. |
. |
EDITORIAL It is ironical that a country of over a billion stomachs has no viable food policy. There are experiments galore and only day to day solutions are conceived and implemented post-haste. At the outset one must give credit to Indian farmers to usher in green revolution. At the time of independence population of India was 36 crore while 9 crore went to Pakistan. Out of these 9 crore, Pakistan got balkanised in 1971 and more than half of its ......more The Government has done the right thing in exempting NCC Cadets holding 'C' certificate from written test conducted by Union Public Service Commission. This exemption is already available for IAF and Navy recruitment whence cadets get entry into Commissioned ranks on the basis of tests....more |
|
US-India security convergence Tickety-boo, Guptaji Fundamental changes Playing with your life |
 |
||
EDITORIAL It is ironical that a country of over a billion stomachs has no viable food policy. There are experiments galore and only day to day solutions are conceived and implemented post-haste. At the outset one must give credit to Indian farmers to usher in green revolution. At the time of independence population of India was 36 crore while 9 crore went to Pakistan. Out of these 9 crore, Pakistan got balkanised in 1971 and more than half of its population remained in the new nation Bangladesh. Today, India has almost 101 crore mouths to feed while Pakistan about 14 crore whereas Bangladesh a shade more than Pakistan. Indian population has nearly tripled during the last 53 years. On the food front, India was grossly deficit in as much as granery of W. Punjab went to Pakistan while dry East Punjab formed part of India. Out of 22 canal systems, 20 went to Pakistan while only 2 came to Indian part of Punjab. East Punjab itself got truncated into three independent States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as a consequence of Punjabi Suba demand raised by Akali Dal leader Master Tara Singh. With all these negative aspects, it is indeed a tribute to farming community of these three States that India today can pride in surplus foodgrains. In fifties and sixties India had to import wheat from America to the extent of 15 million tons in a single year under PL-480 programme (the money thus realised from sale of such wheat was used by America in India itself on American funded projects and/or for humanitarian grounds). The above backgrounder proves that policies for increasing food production were sound. The policies included large irrigation facilities, free power or subsidised power, loans at subsidised interests, minimum procurement price, subsidised seeds and fertilisers. The net result is there for everyone to see. Today it is the problem of plenty, surplus production, inadequate storage capacities, distress sale by farmers, abnormal issue prices which are more than prevailing market prices, agitation by farmers due to absence of procurement agencies and scores of other problems. The worst one is that against requirements of only 18 million tons of foodgrains as buffer stocks for feeding Public Distribution System, 40 million tons are rotting in godowns out of which at least 10 million is stacked in the open covered with tarpaulins. The Government reveals that cost of storage itself works out Rs 5000 crore annually. This explains why Government agencies have been hesitant to enter the market and mop up the arrivals in various mandis. The situation was subsequently rectified with Central package of Rs 350 crore to Punjab alone to compensate farmers for distress sale from the official date of commencement of procurement that was September 21. Similar compensation package is also announced for the Haryana farmers. Besides, procurement standards have been lowered to the satisfaction of farmers. From the above it is evident that old food policies need substantial changes. Those policies were fine because the country was deficit. Now it is surplus which calls for re-formulations of priorities and objectives. Yet another short-cut is now sought to be put in place. BJP Chief Bangaru Laxman has written to Prime Minister for introducing 'Antodya plan'. This plan is meant to supply 25 kg foodgrains to 5 crore people who are poorest amongst the poor. The cost suggested is Rs 2 per kg for wheat and Rs 3 for rice. It is almost one-fourth of what is charged to rationees in PDS outlets and half of what the BPL category (some 36 crore) pays under the Targeted Public Distribution System. Behind this proposal which is all set to be okayed by the cabinet and cleared by the Finance Minister is not the desire to feed the hungry millions but somehow get rid of stocks lying in the open. The proposal has the blend of being termed as 'populist' as well. True, it would be supported by all the parties. The million dollar question is that this year it is surplus. What about next year? Once any populist measures is initiated political compulsions and vote pocket expediency demands continuation of the same. Any year of less production shall thus entail large imports at huge cost which is not a good fiscal policy. In fact it is no policy. Another short term measure is conceived in that export of surplus wheat with very large subsidy element is on the anvil to off-load the unmanageable stocks. The proposed export price is Rs 441 per quintal to make it competitive enough in the international markets. It is almost Rs 250 less than the economic price (Minimum Procurement plus the storage and handling charges). This again indicates that food policy has flawed and outlived its utility in as much as regular annual ritual of increasing minimum procurement price payable to farmers which is in far excess of international prices. Given the subsidised inputs, cheap labour and other incentives, cost of production in India should be less than that of American or Australian wheat. The time has come to ponder over this aspect without populist blend and appeasement Whichever way one views, food policy appears to be off-course without any co-relation with present day realities or emerging situations. It also calls for some sort of privatisation of procurement policies and balkanisation of unwieldy Food Corporation of India into three independent entities for procurement, for Storage, for Issue/Sale. There is also the imperative need to make the so called 'Antodya plan' as one-time affair so that instead of rotting, surplus foodgrains feed poorest amongst the poor. Food policy also needs review in as much as cropping pattern is concerned. For instance oilseeds/edible oils/pulses continue to be imported at huge cost while wheat and rice have become surplus. Policy formulation entails overall view and corresponding adjustment so that neither farmers nor consumers suffer for want of a viable food policy. The Government has done the right thing in exempting NCC Cadets holding 'C' certificate from written test conducted by Union Public Service Commission. This exemption is already available for IAF and Navy recruitment whence cadets get entry into Commissioned ranks on the basis of tests conducted by Services Selection Boards. The problem with the Army is that it right now falls short of 13000 Commissioned Officers. Despite several short-term measures introduced including lowering of selection norms, the shortage continues. It is so because most of the youths consider other careers more appealing and remunerative career-wise and otherwise. The latest instructions are that all academies turning out Commissioned Officers must have their full intake. This obviously results in further compromise on standards and quality of input. There are already schemes like training own engineers and doctors to fill up the required vacancies as regards professionals. This has very largely met the needs of the armed forces. The waiver now introduced will partly augment the needs of the Army in Commissioned ranks because there are large number of 'C' Certificate holders in the NCC. Many of them fail in the written test itself although they do form the right stuff for ruggadised army service in as much as they are already conditioned to that life during their long stint in NCC. It simultaneously subserves another purpose. It makes NCC joining an attractive proposition whence better quality input will be readily forthcoming to make good deficiencies in the Army as Commissioned Officers. |
||
|
||
US-India
security convergence Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's Washington visit has pushed into more intended focus the Indo-US convergence that commenced during Bill Clinton's visit to India in March this year. It is a continuing process of eliminating the Cold War tilt of the US towards Pakistan which acted as its frontline State to contain Soviet influence in Afghanistan. Little wonder that Pakistan's media has dubbed the cozying up of India and the US at the cost of virtual cold-shouldering of Gen Musharraf as a 'conspiracy''. What exactly does ''natural allies'' imply, which is how Vajpayee described the new high in Indo-American convergence? Other than the vast market and trade potential of India-deals worth $ six billion were signed during this visit- the US through consistent diplomacy has been made to acknowledge that India can further US national and strategic concerns in the region. Also acknowledged in Washington is India's anxiety about the import of terrorism through Pakistan. The Taliban Government and its connections with international terrorist organisations have also alarmed the US, which now officially admits that the focus of international terrorism has shifted from West Asia to South Asia. Basically emanating from Afghanistan which is the fount of narcotics and narco-terrorism, several militant outfits are provided safe haven and other support from the Taliban dispensation. Afghanistan has also been identified in 1999 as the main base of operations of Islamic extremists around the world- North America, Europe, Africa, Middle-East, Central, South and South-East Asia. This remains a significant concern of the US and India which is at the receiving end of Pakistan's ill-conceived jehad for which Afghanistan is being used as the ''training ground''. The US and India agreed to establish an institutional framework to address these predominant concerns, and Pakistan is on notice that its jehad in Kashmir will isolate it further. Earlier, in February this year the two sides established a Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism. According to the American policy on counter-terrorism it will isolate and apply pressure on States that sponsor terrorism, apart from bolstering the counter-terrorist capabilities of those countries that work with the US and require assistance. India is thus expected to have pressed for meaningful intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US, which will enhance our capacity to counter the Pak-sponsored proxy war in all its manifestations. Apart from alleviating the pressure from the Indian Army and paramilitary forces it could expose Pakistan further and isolate it diplomatically which our belligerent neighbour with a sinking economy can not afford at this juncture. On the issue of resuming a dialogue with Pakistan, the US endorsed New Delhi's stand that appropriate conditions must be created first. Also reiterated by America is that the Line of Control must be respected and violence renounced. This must have caused considerable apprehensions in Islamabad. An abiding security concern for India relates to the covert building up of nuclear and missile capabilities of Pakistan and an effective countervailing force on India's western flank, apart from preventing India from achieving targeted growth rates by diverting a bulk of its resources towards defence and fighting a proxy war. Fortunately, the US now understands India's anxiety and even acknowledges our legitimate requirement forna minimum nuclear deterrent, which we have rightly not quantified because of the developing security threat. Although America will keep pressing India to sign the CTBT, it will veer around into accommodating India's threat perceptions. This commonality of perception will also further US interests vis-a-vis China. For a strategic containment of China which the Americans desire, the objective cannot be achieved without taking in India as its trusted ally. India is strategically located next to China's soft and vulnerable underbelly-Tibet. Therein lies the crux of Indo-American convergence of strategic interests, which also effectively neutralize the growing Sino-Pak nexus. In the ultimate, however,
India will have to fight its own proxy war in Kashmir for
which a fresh approach and strategy is long overdue. |
||
|
|
Fundamental changes in
nuclear deterrence The role of nuclear weapons is undergoing subtle but important changes in deterrence strategy. Although this transformation is a consequence of the collapse of bipolarity in international relations and the shift in military threats from the global to regional context, the trend is becoming visible now due to more recent developments. The principles of nuclear deterrence are beginning to alter in a way that could profoundly impact on the still evolving post Cold War security order. How the theory and practice of deterrence are being transformed can be seen from the current US debate on a national missile defence (NMD) system. The political debate has narrowed to when and how - rather than whether - the United States should deploy such defences. At the core of the debate is a growing acknowledgement that deterrence in the 21st century cannot be pivoted on principles based on the bipolar nuclear paradigm. Deterrence traditionally has been an offence-based posture that aims to retain a balance between mutual vulnerabilities and a capability to wreak unacceptable punishment on an aggressor. Now, national and theatre missile defences symbolise a potential shift in focus from offence to defence. Without offence being given up, deterrence is intended to be constructed on the principles of defence to calculatingly tilt the balance between mutual vulnerabilities in favour of one side. Change is affecting the face of deterrence, but not its primary purpose. Deterrence will still centre on achieving strategic objectives, not through military victory in a nuclear conflict, but with the threat of war. Since the threat has to be realistically based on ready, deliverable nuclear weapons, the symbiosis of deterrence and use will remain the key reality of the nuclear world. The difference now is the difficulty in identifying the mechanisms for credibly executing such a threat in a post-bipolar world. With the threat of global nuclear war giving way to dangers of regional nuclear conflict involving one or more of the established nuclear powers, such as over Taiwan, novel concepts of nuclear-weapons employment and new types of weapons are emerging. The large-yield, high-destruction weapons that make up the bulk of the US and Russian nuclear armouries are anachronistic with the desire of military planners today for 'clean' surgical strikes in the event of war. Total annihilation of an enemy is no longer considered a politically feasible or desirable proposition, especially when no major State is willing to identify any foe, So, after having built city-busting weapons for decades, weapon designers are now looking at high-precision, low-yield arms that could take out a Government complex or some other single target without the rest of the city being in ruins. America's new, deep-burrowing 'mini-nuke', France's interest in 'sub-strategic' weapons, Russia's stress on tactical nukes and China's primary reliance on short- to intermediate-range weaponry underscore the perils of limited, localised strikes. The 'revolution in military affairs' (RMA) has opened the path to nuclear precision weapons by spawning highly accurate and lethal conventional arms. Conversely, it has increased the value of nuclear weapons for technologically less advanced powers unable to enter into a race with the United States to build conventional precision weapons. The nuclear build-down of Russia, the world's largest but thinly-pullulated State, and the parallel nuclear build-up of the most-populous China also suggest that deterrence in the 21st century will be strikingly dissimilar to the bipolar confrontation when the two superpowers kept peace between themselves and their blocs by matching each other's nuclear might. Today Russia is a fallen superpower unable to keep up with the nuclear tempo, while the rising China aspiring to be America's peer competitor is in no position to match Washinton's nuclear prowess in the foreseeable future. Possessing at present just six to 24 strategic weapons that can possibly reach western US, China for several years to come will remain far away from the Cold War model of deterrence in relation to Washington - a mutually assured destruction (MAD) capability. China's double-digit increase in military spending for 12 consecutive years have brought its latest budget, according to US estimates, to $ 70 billion - or six times of India's present defence outlays. Despite being the world's second largest defence spender, Beijing is still distant from acquiring a survivable second-strike capability against the US. The most profound impact on the future shape of deterrence comes from development within Russia. For half a century, Moscow pursued nuclear parity with the US to underpin strategic balance and ensure the latter would not carry out a disarming first strike. Now, privately if not publicly, parity has been given up. With an official defence budget of $5 billion for 2000 - less than Pakistan's -Russia does not have the funds to maintain even its existing armoury of 6,000 strategic warheads plus an undetermined number of tactical nukes. The Russian nuclear arsenal is on downward spiral despite the START process being stuck. The Duma ratified the START II six months ago on terms that make its early entry into force improbable. This treaty is to take effect only after the US Congress ratifies a 1997 START II protocol and a package of amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. START III, the Duma legislation makes START II's entry into force conditional on an early conclusion of START III. The Americans have allowed the START process to wither away for good reason: Attrition through expiry of service life will automatically drive Russia's strategic arsenal down to about 1,500 warheads over the next five to six years. The net result will be that Russia will slip to a second-tier status as a nuclear-weapons State. In the US presidential race, candidate George Bush has promised deep unilateral nuclear cuts, an NMD system and no CTBT if he wins. But with an economically booming US destined to emerge as the world's paramount nuclear power, it seems doubtful that any American President will have the political or financial incentive to go in for deep cuts at this stage. In the evolving new situation, the existing premises of arms control, like the traditional principles of deterrence, are unlikely to hold. It is no accident that the process of arms control has ground to a halt in the present state of fluidity. The proposed elimination of multiple-warhead ICBMs under START II was designed to encourage a shift from a launch-on-warning to a launch-under-attack posture. But Moscow has made it clear that it intends to stick to a launch-on-warning posture (indistinguishable from pre-emption capability) and may not even eliminate its multiple-warhead ICBMs if Washington begins to deploy NMD. For India, the changing face of deterrence and the emerging triangular strategic offence/defence relationship among the US, China and Russia carry important implications. In a complex world marked by conflicting trends, it is apparent that each deterrent relationship will be different from the other, premised on principles at variance with classical deterrence theory. The concept of mutually assured destruction is losing relevance. Deterrence has to be constructed on principles radically different from notions of qualitative or quantitative parity. China has overwhelming nuclear superiority over India but its deterrent posture against the US is centred on a capability to threaten America's East Asian allies and a few US cities. India similarly can live with nuclear disparity with Beijing, but not with an inadequate reach against dominance-seeking China. Russia, resentful that START I and II are loaded against it, is likely to move to an independent force de frappe unhampered by major treaty restrictions. The future of deterrence, however, remains hazy, with a lot of unanswered questions. What are the military missions for which nuclear weapons will remain relevant? What should be the right mix of offence and defence in deterrence? For deterrence to be credible, what level of force and alertness is required? How does deterrence work in relation to a State that is irresponsible and sinking (Pakistan) or is totally opaque (China), or when the two are hand-in-glove? INAV |
|
Playing with your life Sixty years old Naina Mehra (name changed) died of cardiac arrest about last year. She had been taking painkillers on her own for a persistent headache. Sanjana, an executive, is one among those who take medicines like Brufen or Proxyvon without even bothering to visit the doctor - just because it 'helps'. Even for a normal person, self-medication is hazardous, it can be fatal actually. Even a 'simple' Vitamin B1 or B12 injection, if it's taken without consulting a doctor can be harmful - especially when your body doesn't require it. "People pick up drugs like Proxyvon or sedatives like Calmpose at random because it's easy to get and soon get addicted to it," says Dr Prem Aggarwal, general secretary, Indian Medical Association (IMA). Not many know that a large number of patients visiting the hospitals are there mainly due to their own fault - self-medication, adds Dr Ajay Rohtagi state secretary, Delhi Medical Association. According to the DMA, a mere 20-30 per cent come to the chemists' shops with prescriptions in Delhi, unlike Kerala, where enforcement of the law and awareness is very high. There are about 7 lakh drug outlets (including retail sale) in India, and about 5 lakh registered pharmacists. But often the pharmacist is missing from the scene and a helper, or the owner, is in command, maintains Dr Anil Bansal of the DMA. Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rule 1945, licence for selling medicines can be given only to outlets that employ a registered pharmacist. And the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which governs manufacture, import, distribution and sale of medicines in India, exists only on paper. But Ravikant, of the Drugs Control Department of Delhi government, differs saying, "We have carried out 4084 inspections and 350 raids last year, while 225 retail units last year and 150 this year were hauled up." But what was the punishment? Licence suspended for a few days for the majority, with just two cancellations - that too for a measely month. A committee set up by the Drugs Controller General India, under Dr S. Adeshara of Gujarat, has recommended stricter controls over licence issues. But Sandeep Nangia, Vice President, All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD) argues that the confusion is mainly because most of the time the ordinary man does not know the difference between an 'over the counter' (OCT) medicine and a scheduled drug, and demands both together. Then, in many areas, where there is inadequate health services, there is an increasing dependence on chemists. Dr DBA Narayana of Delhi Pharmaceutical Trust points out that often it's seen that the chemists who demand a prescription, ultimately have to close down their shop - because the consumers opt for the ones who don't! Yes, 'over the counter' sale of most medicines is illegal. But it goes on unabated. There are basically two angles to it. One: Should the onus be on the chemist or on the patient (or his or her representative)? In fact, the abuse is so widespread that even scheduled drugs are sold either without prescription or on the basis of the months old prescription. Two: Are chemists really in a position to advise the patients/consumers? "One of the main hazards (of self-medication) is your body starts building up resistance and, after sometime, no medicine works," warns Dr S P Singh of DMA. "If a diabetic over-medicates or takes less than the prescribed dose, then he can even die of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia," he cautions. The reasons for self-medication could be broadly due to lack of money and (or) time, or even doctor phobia, explains Prof. Usha Gupta of Maulana Azad Medical College's Pharmacology department, Delhi. "But we must analyse the situation more clearly," she says, adding there are three kinds of people who go in for self-medication. The been-to-a-doctor-once kind: You've been to a doctor and continue buying the same medicine regularly without rechecking. Suits me fine: You feel a particular medicine (prescribed) really suited you. And you keep going back to the chemist and buying the same medicine. Peer diagnosis: A particular medicine helped a friend so you assume it'll work for you too. So, what is the solution? Ashwini Kumar, Drugs Controller General India, says, "I am not saying the problem isn't there. We do conduct raids, but the problem has to be seen in a broader perspective. The social milieu can't be enforced by law alone. It's ultimately the patients and consumers who should wake up to their responsibilities, and not buy medicines without a prescription or without visiting a doctor." INAV |
|
|
|
