Dividing 'if'

Since the flavour of the season is cricket in Australia it is only appropriate that we hear a word of wisdom from the land Down Under. Australian batsman Mike Hussey has hit the nail on the head. Very rightly he has pointed out that there is no honour equal to that of representing one's country in international arena. He has indicated his willingness to play in the Indian Premier League (IPL) but has left no doubt that he will not do it at the cost of leaving his Test career for Australia. It is only too well known that our national cricket is presently exposed to intense rivalry between the IPL of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Indian Cricket League (ICL) of a media organisation. The contenders are roping in international stars to gain credibility. Hussey has a short-term contract to play in the IPL which is just a step in the direction of a full-fledged formal contract. However, he has now emphatically stated: "It is time to set the record straight on the Indian Premier League. There are suggestions the golden eggs being laid by the IPL may force the premature retirement of Test veterans approaching the end of their playing days … (But) I have signed a short-form contract indicating I am interested in playing in the IPL if I am available. The 'if' is very important here. You don't shake a tree and baggy green caps fall out. It takes a lot of hard work to earn one. It took me about 15000 first-class runs." His opinion is categorical that representing the country was an honour while the IPL would just be a bonus. "It's one of the greatest honours for an Australian sportsman and I wouldn't retire any earlier just to play a few more IPL matches." His assertion is bereft of any confusion: "My aim is to play as many Tests, one-day internationals and Twenty20 matches as possible for Australia and anything else that comes along will be a bonus. And no amount of money will cause me to think otherwise." In any event, he says, "let's be honest about that ---Australian cricketers are very well looked after. We have nothing to complain about."
Who will disagree with Hussey? It is the ambition of every budding player to represent the country. The home crowd everywhere also reserves its best applause for its national heroes. In cricket especially it will be seen that the status of a player dramatically changes the moment he moves up from domestic competition into the global arena. In this country, for instance, he is noticed by very few as long as he figures in the Ranji Trophy. He is, however, cynosure of all eyes the moment he dons the India cap. Kerry Packer had threatened to change the world cricket scenario but failed to make any significant impact. The ICL presently is an attempt to dent the hegemony of the BCCI. How far will it succeed? The BCCI being the sole recognised national body holds the ticket to the "team India". It is, therefore, in an advantageous position. For, as Hussey has remarked albeit in slightly different context, what matters in the long run is to be part of the national pride.

Diffusion of technology is slow

By Chandraprakash Agnihotri

The launch of Chandrayan mission by Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to moon has been deferred by a few months. On the other hand, China has successfully put a satellite which is orbiting the moon.
India hopes a satellite of its own will make the same journey soon. For both nations, ventures into space symbolise a deeper ambition. They share the dream of "leapfrogging" their way to development. By placing both hands squarely on the back of technology-from rocket science to computer science-they hope to vault over the intermediary stages of development and propel themselves to the front rank of nations.
The Economist carried a special report on technology in India and China, which assesses how successful both countries have been in this ambition. Asia's consumers are avid leapfroggers, it finds: first-time phone-owners buy mobiles not landlines; first-time camera-owners shoot digital photos not rolls of film. But have India and China's industries matched their consumers in this game? Have they too skipped whole stages of development, rendered obsolete by technological change?
It can look that way. Harvard's Dani Rodrik reckons that China's exports are those of a country three times richer. It sold almost $300 billion of ICT goods on foreign markets last year, far more than any other nation. Likewise, the IMF's Kalpana Kochhar and her colleagues have calculated that India's industries employ a mix of skills characteristic of a much more affluent country.
But leapfrogging is not the best metaphor for India and China's progress, the special report argues. India and China's economies are still heavily dependent on the countries at the forefront of technological creation. They have done more piggybacking than leapfrogging. China, for example, turns out vast amounts of electronic gear, but still largely imports the most valuable components, such as the semiconductors or hard disks, that make these goods high-tech.
India also rides on the back of foreign investments and inventions. Its pharmaceutical companies, of course, have happily knocked-off cheap, generic copies of drugs developed at great expense in America or Europe. India's IT industry, for its part, makes a tidy sum from servicing and tweaking software created by American or European companies. It also writes software applications for foreign clients, but rarely owns the resulting code. These observations generate one of two responses: deep indignation or high concern. Some people resent the implication that India and China prize limitation over invention. They see this as an affront to the undoubted talent of the two countries' researchers and programmers, without whom many of the technological goodies we all enjoy would not exist. Meanwhile, pundits and policymakers in both countries hanker after homespun technologies they can call their own. Chinese government is keen to promote "indigenous innovation". India, for its part, hopes that its tighter patent laws, introduced in 2005, will encourage pharmaceutical firms to come up with new blockbuster drugs. Its software association also celebrates fledgling product companies.
No one should underestimate India and China's brainpower. But neither should one denigrate imitation nor romanticise invention. Creating new drugs, components or software products is a hugely prestigious activity when it works, but is also ruinous when it doesn't. Countries at the frontier of technology have no choice but to commit large sums to a risky wager against nature, hoping that their research will yield some lucrative insights. Companies like Pfizer, for example, spend more on R&D than the whole of India put together.
But most Indian and Chinese companies rightly judge that there are easier ways to make money. Both countries still enjoy huge scope for "catch-up" growth, assimilating and adapting technology that already exists. Companies in the thick of this growth cannot spare the resources for speculative attempts to push back the technological frontier. Creativity takes a back seat to prudence.
The special report therefore argues that the best measure of India and China's technological vitality is not their powers of invention, but their powers of adoption. What matters is how quickly they assimilate technology and make it their own, not how many patents they file or scientific publications they author. By this measure, the report finds more than enough to worry and preoccupy India's technophiles.
India has, for example, embraced IT more in spirit than in practice. It bestows plaudits on its software exporters, but consumes very little of their wares at home. It has only about 24 personal computers per 1,000 people, by some calculations, and fewer than three broadband connections. Even as the programmers at Microsoft's development centre in Hyderabad were slaving away on this year's Vista operating system, most of India's desktops were merrily running Windows 98 or even 95.
This suggests the diffusion of technology in India's economy is slow and patchy. In a recent study, the World Bank has documented the vast gaps in productivity that exist between Indian firms in the same industry. It reckons India could more than quintuple the size of its output if all of India's firms could absorb the know-how that already exists in the economy.
In other words, India still has much to gain from piggybacking. Indeed, it could profit handsomely if only its mediocre firms would piggyback on its best. Once they have lowered their gaze from the moon, India's technophiles should devote their efforts to promoting the diffusion of technology. Invention can wait. The danger of leapfrogging is that you land flat on your rump. INAV

Mayawati dift moves

By Kalyani Shankar

Is the honeymoon between the Congress and the BSP over? What has happened to the cosy relationship that developed between the two parties which joined hands to oust Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh from power last year?
After her resounding success in the U.P Assembly polls, BSP supremo Mayawati has begun to dream of becoming the Prime Minister. Accordingly, her present aim is to get the maximum number of seats in U.P besides winning a few seats in other states.
What has gone wrong? Until recently, the Congress was trying to cultivate Mayawati. However, of late, leaders of both the parties are indulging in public spats. While Mayawati has threatened to withdraw support to the UPA (knowing well that the UPA government can survive even without the support of her 19 M.Ps), the Congress has been aggressive in its criticism of her government, too.
The growing demand in Congress to take on Mayawati is not surprising. Maya's ambition has made the Congress realise that if she is not contained in UP, she would damage the Congress elsewhere. Therefore, the Congress has drawn up an agitational programme to oppose Maya's "anti-people" policies recently. The Congress has realised that if the party has to retain its space in the state and grow further, it has no other option.
Interestingly, both the parties have tried to make use of each other. Last year, there was bonhomie between the Congress and Mayawati, who extended much-needed help in the Presidential election. This ensured the victory of UPA's Presidential candidate, Pratibha Patil. But as the year came to a close, Maya became suspicious of the warmth developing between the Congress and SP. That explains her mounting criticism of the UPA government. She feared that the Congress had used her and dumped her after the presidential polls. However, appearances are still being kept. Last month, Mayawati thanked the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi for greeting her on her birthday. Naturally, her ego was tickled. Though the Prime Minister was in China and in the midst of talks with the leaders there, he found time to greet her. These gestures indicate that both would like to keep their options open for the post-poll scenario.
The BSP-Congress ties have soured because of Maya's moves to spread her wings across the country with an eye on next year's Lok SabUttar Pradesh formula elsewhere.
Although the BSP has failed to put up a good show, as it did in UP, it hurt the prospects of other parties, in particular the Congress.
Though the Dalit-Brahmin combination may not reap the same benefits as it did in Uttar Pradesh, it definitely works as a dampener for other parties. U.P watchers are sure that the two parties cannot be together for the simple reason that the BSP cuts into Congress votes.Maya's social engineering formula, however, failed miserably in Gujarat. But the BSP acted as a spoiler for the Congress party. It hurt the Congress in as many as 18 seats in Gujarat and nine seats in Himachal . Encouraged by this success, Behenji is going ahead to checkmate the Congress in the coming assembly elections in other states as well.
The year 2008 did not begin well for Mayawati. The first bad news was the audacious attack on the CRPF camp at Rampur.
Relations took a turn for the worse when Maya blamed the Centre for its failure to provide her with SPG cover. She even accused the Congress of trying to eliminate her. In retaliation, the Congress charged her with being too busy touring the country for party work instead of trying to tackle the law and order problem.
The Chief Minister had barely dealt with the Rampur incident when the Ballia by-elections gave her another jolt. The BSP's defeat in Ballia exposed the failure of the Dalit-Brahmin formula in UP. It led the BSP chief to sharpen her attack on Congress. Mayawati is also angry because certain Congress leaders out to eliminate her were allegedly "patronising" expelled BSP MP, Atiq Ahmed.
Then there is the disproportionate assets case. Maya feels that the UPA government is "deliberately delaying" a decision by the CBI on the case. While Mayawati argues that the income tax tribunal's clean chit on her gifts was good enough for closure of the case, Congress leaders feel that they should not do so in a hurry.
The BSP tends to hurt the Congress more than the BJP or any other party, mainly because nationwide, the Congress is the preferred party of Dalits. It receives the lion's share of Dalit vote in all states, except Uttar Pradesh where Mayawati has replaced the Congress as the preferred party.
Earlier in 2004, the BSP undermined the Congress-NCP alliance in the Vidharbha region, where the combine lost 10 of the 11 seats-four of them on account of the BSP factor.
In the New Delhi municipal polls last year, the BSP polled an impressive 10% and won more than 15 wards.
In key states scheduled to go to polls this year, namely Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the BSP has a sizeable presence and the potential to wreck the Congress's prospects. Even in Karnataka, the BSP could ruin the Congress's chances. That explains the love-hate relationship. Of courser, both the parties are keeping their options for a post-poll understanding open.
(IPA Service)

Integrated approach for defence

By Lt. Col. Surendra Sharma

The defence ministry rejected the 197 Euro helicopters purchase Aviation Corps. New requests for tender have been floated; and the contenders for the lucrative deal worth $600 million have submitted proposals to the ministry. The projections call for air platforms to carry out tactical air missions like reconnaissance, utility and close air support, particularly in hilly terrains in J&K and Northeast. Earlier, such missions were carried out by Indian Air force. The question that comes to mind is whether there has been a major policy shift concerning roles and missions of the respective armed forces.
Clearly this is one more of those perennial inter-service turf wars. Since its pilots first started to fly light aircraft for air observation duties to direct artillery fire, the army has been eyeing the close air support role of the IAF. It has set about doing this through incremental encroachment into the IAF domain. The IAF has been reduced to a helpless bystander, as the following comment from the 1995 RAND study, The Indian Air Force: Trends and Prospects, would indicate: "Overall, army continues to dominate the consideration of Indian defence matters. The war in the Gulf has not appeared to improve the IAF's political position in the Indian security community in spite of the demonstration of the importance of air power in modern war."
That our security managers are either unwilling or unable to put an end to this inter-service turf battle reflects poorly on the higher defence management. The nation is paying a heavy price in terms of the credibility of our military establishment, resource wastage and indeed in war-fighting terms.
Today we have two helicopter forces (discounting the navy that has its specific requirements), which have duplicated infrastructure, training, spares support, repair and overhaul and so on, in addition to duplicated roles and missions. For the modest force levels, duplication of the above support activities is poor resource optimization and degrades overall security. Those desirous of emulating the American model would do well to remember that the annual defence budget in the United States of America is close to $620 billion as against our defence budget of around $23 billion.
Pakistani infiltrations into our territory in the Kargil sector, spread over many months, did not come to light by army aviation helicopter reconnaissance, but by lowly shepherds on the ground. The Kargil Review Committee (KRC) accepted the army argument that hand-held cameras used by the army for reconnaissance from helicopters could not provide the requisite information owing to high levels of vibration.
What was never explained by the KRC (at least in its open report) is why the army was attempting tactical reconnaissance with hand-held cameras in the first place, when this was not its task and when it was not equipped for it. Nor, indeed, is this the way to carry out tactical reconnaissance in the battle field. The KRC was also silent on why the IAF was not called upon by the army to carry out tactical reconnaissance, which is the IAF's designated task and for which it is equipped with high technology photo and thermal imaging equipment. It is possible that had the Indian army used the IAF's tactical recce capability on a routine basis, Pakistan army would not have dared to plan infiltration in the Kargil sector. So, the Pakistani military may have cleverly exploited an inter-service weakness that it saw within our fighting forces. That the army now aspires to take over the tactical air role only goes to show that no lessons have been learnt.
For an army that aspires to run a tactical air force, the recent fiasco regarding the halting of negotiations with the selected manufacture for its much-anticipated 197 helicopter procurement programme, because of technical irregularities in the evaluation process, must come as a sobering reminder. Equality, it must be embarrassing for the ministry of defence to have representatives of the affected company differing in public. That such a spat comes after issuance of a formal defence procurement procedure, which was introduced to make procurement speedy, fair and transparent, makes us look like militaries of a banana republic.
At the time, the army played spoilsport and insisted on a bigger and heavier machine to carry a minimum number of soldiers, and was readily supported by the industry that was uncomfortable with the performance requirements laid down. The resultant indigenous Dhruv helicopter, though by all accounts an excellent machine in its class, in all likelihood cannot meet the original IAF staff requirements. If the army today is crying for light helicopters for its Siachen operations, there is need to look back in history and seek answers as to why the IAF staff requirements were diluted. Since development and procurement time frames far exceed individual tenures in service headquarters, it is important that institutional accountability is ensured in such decision-making. Now that we have egg on our face, this is as good a time to draw appropriate lessons from the ALH saga.
Considering that the security environment is worsening by the day on Sino-Indian border, that there is already a huge backlog of modernization to catch up on, and with the cost of airborne platforms and systems mounting exponentially, the need for operational rationalization on a scientific basis rather than a subjective one, assumes significance. It is time, therefore, for the national security establishment to take a holistic look at the entire issue of roles and missions that are expected of the three services with reference to airborne assets. The study must look at not just the demands made by individual services, but also at how these can optimally be met. We must, however, be honest enough to accept that an objective study can not be executed within the framework of our existing ministry of defence and service organizations, where turfs are zealously protected and parochialism counts for more than the larger good. There is need to look beyond.
While world militaries are changing towards net-centric warfare, our armed forces remain unwilling to take a broader and integrated approach to vital issues like a chief of defence staff, rationalizing of roles and missions, and of space applications. Such attitudes may not be unique to our armed forces, but in the US, for example, such contentions were resolved through legislative intervention.
The time has come for our lawmakers to legislate on the three crucial national security issues: the institutionalizing of a CDS, rationalizing of roles and missions of the three services, and identifying the service that will be responsible for military space applications. A look at the rapid changes taking place across our northern borders should warn us that time is of essence. INAV