EDITORIAL
Open regime
Almost a decade ago a
senior officer of the Kashmir Administrative Service
(KAS) was surprised to find his case for elevation to the
elite Indian Administrative Service having been ignored.
He had the best of certificates and service record needed
for the purpose. His inquiries with concerned authorities
in the State did not yield satisfactory response. One of
his contacts approached the Union Personnel Ministry. The
first bit of information was just shocking. It was said
that the official had exceeded the age fixed for
promotion. The age had actually been calculated on the
basis of a date of birth that was wrong! The
"contact" was emboldened to tell the North
Block about the anomaly. After a few days he was told
that the performance of the officer had been rated
"very good" and that the correct date of birth
had also been taken into account but he did not qualify
because of limited number of seats. One could not help
but get the feeling that a good case had been lost by
default. One is reminded of this incident at this
juncture. It gives a sound reason to wholeheartedly
welcome Central Information Commissioner Wajahat
Habibullah's ruling that notings on the Government's
files including the Cabinet's decisions should be made
public. He has held: "A Cabinet decision, the
reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which
the decision was taken, is liable to be disclosed once
the decision has been taken and the matter is
complete." Disposing of a case which related to the
premature termination of services of a senior officer, Mr
Habibullah turned down the Union Government's refusal to
disclose details of Cabinet deliberations in this regard.
The complainant had alleged foul play stating that the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) had been fed
with false and fabricated documents to arrive at a
verdict about him.
The CIC rejected the
Government's plea to hold back the disclosure of the
Cabinet papers on the ground that it was not connected
with any public activities or interest. He ruled that
"the very act of submitting a note to the ACC is, in
fact, a public activity and cannot in any way deemed to
be a private activity." He maintained that the
Government could "in no way" seek exemption
under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act
(RTA). Referring to an earlier ruling of the Commission,
the CIC admitted: "Cabinet papers have not been
defined per se in this Act." But, he
recalled, that a description about them was available in
a matter adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The apex court
had said that the Cabinet papers included papers brought
into existence for the purpose of preparing submissions
to the Cabinet. The CIC also placed reliance on a
submission made by the Solicitor-General before the
highest court in the land: "Notings of the officials
which lead to the Cabinet note and Cabinet decision and
all papers brought into existence to prepare Cabinet note
are also its part." Mr Habibullah said that these
notes could not be held back once a conclusion had been
reached.
The issue whether or not
the Cabinet papers be revealed has been debated for too
long. There is a section in the Government that wants
them to be kept confidential. One can't agree with it. As
long these papers don't pertain to vital national
interests these should be in the domain of public
knowledge. All of us do understand national interests and
their significance. Any effort to create confusion about
their definition or equate them with individual interests
has to be resisted. Indeed, it will help the image of the
Government if it makes known reasons for an officer's
promotion or demotion as well as for making major
financial transactions. The Government functioning should
be open and transparent. The RTI is an effective
instrument to achieve this objective. Mr Habibullah has
underlined this point once again. The common man has no
more to break his head against the bureaucratic walls to
get the correct information. Unfortunately, however, in
our State the similar legislation has yet to be brought
on par with the Union law. This incongruity should be
removed sooner rather than later.
Doubly serious
A report from Billawar in
Kathua district makes an extremely distressing reading. A
girl was lured by a false promise of a job and subjected
to confinement and physical exploitation. This is an
occurrence normally associated with bigger towns and
metropolitans where the masses live in anonymity and
desperation born of financial difficulties may drive
women into wrong hands. It seems that beasts in human
form are at work everywhere. What is equally grave is
that the head of a non-government organisation (NGO) is
involved in the heinous crime. He had set up an office in
Machaidi in Billawar claiming that he had headquarters at
Anantnag on the other side or the Jawahar Tunnel. He
himself belonged to Gandoh in Doda district. He tempted
the innocent girl with the offer of getting her a
government employment only to repeatedly inflict
indignities on her. She has now been rescued by the
police. One hopes that the people become alert and
closely watch the functioning of NGOs in their vicinity.
Normally the formation of such bodies is the outcome of
fiery idealism and commitment to work in remote and
far-flung areas. The Government also encourages this
activity in good faith. Philanthropists make monetary
contributions with the confidence that these will be
properly utilised. The reality, however, may at times be
entirely different. Unscrupulous persons may be using
these instrumentalities for wicked objectives. They are
precisely the reason why a segment of society is bitterly
opposed to the concept of NGOs. At a higher level the
NGOs are exposed to the charge of actively aiding and
participating in corporate wars. With the world gradually
becoming a small close entity there is lot of foreign
assistance also available for NGOs taking up healthy
causes. It is because of these factors that all
conscientious NGOs make it a point to duly publicise
their programmes and activities.
In this instance it is not
clear whether the NGO is an authentic one or merely a
shop floated to make a fast buck by exploiting innocent
masses in a remote hamlet. One is sure that the police
would reach the truth. A complete exposure of its
finances and organisational structure will be perfectly
in order. The event has the effect of one bad fish
spoiling the entire pond. One hopes that a legitimate NGO
comes forward for the rehabilitation of the unfortunate
girl.
 Honey
trap
By Lt.
Col. (Retd.) Surendra Sharma
The former Punjab
chief minister and the scion of
the Patiala royal family, Capt.
Amarinder Singh is in the news.
One doesn't know if it is for
right reason or wrong reason. The
other character of the blame game
is a Pakistani beauty-journalist
Aroosa Alam, who claims to be a
"friend of Captain
saheb". To make matters
worse for Amarinder and Aroosa,
the Shahi imam of Jama Masjid in
Ludhiana Habib-ur-Rehman issued a
fatwa, saying "Islam doesn't
permit a woman to call any person
other than her husband a friend
or roam around with him".
The Imam, though, is known to be
an Akali sympathiser. Smelling
blood, the former chief
minister's detractors in the
ruling Shiromani Akali Dal
charged at him, saying he needs
to come clean on the
relationship, asking the Union
government to inquire into
allegations of Aroosa being an
ISI agent.
Honey trap is a part
of spying game practised by all
countries. Ask anyone in the
intelligence fraternity about the
mole factor and they would
recount endless instances and how
the establishment repeatedly
looked the other way to escape
embarrassment.
Set a spy to catch a
spy? That's still in the realms
of spy fiction, at least in the
complacent world of Indian spooks
where it takes a headline-blazing
spy scandal to spur intelligence
agencies into overdrive. Is it
any wonder that traitors often go
undetected in key establishments
and moles turn up within their
own ranks?
Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence, far
better known by its acronym ISI
while not in the same league as
CIA or Mossad in terms of
geospatial or signal
intelligence, it can certainly
hold its own in honey trap, in
other words intelligence
collected from human sources.
That ISI controllers
continue to expand their network
of moles this side of the border
by the judicious use of the
money, ideology, compromise or
coercion and ego or excitement
principle, and many army men,
intelligence officials have
fallen prey to the ISI's game
plan to ferret out information.
Experts reckon that ISI has
managed to penetrate several
Indian establishments, ministries
and even the armed forces to a
certain extent, apart from of
course successfully fuelling
militancy in different parts of
the country.
ISI's strategy to
infiltrate the Indian armed
forces is "as old as
Pakistan" itself, says
former ISI chief General Hamid
Gul. For instance, Pakistan got
to know about Indian Air Force's
strike plan during the 1965 war a
few days before it actually took
place.
There was another
flutter in South Block last year
when Pakistani politician Gohar
Ayub Khan claimed that an Indian
brigadier had sold the detailed
Indian war plans to Pakistan just
before the 1965 conflict for a
mere Rs. 20,000.
Coming as it did
from the son of Field Marshal
Ayub Khan, Pakistan's president
during the 1965 war, the claim
caused even further turmoil after
Gohar Khan tantalisingly added
the brigadier had gone on to
reach the very top in his career.
Though the claims
were dismissed as far-fetched and
ludicrous, the Indian defence
establishment can no longer
pretend that Pakistan has not
made serious inroads into its
armed forces. Even national
security advisor M.K. Narayanan
had earlier this year issued
warnings about infiltration into
the IAF.
The level of
penetration is, however, not
considered to be life-threatening
as yet. But it's enough to send
alarm bells ringing all across.
"Even during Kargil in 1999,
the Pakistani intruders had
accurate information of what
posts we would vacate in winters,
the gaps in our defences and
exact troop deployments,"
recalls a senior Army officer.
The arrest of Ritesh
Kumar Vishwakarma, a signalman
posted at Leh, and Anil Kumar
Dubey, a havaldar posted in New
Delhi, in October 2007 was just
one more case in a long series of
espionage networks directed in
the armed forces in recent times.
Official home
ministry figures show that just
between 2001 and 2005, 99
espionage modules of ISI were
neutralised in the country.
Individual cases might not amount
to much. But pieced together,
coupled with signal and other
intelligence inputs, they can
provide the big strategic picture
to an adversary.
ISI footprints have
been detected in and around key
defence establishments, airbases
and field formations across the
country, ranging from J&K and
North-East to Delhi, Jodhpur,
Bangalore, Kolkata, Mumbai and
the like,. An ISI spy ring, for
instance, operating around naval
installations was smashed earlier
this year.
ISI's constant
endeavour is to cultivate sources
to get information about troop
deployments, new acquisitions,
operational plans and the
reorganisation being carried out.
This helps in assessing the state
of readiness of our forces.
Take the example of
Lance Naik Mohammed Javed Khan,
posted at the Army's 4 Corps HQ
in Tezpur. His officers regarded
him as a hardworking sort since
he often worked late into the
night. And then, the soldier and
his father Mohammed Hanif Khan, a
retired IAF sergeant, were
arrested in July 2005 for
"leaking" classified
documents to officials in the
Pakistan embassy in New Delhi.
Javed Khan had, in
fact, used his night stints to
copy crucial documents with
operational details about the 4
Corps, including deployment of
forces and exercises being
conducted along the border with
China.
There have, of
course, also been a few cases of
even officers being
"tapped" by ISI. For
instance, a Navy officer posted
abroad had got entangled in an
ISI honey-trap some years ago.
But before he could get
compromised, he returned to India
and confessed his deeds.
Then, of course,
there is the infamous Navy
war-room leak case of last year,
which led to the dismissal of
three Navy officers and an Air
Force officer. Was there a larger
conspiracy behind this episode,
initially said to be only
commercial espionage to help
international armament companies?
In 1980s three
politicians were accused of
having liaison with Pakistani
beauties who were working in the
High Commission in the visa
section. INAV
|
|
Imports
don't make food security
By
Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Government
has announced that food
security of the nation
shall be maintained at
any cost. If necessary,
imports will be made at
higher price. The
Government had issued
tenders for import of
wheat recently.
Quotations have been
received at a price of
about Rs 21 per kg. These
may be accepted by the
Government in order to
ensure food security of
the country. The question
to ponder is this: Can
food security be
established by such
imports?
According
to Dictionary.com
'security' means
"freedom from danger
and risk; safety; freedom
from anxiety or doubt;
well-founded confidence;
assurance;
guarantee." In my
reading of this
definition, food security
is not established from
imports. There is always
danger in food imports-a
war or natural calamity
can hinder supplies.
There is always doubt as
well. Wheat was available
at Rs 12 per kilo about
two months ago. Today the
price is Rs 21. There is
doubt what the price may
be after another two
months. One cannot be
confident of imports
either. Thus establishing
food security from
imports is beyond
comprehension. Indeed,
one may rely on imports
to tide over immediate
problems but that can
hardly be called
'security'.
But
the Government is happily
presenting food
insecurity as food
security. Western
economists have taught
Manmohan Singh that India
should capture the
benefits of free trade
and establish her food
security through foreign
trade. Our Prime Minister
does not see what Western
countries like America
are doing. Instead he
listens to what advice
they give. He is like the
policeman who is told by
the thief trying to break
into a bank to patrol the
rear side of the
building. The policeman
ignores the thief
breaking into the bank
and instead goes to
patrol the street behind.
So does our Prime
Minister. America is
giving huge subsidies to
its farmers in order to
maintain her food
security. It is exporting
wheat in order to kill
the food security of
other countries and make
them dependent on
America. America is
producing wheat expensive
and exporting it cheap in
order to avoid anxiety
about availability of
cheap imports; to be
confident about food
supplies, etc. That
country is not adopting
free trade in
agriculture. Wheat is
produced cheaper by
Indian farmers. Yet
America chooses not to
import cheap Indian
wheat. Instead, it
exports wheat at prices
lower than its cost of
production. America does
not want to establish her
food security by
developing her
comparative advantage in
trade. Yet, it tells
Manmohan Singh that India
must ensure her food
security by imports and
our Prime Minister
willingly listens.
The
message given is like
this. India must produce
those goods at which it
is best like rose flowers
and tea. India can export
these goods and import
wheat from the global
market. The route to
India's food security
lies through foreign
trade. India can import
goods of her choice if
she can hold her fort in
exports to the global
economy. This is
precisely what our
Government is
saying-"food
security of the nation
shall be maintained at
any cost. If necessary,
imports will be
made." It does not
dawn upon our leaders
that rose flowers and tea
do not make food
security. It does not
dawn upon them that
America is not adopting
the policy it is
preaching. In
consequence, Government
of India is unwilling to
raise domestic price of
wheat to increase
domestic production and
to establish true food
security. Instead, it is
lowering the domestic
price of wheat to kill
domestic production and
then resorts to imports
to ensure our food
security.
Truly
there is a contradiction
between free trade and
food security. Free trade
implies we will produce
those goods in which we
have comparative
advantage. Obviously we
cannot be No 1 in all
items. Vietnam can
produce coffee at lower
price than us, Malaysia
can produce edible oils,
Brazil can produce sugar
and Australia wheat. Say
our advantage lies in
rose flowers and tea. We
should accordingly
produce and export these
and import wheat from
Australia. We may indeed
get cheaper wheat from
Australia but that still
does not establish our
food security. It means
that free trade comes
with food insecurity.
Thus we have to choose
between the two. But
Government of India
cannot tell her people
that their food security
is being sold for
obtaining higher economic
growth. Thus the
Government is saying that
food security will be
established through
imports.
Question
arises what makes
Government of India to
implement such a
disastrous policy? My
assessment is that the
interests of middle class
are served by this
policy. The middle class
wants cheap wheat. It
makes no difference to
them whether the wheat is
imported or homegrown.
Since wheat is generally
obtained cheaper through
imports, therefore, the
Government has embarked
upon import-based
approach to food supplies
in order to appease the
middle class. Further,
they gain from the
country embracing free
trade. The export of
services produced by them
such as medical
transcription and call
centers is increased with
the integration of Indian
economy with the global
market. The middle class
is confident that it will
be able to get food for
its consumption even in
times of crisis just as
Calcutta fed itself
during the Bengal Famine
of 1942. The Government
is peddling the interests
of the middle class in
keeping low domestic
prices of wheat, lowering
home production and
importing food. The
Government is not
concerned about the
impact of this policy on
the masses. They have
neither the money to buy
imported wheat nor they
have goods and services
that can be exported.
The
situation is similar in
many other developing
countries. A paper by
Oxfam cited the case of
Haiti. The import tariff
on rice was reduced to a
nominal 3%. As a result,
says Oxfam, "rice
imports, mainly
subsidized rice from the
US, have increased
thirty-fold, but the
price of rice in Haiti
has hardly fallen and
malnutrition affects 62%
of the population. Only
big rice traders and
American farmers have
benefited." Sophia
Murphy of Institute of
Agriculture and Trade
Policy mentions the case
of Burkina Faso. Trade
liberalization has pushed
up the number of rural
traders but most gains of
liberalization, she says,
have been "captured
by companies in the
distribution chain,
rather than by
consumers." She also
cites the case of Mexico
where maize cultivation
is the main source of
livelihood for some 3
million producers. The
Mexican government made
the maize trade
tariff-free. As a result,
"A massive influx of
US maize ensued, leading
to a sharp reduction in
the price paid to Mexican
producers. By August
1996, prices had fallen
by 48 per cent..."
Says Murphy,
"Greater pressures
on maize farmers... have
produced a sharp increase
in land concentration...
with a few of the richer
farmers buying out the
rest."
It
is time to tell the
government, this will not
do. Instead of importing
wheat at Rs 21 a kilo,
the same should be paid
to domestic farmers. That
would both establish our
food security and equity.
|
|
|
|
|
2007
is the year of Tatas
By
Nantoo Banerjee
The
year 2007 was the year of
the Tatas. This was also
the year of India Inc.,
aggressively pursuing its
ambition to go global by
buying up in style
industrial and corporate
assets all over the
world. The sudden burst
of the House of Tatas
into the global merger
and acquisition (M&A)
scene to acquire some of
the world's top brands
and businesses -- from
steel to software, mining
to motor cars, hotels to
home products - was the
talk of Europe, the
United States, Australia,
Africa, South America and
Vietnam for the best part
of 2007. The financial
and business world woke
up at the beginning of
year in disbelief as the
Tata Steel, a small
player in the global
primary metals market,
grabbed Europe's second
largest steelmaker,
Anglo-Dutch Corus, for a
price which even the
German giant
Thyssen-Krupp Stahl and
Brazil's CSN failed to
match. The Corus deal
costing over £ 5 billion
catapulted India's
century-old Tata Iron
& Steel Company to
the world's fifth largest
steelmaker overnight
after Arcelor-Mittal,
Nippon Steel, Pohong
Steel (Posco) and JFE of
Japan.
By
the end of the year, the
Tatas were set to ink a
deal with the US-based
Ford Motor Company to
take over two of the
global auto giant's
premium brands, Jaguar
and Land Rover, for over
$ 2 billion. It may take
a few more weeks before
the Ford Motors closes
the deal and transfer the
assets to the Tatas.
Interestingly, the second
highest bidder ($1.9
billion) for the
Jaguar-Land Rover
acquisition was also an
Indian company, Mahindra
& Mahindra. If the
Corus and Jaguar deals
were among the most
high-profile M&A
deals of 2007 to be
struck by an Indian
company, the combined
value of the M&A and
private equity (PE) fund
deals involving India
Inc. during the year was
a whopping $ 68 billion
plus. More than 50 large
and medium sized Indian
companies feature in
these deals.
India
Inc. has finally shaken
off capitalism's enfant
terrible tag to be
regarded as a country
that means business. The
world of business and
finance finds India Inc.
a lean, mean, hungry and
aggressive deal-maker,
not afraid to take on
even some of the world's
old, established,
experienced and
fund-flush industrial and
business superpowers on
their own home turf.
Indian corporations are
going out shopping for
new business and
industrial assets in all
parts of the globe the
way the Arab Sheikhs,
flush with petro-dollars,
did in the 1970s and 80s.
However, there is a
difference. Indian
corporations are using
their brain power and not
financial muscle, which
they currently lack, to
acquire these global
industrial and business
assets.
There
is no dearth of funds in
today's world where
entrepreneurship and
management skills
continue to be rare.
Despite their limited
exposure to global
business and industrial
asset management, Indians
have proved their
superior skills and
business instincts under
most challenging
conditions both at home
and abroad. The ascent of
Laxmi Mittal from a small
mild-steel wire rod mill
owner at Indonesia's
non-descript Surabaya
village near Bali in the
early 1980s to the
world's No.1 steel
maker's position did not
come through his money
power. Through the 1980s
and 1990s, Mittal started
acquiring sick steel
mills round the world -
from the Caribbean
islands to Mexico,
Central Asian Republics,
Irish Republic and others
- almost all for a song
with the help of the
local government and
administration and turned
them profitable and
healthy to benefit the
respective economies. In
the process, he also
became a darling of
international banks and
financial institutions.
Mittal did not have to
look back thereafter.
In
the 1970s when the
government of India
pretended to establish a
socialistic pattern of
society, gagging the
so-called local private
monopolies, promoting the
public sector,
nationalizing banks, oil
companies and large sick
mills, a handful of
Indian capitalists, both
small and big, decided to
venture out to set up
units ranging from small
restaurants (the
Ghai-Lamba Associates of
the Kwality fame) to
paper mills (Thapars of
Ballarpur), wire rod
mills (Jhawars and
Mittals), rayon mills
(Birlas), edible oil
refining (Tatas) and
hotels (Tatas and Oberoi)
with great success.
Back
home Indian enterprises
had successfully fought
the sudden onslaught of
global brands in the
1990s following the
economic reform and the
opening up of the local
market to global
competition. The Tatas,
the Mahindras, the Ambani
brothers, the Aditya
Birla group, the Ruias of
Essar, Sunil Mittal of
Bharti, Baba Kalyani of
Bharat Forge, ONGC,
Indian Oil, Infosys,
Wipro, Satyam, BHEL,
ICICI Bank, Ranbaxy,
Videocon's Dhoot, Dr.
Reddy's, the Munjals of
the Hero group, the
Jindals, SAIL, GAIL, Anil
Agarwal of Sterlite and
flamboyant Vijay Mallya
of the UB group are not
only leaders in their
respective business
fields but are also seen
as the most potential and
aggressive business
predators in the global
market today. It may be
just a matter of time
before Mallya becomes the
world's biggest liquor
baron. The way Mallya is
going, he may soon end up
having all the leading
Scotch brands under his
belt. India is the
biggest market for Scotch
whiskey in the world.
The
most encouraging thing
about India Inc.'s global
acquisition spree is that
the companies are doing
excellent homework before
acquisition of assets
abroad. Indian Oil has
set aside a $ 3 billion
fund for overseas
acquisitions and is
looking for opportunities
in Russia, Kazakhstan,
Iran and in some of the
oil and gas-rich African
countries. JSW Steel is
on an iron ore mine hunt
in South America. India
Inc. is also looking for
coal, iron ore and
uranium mines in
Australia. An interesting
angle to the latest
Indian corporate
acquisitions abroad is
that most of them, except
probably the IT sector,
are meant to largely
serve the Indian market
rather than the markets
of their origin which are
highly competitive,
nearly saturated and have
been showing slow-growth,
low-profit syndromes.
For
instance, India, which
now imports nearly 30
million tonnes of steel
per year, can
theoretically lift the
entire Tata-Corus
production of about 18
million tonnes. Tata
Chemicals' newly acquired
soda ash plant in Kenya,
which is expected to run
to full capacity in 2008,
will use its surplus
production to feed the
Indian market.
The
coming years may see more
and more Indian firms
participating in the
overseas corporate
treasure hunt. If the
country can sustain the
current rate of economic
growth, the world is
bound to witness an
increasing presence of
Indian companies almost
everywhere, in all the
continents. India, the
world's fourth largest
economy after the USA,
China and Japan in terms
of purchasing power
parity (PPP), seems to
have finally arrived. (IPA)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
