. |
. |
EDITORIAL Outright rejection of employees major demand of releasing two dearness allowance installments by Finance Minister Mohd Shaffi Qureshi does no credit to Government. A helpless Government and hapless employees provide very bad combination which invariably reflects non-Governance. If Government is so helpless how it can ...more While there are very promising reports of impressive 6.4 per cent industrial growth...more |
|
CTBT
verification regime worries India By Avinash
Shirodkar Downsize the administrative dinosaur called Uttar Pradesh By J. D. Sethi By Dr Vishiesh Verma |
 |
||
EDITORIAL Outright rejection of employees major demand of releasing two dearness allowance installments by Finance Minister Mohd Shaffi Qureshi does no credit to Government. A helpless Government and hapless employees provide very bad combination which invariably reflects non-Governance. If Government is so helpless how it can ever attend to peoples problems and take the State towards progress and prosperity. Helplessness obviously stems from bad management and non-assertive dispensation. This attitude must be replaced with total and emphatic assertive attitude on all fronts. It is strange that the Government has come to be known as quite ruthless once it comes to aggravating peoples problems. There are many instances that can be quoted as such. But once it comes to asserting on positive aspects that can remove peoples and employees problems, the Government invariably adopts negative approach. This has obviously made the popular Government pay a heavy price in terms of acceptability by the people. Just three years back, the electorate from all the three regions overwhelmingly cast their lot for formation of National Conference Government headed by Dr Farooq Abdullah. The mandate was voluntary without any coercion, rigging or any other unfair practice and touched almost three-fourth majority to what is normally termed as 'brute majority'. An Government with such massive mandate should have been fast on delivery in redeeming pledges to the electorate and consolidate its favourable rapport with the people. Contrary happens to be true now. At this stage one need not delve into the reasons that caused loss of direction. These have been repeated in these columns several times. But surely one can think ahead to stem the rot and put the system back on rails with meaningful and assertive Governance. This has to be tackled from two distinct angles. First, Chief Minister must act fast to resort to austerity measures spelt out during the budget by the Finance Minister. Charity has to begin from home. You can't ask others to do it while not giving the proper lead. The act must commence from much delayed pruning of the unwieldy in inefficient cabinet team. This small State can ill afford the luxury of maintaining more than 30 ministers and many others who also enjoy ministerial rank and the resultant perks. Chief Minister is not only aware of it but had expressed his desire to go for it on his return from abroad. Upto now there is no indication of any pruning exercise. To start with there is no coalition Government here. NC rules the roost with massive majority. There is no challenge from Congress which is reduced to third slot. BJP is equally unable to think of even token defections because NC is sharing power at the centre and is very much part of NDA. So any drastic measures taken by Dr Farooq do not threaten continuation of NC Government nor his unchallenged leadership. Still too much time has been wasted on thinking whether to do it or not to do it. It is better late than never. State do not need white elephants and a small capable team that is experienced and fast on delivery shall do a lot of good in terms of good Governance. Wasteful and unproductive expenditure should be cut to zero. This includes winding up of sick and loss making PSUs which are recurring burden on the State exchequer. Employees and police ratio should correspond to what it prevails in the neighbouring States. The password should be to tighten the belt at all levels to make the austerity measures have visible impact. The second area of thrust should be to build a very strong case for central largesse and present the same convincingly and emphatically. If Central funds are readily made available to Orissa and special team is formed to assist relief measures in Orissa which is Congress ruled State, there is no reason why liberal deal cannot be given to NDA ruled State because NC is very much part of NDA Government at the Centre. Further, there have been packages for NE States and waivers for Punjab which too are in the thick of insurgency. Similar package for J&K should be readily forthcoming. It is also to be noted that Farooq has very good personal rapport with Prime Minister A B Vajpayee. Above all State has been accorded very shabby treatment by the successive rulers as no Central sector industry is established nor anything done to improve infrastructure like roads and communication. During fifty two years of independence, less than 100 km rail track is operational in the State which is worse than any other State in India. By signing Indus Water Treaty without consulting the State, the Centre has tied State's economy to Pak's whims and fancies as State cannot use these waters either agriculture or for storage dams. It has got to be run-of-the river projects and that too with no-objection from Pakistan. State has not been compensated by the Centre for such colossal surrender of its water resources. There are scores of other factors that have made the State largely dependent on the Centre. So a very authentic case has to be built up and presented as such so that State does not have to go to Delhi with a beggars bowl every now and then. In the meantime nothing should be said or done that causes deep hurt to the employees and the hapless citizens are made to face heavy odds. Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah must assert himself on all fronts to obtain maximum finances from Delhi as also resort to austerity measures without any further loss of time. While there are very promising reports of impressive 6.4 per cent industrial growth during first half of 1999-2000 in the country, one is sorry to say that in J&K State it is worse than the negative growth with acute sickness and closure of many units. True, industrial policy has been updated and promises made for its revival at fast pace. But then nothing has been done to improve infrastructurals and essential inputs for giving massive fillip to industrial sector. As things stand, industry is as good as killed in valley due to prolonged insurgency. Even HMT factory faces imminent closure. But a couple of industrial estates in Jammu have kept this State alive on the industrial map of India. They too now face heavy odds because of tardy implementation of the policy. An essential input like electricity has played havoc due to bad quality and abysmally low power supplied to the units. In addition they have been put on notice to incorporate anti-pollution devices. Worst still is that marketability of the produce suffers in that market stands squeezed and large amounts blocked in the insurgency prone regions. Although there is supposed to preferential buying of locally produced goods yet the penchant for ordering the same from outside the State remains irresistible. No wonder units have become acutely sick and viability of those still in the production line is threatened. Such environs obviously act as dampers for the entrepreneurs and big houses who shy away from J&K State. There is need to ponder over why industrial sickness persists and how the Government can help to retrieve the situation. |
||
|
||
CTBT verification regime worries India By Avinash Shirodkar It is beyond debating that India has taken a quantum jump in national power indices by conducting its Shakti series of nuclear tests, which also added responsibility and an enhanced stature for India in the comity of nations. India's weaponisation was a fall-out of the unstable strategic paradigm in the post-cold war and post-Soviet Union world order. While nuclear disarmament efforts were in doldrums, certain countries had grouped together to pampering themselves politically and economically to dwarf other; some even found primordial unity in religion. No considerations were, for instance, forthcoming for a country of India's geostrategic, demographic and civilisational status even so its other five peers basked in the nuclear glory and an archaic veto in the UN Security Council. The trust of the world community in a world order free of strifes, dominance and discrimination was unvindicated by the ground realities. The dismantling of the tottering Soviet Union, it had been felt, would see a new power nucleus emerging to fill this void, and Indian tests in May 1998 may qualify this perspective. Furthermore, the US behaving as the indispensable superpower and China on a determined long march to military and economic grandeur must have spurned India. In the past, every one of Nuclear Five defended its testing by peace dividends accruing from it no matter how badly they failed this cardinal test. This abysmal record has put India in the dock with the onus on it to prove that it had no intention to re-start a nuclear arms race. Pakistan's tests following India's were however, a strategic miscalculation. Pakistan would have reached a much higher comfort level with the international fraternity by keeping its recessed nuclear deterrent posture, and could have even spared itself the ignominy of being a nuclear vassal nailed by the US into compliance with signing both the NPT and CTBT, as now. While India's nuclearisation affords an exquisite strategic logic since its 24 years of nuclear self-abnegation had little meaning for the nuclear hegemons, its political logic should now be built by strategising our national nuclear deterrent as positively impacting on sustained peace, and in forging a globalised front against the fundamental nuclear menace. Economically, operationalising a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent is an expensive option: a few thousand crores needed for establishing a command and control system and other safety mechanism alone. Nonetheless, it can be argued that this cost could be partially offset by downsizing forces and curtailing conventional arms. In fact, the Services top brass themselves have been reasoning lately for a nuclear cover. Moreover, India's deterrent should considerably help recede prospects of a conventional conflict with Pakistan, or with any other country for that matter. Whereas Indian leadership has demonstrated its will to steer the country on a new path in global diplomacy, the Ministry of External Affairs will have to reshape itself conceptually. The era of defensive planing of over; the new foreign policy must be projected in its pro-activism, cherished principles and unwavering commitments. To the US and its allies, a nuclear-weapon India is deviant and its peaceful intentions are subject to its ungrudging accession to the CTBT and NPT regimes. India's unilateral measures have done much in setting aside misapprehensions on proliferation and nuclear sabre-ratting. The best course for the country, as many have suggested already, is to join the CTBT signatories category to undertake nuclear activities in their national interests, before it crossed over to the CTBT fold. The new international dynamics calls for a restructured foreign policy embodied in the country's primary thrusts and yearnings. Presently, Indian foreign policy is hard pressed assuming a proper nuclear equilibrium with the US, a country economically, politically and technologically pre-eminent in the world. Though our nuclear stance carries little conviction with the US strategists, a nuclear accord with that country is reachable by imparting a renewed thrust to our bilateral relationship. A quid pro quo is badly needed in nuclear and bilateral ties to checkmate the US in coercing India into CTBT, overriding our legitimate concerns. The CTBT activism of the US is a diplomatic move needing a matching strategy, untrammelled by moralism which really is not there. India has succeeded in containing the absorbing the aftershocks of Pokhran-II but we still have to construct a paradigm to propel us from May 1998 onwards. In proceeding along CTBT negotiation, our policy-makers must bear in mind that we would make a travesty of our testing premises if we were managed or led into this treaty without simultaneously stabilising our achievements. After the post-Pokhran-II damage control, a stylised diplomacy becomes a necessity to garner requisite safeguards, including UN Security Council permanent membership, prior to our embracing the CTBT regime. India can also step up its defence ties with all other P-5 nations _ we have friendly support of France and Russia _ to dispel misperceptions of India replicating nuclear war games. It will be a Himalayan error of judgement to sacrifice India's future on CTBT altar, while many areas of the world are strewn with missiles and all kind of nuclear and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), nor any discernible roll-back by declared nuclear weapon states in their nuclear refinement. Lost in the cacophony of the US Senate vote on the CTBT are worrying details of a little understood and instrusive verification regime. This regime will expose India's super secret nuclear tests sites to intrusive inspections on short notice, and may yet leave the P-5 weapons sites from India's reach. The text of the CTBT points to a diplomatic imbalance against Indian security interests. A country needs 30 out of 50 members of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to vote in favour of an on site inspection. India lacks the support of such numbers, whereas US and NATO together account for 19 members. In other words, if India needs an inspection, say of China's Lop Nor site, it will be difficult for India to get such votes. However China or any of the NATO members will find it relatively easier to get the same numbers. Diplomatic nuclear crunching is not the only worry. The real concern is technology. The verification regime will depend on four specialised techniques. These techniques will be part of an International Monitoring System (IMS). There will also be an International Data Centre (IDC) information through the four techniques. The real technical worry is that national technical means of some countries are superior to the internationally agreed techniques thereby giving them undue advantage. This gives countries such as the USA and China an extra edge. The heart of the CTBT is in its verification regime and this had strangely escaped all discussion especially in the Parliament and the media. The IMS will comprise a ring of sophisticated "Listening stations" across the world. In the forefront will be Seismic Primary Stations (SPS) and Seismic Auxiliary Stations (SAS). These stations are the two chief means of registering weather or not a nuclear test has taken place. In the context of the recent US Press reports doubting the authenticity of India's last two nuclear weapons tests, it can be understood that such regimes are not fool proof. If US with its enhanced capabilities and National Technical Means in unsure of Indian tests, what chance does India have of keeping an eye on other nations' tests? The other tier of the verification regime comprises Radionuclide stations and radionuclide labs. These are the primary instruments of verifying the quantum and quality of nuclear weapons resting. It is a regime where soil samples and so forth may have to be taken out of the country for verification purposes. The third leg of this regime has Hydraucustic stations. These are useful for detecting underwater tests. Lastly there are Infrasound stations which are used for the purpose of special techniques which are based on sounding techniques to determine blast yields. There is a huge technological asymmetry between India and the other nuclear powers in the context of the verification of the CTBT. This asymmetry is further compounded by the Indian inability to garner required votes for verification of other states' sites. This will be the prime factor in determining whether the consensus in India favours the CTBT or, like in the USA, goes against the treaty. INAV |
||
|
|
|
By Dr Vishiesh Verma To rectify the subjective and erratic marking of examination scripts the system of re-evaluation was introduced in the latter half of seventies in several universities. It was a big relief to the aggrieved students, who expected higher scores than they actually obtained. The universities were to evolve a fool proof system of re-evaluation, even U.G.C had appointed a penal of exports to be available to the universities for guidance in this context. But no uniform policy was evolved. A B.A final student of Jammu University gets 14/60 marks in the subject of education (Annual Exam.) 1998-99. When re-evaluated there is a change from 14/60 to 40/60 marks (a news item, Daily Excelsior dt. 25/10/99). The position changes from failure (in education) to second position in the university in the Arts subjects. The re-evaluation helps to improve the results of thousands of students in all the subjects for all the classess in Jammu University. The stress and anxiety of such a large number of students who had to wait for re-evaluation results is beyond imagination. Many students from far flung areas remain deprived of this facility. Since for re-evaluation one has to apply within limited span of time, after its expiry no applications for re-evaluation is entertained. From the students points of view, every result whether it is of examination or-re-evaluation is important since it involves their career. How a student performs in the examination, it stamps his more or less for life. Indeed, it has a direct impact on his life, his state of mind, his self confidence and his ability by carve out a career for himself. Under-evaluation and delayed results dismays him badly. The basic reasons for such a large number of students requesting for re-evaluation is that they doubt their answer books have been examined fairly. In fact the substantial number of teachers who undertake examination work, don't do it seriously. The re-evaluation results speak for it. Since it is a paid job they get more work for evaluation than they can justify. There are no two opinions that our country is short of conscientious teachers in the universities and colleges. The reason being in sixties and seventies there was sudden spurt of student population in the schools and colleges. The persons who would n't have been considered eligible for appointment as Lecturer in the ordinary course had to be appointed as such to meet the demand. The demand was so great and supply so limited that persons with bare minimum qualifications were recruited as lecturer. The confusion was confounded when persons with marginal qualifications had to be promoted from lecturers to readers and from readers to professors by dint of their seniority they become examiners, head-examiners. Since eighties they are holding key positions and are taking decision for every type of academic activity. Most of problems of the universities are because of their in-experience, shallow knowledge and low morals. Jammu University, this year caught held of about 500 students for copying in the examination. The administration of the university and colleges was up in arms to punish them for cheating. Fairly speaking, if the university punished students for using un-fair means then how the teachers liable for under-evaluation which virtually amounts to cheating should be treated ? In 1993 in the convention of Delhi University Teachers Association, there was a proposal that the answer scripts of the examiation, after evaluation should be returned to the candidates - a stop towards making the system more open and to let the students know where they erred. In 1994 Kerala University was faced with problem of un-manageable number of students asking for re-evaluation. Since most of the academic problems stem from the lack of transparency the university introduced open-mass and all these students who had applied for re-evaluation were allowed to see their answer books and further by depositing some additional fees they could get the Xeroxed copies of their answer books. This helped to bring down the number of students asking for re-evaluation. Why should it not be made obligatory for universities to make Xerox copies of the answer books available to the students, of course on payment ? Such a stop if taken, would ensure at least one thing, no one would mark these answer books casually. It is in the absence of accountability, examiners play truant and do the whole job casually, even irresponsibly. Some of the universities turn down the request of students to see their answer books on the plea that rules do-not provide it. There is nothing to stop the universities of changing the rules and making the answer books available to the students for inspection. The educational professionals consider it impractical on the grounds that it would add to the administrative lead and there would be endless litigation. Both the arguments are too small in comparison to the loss of the students time and energy they waste while waiting for re-evaluation results. (The author is a former reader co-ordinator of university of Jammu) |
|
|
|
