. Both Samjauta and bus have helped the visitors on either side and this channel must kept open. It is to be left to the wisdom of the government to stop the service or continue with it because they are best equipped with all inputs. In the same vein cultural and sport contacts must continue. It is no use becoming spoil-sports, be it cricket or hockey or Asian games or Olympics. Sports in any case should not be politicised. It has never happened even during worst possible relations between Soviet Union and America. Same is true of trade. If imports of selected items like sugar, rice or power is cheap and beneficial to us, it can go on. Similarly if we have surplus of potatos or onions or wheat it can be sold to Pakistan. The only rider is to safeguard consumer interests and not do anything that would jeopardise our own factories or farm sector which must always have preference over any imports or exports. Attack on Delhi-Lahore bus is thus quite off-course and will not be conducive to ultimate normalisation of relations. Such actions that spoil sports, cultural or people to people contacts must be avoided. The budget for the year 2000-2001 presented to assembly is one of the softest ever with almost nil burden on the already hard-pressed people of this state. Unlike last year's budget which went in for across the table enhancement in all taxes for mopping up around Rs 500 crore, this budget attempts at very moderate mobilisation of just 30 crore and that too which will not eat into the pockets of common man. Enhancement of duty on cigarettes, IMFL/Beer to CSD/civilian use, entry tax on goods imported for personal use, levy fee on labels for IMFL besides increase in stamp duty and fee are steps that will have very marginal impact on inflation. It is to be seen that emphasis in the budget is to effect alround economy in non-plan expenditure. The thrust areas are downsizing of establishment, pruning of top/heavy administration and performance audit of the existing set up. Rationalisation and economisation of the use of vehicles and telephones is also advocated besides the ban on purchase of furniture/furnishings. There is the mention of disinvestment in public sector undertakings for which a committee is being set up to assess the health and viability of PSUs for purposes of revival/disinvestment. These factors were also on agenda of not only last budget but the preceding budgets as well. The government failed to muster enough of courage and will to economise which explains landing up in the quagmire of near total bankruptcy. One expects that this time round there will be less politicking and appeasement and more of economic approach. By far the best thing is to declare the next fiscal as the 'Year of Recovery'. Some sort of initiatives are already taken to effect recoveries by PDD in valley and one hopes that the same would gain momentum. There is by far the largest recovery of Sales Tax amounting to over Rs 600 crore. One expects that the proposed Tribunal would facilitate faster recovery. There is the mention of takeover of power projects from NHPC and seeking compensation from centre for losses to the state attributed to Indus Water Treaty. At this stage one can only hope that there would be some results. In the meanwhile decision to defer hike in power tariff from April 1, 2000 is a welcome sign and perhaps the harbinger of following people-friendly policies which is in typical contrast to anti-people policies and tax-regime during the last three years. Although Finance Minister claims the plan size for the next year to be at Rs 2525 cr, it is still in the discussion stage in the Planning Commission and to that extent premature. Emphasis on building a self-sustaining economy in the absence of any positive measures or attempt to create the requisite infrastructure is likewise presumptuous and to that extent somewhat fanciful. |
||
|
||
Nuclear
doctrine and its triad The enunciation of a Nuclear Doctrine was a logical sequel to Pokhran-II. Its function is two-fold. Internally, it assists in planning force structures, R&D, production, training and operationalisation. Externally, it stipulates our stance vis-a-vis nuclear confrontation. Tolerance thresholds need to be defined and reactions specified unambiguously. Political and diplomatic objectives also emerge therefrom and guide our approach in international fora. Such a doctrine must, therefore, flow from the constitution and reflect the perceptions and ideology of the nation, rather than those of specific governments. It must also be realistic in that constraints of resources, technology and diplomatic clout in the international arena should be recognised and incorporated to modulate our statement of intent. Doctrines evolve through analyses of precedents and technologies - existing, available or necessary. They also demand a great deal of projection, extrapolation, moderation and rationalisation. This is because accurate inputs are rarely available. Victors write history and the fog of war can never be totally recreated in later, more peaceful times. Successes and failures, cause and effect, are all prone to interpretation, perception and even dogma - they are rarely absolutes. Sartaj Aziz for example, claims a Pak victory in 1971, despite dismemberment, loss of territory, an unconditional surrender and 93,000 POWs. The level at which a doctrine is established is further subject to the level at which the analysis is conducted. It could be at the national-level, military-level, that of an individual service or further down the ladder, but must be consonant with all other doctrines of the state. Should a doctrine then percolate downward or vice-versa ? Should it be dictated by national aspirations or by the availability of resources ? The first approach despite its obvious advantages is capital and technology intensive. National goals may be stated and the means broadly identified. Military aims and those of individual services would follow. The services must then decide how best to perform their roles and the wherewithal necessary. This involves an inherent danger of over-assessment of resources required and a high degree of redundancy. Alternatively, it anticipates an absolute level of destruction wherein those with a desire for retribution too would be eliminated. The need for sea and perhaps air based assets then becomes debatable. The United States, which may have inspired our ‘triad’, perceives a global role for itself. It may envisage dedicated task forces in the Gulf, the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and the Pacific without diluting its mainland forces. It has also developed economically, technologically and militarily in a synergetic manner. Military research has found civilian applications and vice-versa. None of this applies to India. A long - standing Nuclear Weapon State - The United Kingdom - has only six submarines, four of which are operational at a given time, comprising its total nuclear capability. It has probably analysed its environment and concluded that land or air-based weapons located within a small area would be prime targets for an enemy, have low survivability and place the public at additional risk. Geography and military alliances were other significant considerations while defining their force structure. The resort to the oceans amounts to the creation of an asset they did not possess. India's geography being what it is, available assets must be optimally used while reducing expenditure. Technologically, the indigenous option we would like to exercise places us a long way from realisation. The nuclear delivery capable variants of aircraft were not procured originally though necessary modifications may be quickly possible provided the hardware and know-how are available. The ballistic missile option nevertheless is preferable on counts of penetration, survivability and speed of reaction. Unfortunately, missile development programs are also in the doldrums. The army version of the Prithvi is the only one under production, while the longer-range air force version and the Agni are yet to be developed and may take decades for production. Our R&D organisations do not generate credibility. Weapons systems that involve little more than reverse engineering based on systems of the sixties are over a decade overdue. Many major projects like ALH, LCA, AWACS, ATV and Trishul are either way behind schedule, unsatisfactory in performance or cost-prohibitive. The conversion of prototypes to production are huge, time-consuming and expensive projects. Induction into a service, creation of a broad base of trained manpower and operationalisation are similarly difficult and time-consuming. Navies have air arms for example, as do armies and then we have air forces, each propounding a different doctrine. Who is to do what, and how ? Should we use specialists or generalists ? Developing technology aggravates the problem. Vertical escalation leads to enhanced capability, expanded spans of control, extended overlap and naturally spiralling costs, while making doctrines technology driven rather than objective-oriented. The second is a poor man's solution. We optimise what we have and limit our aims accordingly. The doctrine then states what is reasonably possible and how it should be executed in our context. Both approaches have pros and cons. One may become disastrous economically unless stringent controls are exercised, but would be linked to technological and economic development, while the second though pragmatic may lead to stagnation, inefficiency and general under-performance. In the instant case, we have chosen the first path. The nuclear arena, however, has one major blank area when compared with conventional warfare - that of precedent. There have been many theories and projections, but fortunately no nuclear strike after Nagasaki. It is thus well nigh impossible to predict reactions of powerful individuals or groups in different countries when faced with calamitous circumstances. Public response too would be instinctive rather than reasoned. This would be particularly so in fundamentalist states and most third world countries where strategic awareness, analysis, tradition and resources are at a premium. Accordingly, the Indian Nuclear Doctrine reflects the perceptions and attitudes of a select group of strategists rather than those of a broad knowledgeable base. This generates some ambiguities that need to be resolved. The one addressed here stems from the policy of ‘retaliation only’ previously adopted by the government. The aim is to reassure, but it immediately multiplies the requirement in terms of numbers and diversity of launch platforms. This is further compounded by the intent to base them ‘on a triad of aircraft, mobile land based missiles and sea-based assets.’ Whether the statement is meant to guide our R&D organisations in setting long-term goals or for implementation in the near furture is unclear. These constraints indicate
that the force structure predicated is presently
unrealistic. The doctrine is stated to be a ‘dynamic
concept related to the strategic environment,
technological imperatives and needs of national security
to be kept under constant review.’ It could hence
have been upgraded in stages. Technological development
no doubt is an admirable goal, but the inputs must be
prioritised in view of our environment. The ‘triad
does not inspire the requisite indispensability. |
||
|
|
|
University and college students across the country may have to shell out much more as tuition and other fees from the 2000-2001 academic session. A recently-constituted "drafting group for fee regulations" has almost finalised the percentage for which the fees should be hiked in all central universities as well as deemed-to-be universities, said Union HRD ministry sources. HRD minister Murli Manohar Joshi and education secretary M. K. Kaw have repeatedly stressed the need to raise fees, among other measures, to generate additional resources for the fund-starved higher education sector. The drafting group was set up in the wake of a series of meetings in the ministry and the University Grants Commission after two expert committees _ headed, respectively, by Mehmud-ur-Rahman and M. Anandkrishanan _ submitted their reports. "The drafting group is basically summarising the two reports. Its regulations will be finalised after consultations," said a ministry source. The Rahman committee recommended an upward revision of the fee structure for different course in universities and colleges. Then the Anandkrishana committee, constituted to "review maintenance grant norms for colleges of Delhi University", suggested an even higher fee structure. Tuition fee in most universities, including DU, the largest Central university, has remained static for over three decades. The monthly tuition fee in DU colleges, for instance, is only Rs. 15 for undergraduates and Rs. 18 for postgraduates. Sources said the Rahman committee proposed a monthly tuition fee ranging from Rs. 55 to Rs. 150 for different courses. For instance, it said, students of BA (Honours) and B. Com (Honours) be charged Rs. 60, while BSc (Honours) students should pay Rs. 110. The proposed fee structure is much higher for professional courses. MBBS and BDS fees, the committee said, should be raised from Rs. 60 now to Rs. 200 per month. The Rahman committee said the levels suggested were the "minimum and universities may be free to charge more". The Anandkrishanan committee, in turn, set the monthly tuition fee at Rs. 100 for undergraduates and Rs. 125 for postgraduates. The authorities have already decided to issue guidelines prescribing "minimum-level fees", which will be related to "actual costs or unit costs", with an "in-built mechanism for periodic revision". A hike in tuition fee is not all. The Rahman committee has also recommended hikes in the admission-related fee, examination fee, enrolment fee and development fee. For instance, the committee said, the enrolment fee _ which ranges from Rs. 10 to Rs. 20 now _ has been "generally low" in all universities. It should raise to Rs. 100 or more. The committee said universities must ensure the fee charged for student activities like games, union, society etc. should meet the entire cost, without any subsidy coming into play. The committee asked for a major revision in hostel and mess fees. The Anandkrishanan committee, in turn, said hostels were "heavily subsidised". In addition to a hike in room rents, students must also be charged for use of electricity, water, crockery, furniture, geysers, fans, and parking arrangements through a hostel fee ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1,000 per annum. The amount being charged as development fee (Rs. 5) is "very small and it should range from Rs. 100 to Rs. 300 per annum," said the Anandkrishanan committee. As for utilisation of the enhanced fees, the Rahman committee said the UGC had already decided the additional amount realised must be kept separately by the university. It should not be deducted from the maintenance grant given to it. For this, each university should create a corpus if it does not already exist. INAV |
|
Tata's gesture on cogentrix
a boost to FDI Rangarajan Kumaramangalam is smiling once again. After almost a month he appears to be breathing freely and enjoying his stint in the Vajpayee Government. Till early this week he was a person with disappointment writ large on his face. It must be said to his credit that he did not make an effort to hide his disappointment. Ranga had every reason to be bitter. All his efforts to chalk out the blueprint for power sector had come almost unstuck. Mega power projects refused to take off the drawing board. He had no magic wand to redeem the situation. Cogentrix pulled out of the 1000 mw Mangalore project. "You cannot expect us to wait with bated breath for ever," the American MNC spokesperson said by way of an explanation for the decision, even as Indians were in the midst of their new year celebrations fifteen days after heralding the new millennium. The project had hit a roadblock right from day one. What began as a local litigation moved upto the apex court in New Delhi and ended in a wrangle between the State and federal Governments. The promoters' grouse is that neither New Delhi nor Bangalore tried to help and take the pressure off their back. Mangalore venture may still see the light of the day. That depends as much on the final tariffs to be negotiated as on the "left behind MNC partner of Cogentrix" locating an Indian company to fill up the vacant slot. Tatas are in the reckoning. Will they be willing to test the waters once again? They have given their consent to put their money in the project after some cajoling. It is this new twist to the erstwhile Cogentrix project that had brought smile back to Ranga's face. The House of Tatas had burnt their fingers in Karnataka in the recent past. Invited by none other than Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, Tatas came forward to showcase India for the prospective investors in the early days of economic reforms in 1991. Their two ventures - Bangalore airport and a new domestic airline in collaboration with Singapore's national carrier - have failed to take off. And the Tatas retreated from the front line saying we have no interest in the two projects. In a way, Tata's tryst with aviation is akin to the dismay experienced by Cogentrix. Tatas and Cogentrix are standing testimony to the chasm between intent and reality on the foreign direct investment front. FDI approvals between August 1991 and October 1999 totalled an impressive $58 billion. Hardly 30 per cent of this amount has come into India. This is despite projection of India as the second most sought after destination after China in Asia and New Delhi's resolve to attract at least $10 billion every year. As as analysts remarks, the tardy flow of FDI is mostly on account of the power sector, which received the lion's share of clearances from the Government. The amount involved is Rs. 10,159 crore. Global management consultancy firm A T Kearny ranks India as the sixth most preferred destination for FDI in the world. We are placed ahead of even Germany and Poland. "Lack of clear, consistent regulatory framework" and cumbersome procedures and Indian's propensity for litigation are cited as the roadblocks. The unwillingness of the bureaucracy to give up their controls over the dollars flowing into the country, even though the permit - licence - quota raj of Fabian socialism days has ended, is no less responsible for the flip side to the Indian quest for FDI. According to one analyst, Indian bureaucracy has put in place new fetters, while removing the old ones. He also opines that the liberalisation mantra is yet to trickle down to the various layers of Government at the State and district levels. Till date annual average FDI inflow is hovering around under $2 billion mark. More green backs came into the country for investment in the calender year 1998 ($3.3 bn) and 1999 fiscal ($4 bn). Most of this money did not get into the infrastructure sector or even the FMCG arena. Its destination was the Mumbai Stock Exchange. And this explains the unusual upswings in the SENSEX during the past year. Undoubtedly, Indian scrips were attractive as they remained at their historical lows at a time the entire South-east Asian economy was in the recovery mould. Some analysts hold the view that for anyone with the moolah and knocking at the Indian doors, stock market will remain the right place for investment, till the Indian Government sets its house in order. What is needed is not policy pronouncements, for which there is no shortage. Take the case of port development. The Government is willing to clear 100 per cent foreign equity, up from 74 per cent set as the upper limit earlier. Yet the response is lukewarm. Because private Indian and foreign investment proposals worth Rs. 65,000 crore have been gathering dust for the past several years. Needless to say, mere expansion of the list of industries placed under the automatic route for FDI approvals will offer the manna for the dollar starved infrastructure sector. Yet this is what Industry Minister Murasoli Maran did with the approval of the Vajpayee Cabinet. He is known to belong to the pro-reform school tempered by pragmatism. This is his second stint in Delhi in recent years, first as the Industry Minister in the short-lived United Front and now as the Industry and Commerce Minister in the Vajpayee Government. He rightly sees the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), a bureaucratic relic created while throwing open the Indian doors in 1991, not so much as an enabling institution. It has been seen as a hindrance to prospective investors. Not many in the Government share his perception. But the fact that the Finance Minister decided to set up an agency to oversee actual implementation of the FIPB approvals and to remove hurdles in the way is a clear admission of the ground reality. Whether replacement of one agency by another would serve any purpose is a moot point. But what is clear is the need for an urgent change in the political mindset, particularly amongst the leadership at the State level. Chandrababu Naidu in Hyderabad and S M Krishna in Bangalore are the standing examples of what is possible if the Chief Minister moves into the driver's seat. Om Prakash Chautala in Haryana, on the other hand, represents the old school, which is prepared to forego World Bank Loan (for power sector reforms) for fear of annoying vote-banks brought up on a diet of sops. There is yet another school which is trying to come to grips in its own way. Ashok Gehlot in Jaipur and Digvijay Singh in Bhopal are its representatives. They are trying to lessen the pains of transition to a more liberal environment by improving the financial strength of the State. These are no less
insignificant signs. The clamour among the investors to
patronize Naidus and Krishnas should prove the skeptics
wrong. |
|
Liquor industry in high
spirits With the opening of the In-dian economy in 1991, the Indian liquor industry has grown into a world-class industry in a span of nine years. A large number of export-oriented units have come up in the country. Liquor manufacturers have also started producing Indian version of French Bordeaux and eight other world-class wines. Six Indian liquor brands are on the list of world's 110 top-selling names. Their average sales growth rate has been an impressive 48 per cent over the last three years. Even the highly conservative liquor-consuming segment in the United States, Canada, Australia and some European countries have started sipping Indian-brewed wines. In France, demand for Indian wine has been rising steadily. Some of the Indian varieties are even costlier than the widely-popular French wines. Indian brewers are now manufacturing non-traditional varieties like martini, champagne, wines and cognacs. Till 1994-95, these varieties were imported from Europe for the large Indian upmarket. While, canned beer has now flooded into the Indian market, scotch is gradually entering into the market. The consumption pattern has also undergone a change over the last eight years. Consumer preference in the domestic market, prior to 1989-90 restricted to rum, gin, whisky and beer, is now for all varieties including champagne, red wine and mertini, launched in the country. The demand for these varieties is mainly by upmarket and upper middle-class Indians. Today, the country produces 20 lakh bottles of wine annually. However, annual per capita consumption of wine in India continues to remain lowest in the world- only seven ml whereas in China it is as high as 65 ml a year. Prices of liquor scrips have shown an upward movement over the years. Stock market analysts cite various factors for this including increase in liquor exports, rise in domestic liquor consumption and increase in profits of liquor companies. The country's first 'Wine Festival' or 'Grape Harvest Festival' was held recently at Narayangaon, located on the outskirt of Pune. It reminded people of the ancient process of wine-making in Italy, France and Germany. Wine testers from Australia and brewers from Cyprus, Germany and France attended the festival. Even journalists from London were invited at Narayangaon-- India's only vineyard spread on an area of 750 acres. The Indian liquor industry uses only grapes from this vineyard for making wine. Growth of liquor industry has also increased grape cultivation. In Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, grape cultivation is growing very fast. France and Germany are also showing keen interest in developing vineyards in India. Though grapes have been grown in India for the last 400 years, neither the Central Government nor State Governments have taken any serious step to develop vineyards. The growth in the liquor industry is catalysing growth of vineyards. Liquor manufacturer, Chateau Indage (India) Limited has recently started developing viticulture (vine-growing) in Maharashtra in collaboration with Taillan Group, France, Wente Vineyards, US and Peter Mertes, Germany. Currently, only one per cent of total grape production in India is used in making wines, while in Europe about 90 per cent of grapes produced are purchased by wine manufacturers. The world wine market is extremely large. Nearly, 200 countries import wine and liquor of different varieties. Indian brands are increasingly becoming popular in foreign markets. But, overall sales in Europe, US and Canada declined in 1998-99 by 18 per cent. Industry watchers,
however, say the decline in gross sales of European
wines, mainly French, German, English and Scottish, have
substantially dropped in Afro-Asian and Latin American
countries as manufacturers in these countries have
started making world-class liquors causing sharp fall in
imports. In India too, import of French Champagne or
Italian martini dropped by over 60 per cent in 1998-99
compared to 1996-97. |
|
|
