MONDAY APRIL 9, 2012

DAILY EXCELSIOR, JAMMU

Excelsior
Established 1965

daily

Indian defence industry depends on imports

By Nantoo Banerjee s the country's national security in foreign hands? One would shudder to even imagine such a possibility. Yet, the unpalatable truth is: India's defence forces are 70 per cent foreign dependent on armament supplies - from Russian nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, US and French fighters, Swedish guns, Israeli interceptors, British Aerospace (BAe) military equipment, German naval equipment, Italian tanker, Czech trucks, sensitive telecommunications equipment to even coffins for dead soldiers. The military's foreign dependence is growing. Global defence exporters have forecast India's armament imports in next 15 years to be of the order of $105 billion or $7 billion, annually. This means the military's present or future war preparedness to protect the country from external aggression is and will remain substantially foreign supply dependent, making the defence forces highly vulnerable to foreign suppliers' attitude in the case of a longer engagement in a conventional war, say beyond six to eight weeks. India's import dependence has grown over the years in terms of sophisticated war machines such as aircraft, radars, fighters, bombars, advance warning systems, warships, submarines, guns, other arms and ammunitions, telecommunications equipment and systems and spares. Since 2010, India has overtaken Saudi Arabia to emerge as the world's biggest arms importer. Contrary to the perception, India's annual defence spend, especially on war equipment, is a miniscule. According to generally accurate global compendia of defence data and analysis, the gross value of India's defence purchase in 2009-10 was only around US$ 4.8 billion, in which the domestic content was less than $1.5 billion. The import content was $3.34 billion. India, which boasts the world's third largest defence force after the USA and China, is not ranked even among the world's top 20 countries in terms of expenditure on armament. Indian soldiers are among the most under-equipped in the world. About 85 per cent of India's annual defence budget is spent on establishment, equipment maintenance, accommodation, movements, salaries, ration, perks, welfare, etc. India's defence import bill last year was less than 10 per cent of what it spent on gold and jewellery import alone. India's geographical area covers approximately 3.287 million sq.kms. It ranks seventh position in the world after Russia (17.08 million sq.kms), Canada (9.98 mln.sq.km), China (9.32 mln.sq.km), the USA (9.07 mln.sq.km.), Brazil (8.51 mln.sq.km) and Australia (7.68 mln.sq.km). India has a coastline of 7,517 kms and land frontier (international border) of 15,200 kms. Until China attacked India in October, 1962, there was no army or para-military force to guard India's 3,488-km-long border with China, from Karakoram Pass at Ladak to Diphu La at Arunachal Pradesh. The disastrous defeat at the hands of the Chinese Red Army prompted India to set up the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) force, almost immediately after the war. Similarly, India waited for a Pakistani attack in 1965 to take the ultimate decision to set up its Border Security Force (BSF) on 1st December, 1965, which now has nearly 2.5 lakh personnel on its roll, to secure the country's borders. It required another war (Bangladesh liberation) in 1971, for India to realize the importance of policing its long coastline. At that time, the US Seventh Fleet threatened to intervene by seeking to position itself in the Bay of Bengal waters. Yet, the decision to set up the Indian Coast Guard could not be implemented before February, 1977, almost 30 years after the country's independence. India's proud announcement of "large" defence budget allocations year after year to keep its forces in a battle-ready condition does not find itself a mention even among the top 10 countries in terms of annual defence spends. In 2010-11, the global defence expenditure was estimated at $1.6 trillion. The top 10 spenders were: the USA $698 billion, China $120 billion, the UK $59.6 billion, France $59.3 billion, Russia $58.7 billion, Japan $54.5 billion, Saudi Arabia $45.2 billion, Germany $45 billion, Italy $37 billion and Brazil $34 billion. India's total defence expenditure that year was only around $33 billion. The country's annual per capita defence expenditure is only $30 as against the UAE's $2,653, USA's $2,141, Singapore's $1,593 and Saudi Arabia's $1,554. China's defence budget never projects the true picture. Smuggled Chinese weapons and ammunitions provide major sources of strength of terrorists, revolutionaries, socalled liberation armies, druglords and gangland bosses all over the world. The volume and value of those unreported Chinese arms are regarded to be huge. Despite the existence of the Ministry of Defence Production for nearly four decades and the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) since the Raj days, the domestic defence production - especially of the cutting-edge equipment, hardware and spares - was neglected by the successive governments in Delhi. The local defence hardware industry, principally a preserve of the public sector, never received the thrust it deserved from the government despite the country's near-constant engagement in low-intensity war against some of its belligerent neighbours on boundary and territorial claims. Apart from its importance in national security, the huge export potential of defence products made countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Israel, Ukraine, Spain, Switzerland, Bulgaria, and Czech Republic invest substantially in war equipment production to serve the lucrative global arms market. Today, the top defence exporters are: the USA, Russia, Germany, France, the UK and China. Together, these seven countries exported weaponry worth $21 billion in 2010-11. India, however, enjoys the dubious distinction of being the world's biggest arms importer. Every arms exporter lobbies to sell to India. The defence industry is a huge employment generator and economy mover. Almost all arms exporters invariably operate through commission agents and contractors to bag orders. Bribery and corruption are deeply embedded in defence deals. Few governments and chiefs of staff have succeeded to control the practice, India included. It is a mystery as to why all the successive Indian governments, irrespective of their political colour, failed to work towards self-reliance in defence production and making India a prominent member of the powerful arms exporters' club. For some unknown reasons, the government had long disallowed domestic private initiative in arms production while it had no problem in buying weapons and systems from outside manufacturers. It is also difficult to understand why India, which has shown its high capability in modern nuclear and space sciences, is so badly import dependent on traditional and sophisticated war equipment. Why India, which builds satellite launch vehicles, rockets, ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads, nuclear power stations and atom bombs, can't produce powerful guns, shells, heavy duty trucks, earthmovers, bombers, fighters, interceptors, aircraft carriers, submarines, modern communications equipment, etc? Two great scientists and individuals - Homi Bhabha in atomic energy and Vikram Sarabhai in space sciences - were primarily responsible for India's tremendous success in building independent capabilities in space and nuclear programmes, including their military application. What prevented India from spotting and encouraging such talents to steer an integrated arms manufacturing programme, involving both public and private sector enterprises? Given the opportunity, some of India's highly stubborn and forward looking businessmen in engineering and chemicals such as JRD Tata, GD Birla, Dhirubhai Ambani, Lalchand Hirachand Doshi, Sapoorji Palonji Mistry, SL Kirloskar. Keshub Mahindra, Ramkrishna Bajaj, Denmark-born Henning Holck-Larsen, MV Arunachalam, Brij Munjal, OP Jindal, Jamshyd Godrej, Baba Kalyani and Rohington Aga would have probably made India proud of defence manufacturing. Obviously, it is the lack of political will to build a strong domestic defence industry for reasons best known to our political masters that has forced the fate of our armed forces and national security stay safe in foreign suppliers' hands. (IPA)

Marxists must rethink to recoup

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala he Left parties have almost totally been wiped out in the recent elections to the five states. At time of writing, Party Congress of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) was taking place. Results of the Congress are awaited. It is only hoped that the CPIM will address the core ideological issues. In a statement put out after the electoral defeat, the Polit Bureau issued a statement admitting that the Party had performed poorly in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab but the way forward suggested was a bland assertion that there was a "need to strengthen the Party, its mass activities and organisation." Import of this statement lies in the fact that the Party thinks its basic theoretical premises to be correct. The electoral defeats have been wholly attributed to weak organization etc. That is hardly the case. The defeat of Left Parties, it seems to me, lies mainly in the outdated theoretical framework that they cling on to. The Draft Resolution placed before the Party Congress opposes the neo-liberal policies of the Government. Implied is the call to strengthen the state welfare machinery. It is suggested that fiscal measures should be undertaken for redistribution of wealth. Two, The Public Distribution System should be made universal and state provision of health and education services should be expanded. Three, the Public Sector Undertakings should be strengthened. Intention is to secure welfare of the common man through the bureaucracy. The intention is welcome but there are problems with the strategy. Reason is that the bureaucracy appropriates most of the monies earmarked for people's welfare in meeting its administrative expenses and in leakages. In the proposed dispensation the bureaucracy will have to be expanded. Burden on the economy of sustaining a bloated bureaucracy increases while welfare of the people remains in the doldrums. Our experience of last century confirms this. One of the main reasons for the decline of Soviet Russia was that the bureaucracy had become an end-in-itself. Mao Zedong had launched the Cultural Revolution to liberate the people from the stranglehold of the bureaucracy. The defeat of CPIM in West Bengal can also be traced, in part, to the over-dependence on the bureaucracy. The Party should realize that the State machinery is inherently self-centered, corrupt and exploitative. The Party should explore ways of securing people's welfare with least possible dependence on the bureaucracy. One, entire amount being spent by the Centre and State Governments should be distributed in cash to all citizens of the country. In my reckoning each family will get about Rs 2,000 per month from the existing expenditures on these services. This would be sufficient to keep body and soul together. Two, economic policies that lead to increased demand for labour should be implemented. These may include imposing low level of taxes on labour-intensive goods and putting condition in government contracts to use labour-intensive methods such as of building roads. The second main point put forward in the resolution is the call to fight the imperialist forces. The Draft Resolution states: "Imperialist offensive has sharply intensified in all spheres threatening the party's strategic objective of human emancipation and liberation." The Party has argued in favour of self-reliant development and has a negative orientation towards globalization. The true issue is not of pro- or anti-globalization. There are both gains and losses from globalization. Gain is that global markets are opened for our exports of, for example, automobiles, drugs and cotton. There is more international trade-both exports and imports-which is beneficial for our people. Caveat is that trade in food is to be restricted to items other than those required for food security. But there is loss as well. We have had to make our Patent laws strict. Multinational Companies are extracting huge 'Patent Rents' from our country. There is continuous pressure on the developing countries to open our economies for free inflow and outflow of foreign investment. Therefore, the issue is not of self-reliant versus globalized development. The issue is which aspects of globalization to accept and which to reject. We should seek (1) Free trade except in food; (2) Loosening of the Patents regime; (3) Keeping capital flows out of the ambit of the WTO; and (4) opening world markets for migration of natural persons. Such globalization will be wholly beneficial for us. The Draft Resolution pins hope on organization of the industrial workers, unorganized workers, peasantry, agricultural workers, middle class and intelligentsia to lead the revival of the Party. I think this will be difficult. The working people have developed an interest in preserving the present system. They have their Provident Fund, pucca houses and, if nothing else, their BPL card. They do not want to rock the system. It is mainly the middle class and intelligentsia that can dream of an egalitarian society. And, the intelligentsia will bite only when they are provided with a robust theoretical framework. Therefore, focus has to be on theoretical openness, dialogue and reflection. It is a welcome sign that the CPIM has invited comments from the public. But the theoretical framework presented essentially follows the old mold of anti-globalization and state-centered welfare schemes. This will not do. There are some positive points in the Draft Resolution. Controls on flows of international capital have been demanded. This is welcome. East Asian 'Tigers' had opened their economies to unrestricted inflow and outflow of world capital in the eighties and nineties. Result was that there was a sudden outflow of foreign in the wake of slowdown in the US economy and the Tigers went into a tailspin from which they have not fully recovered even after a decade. The collapse of Sensex in 2008 from 20k to 8k was also triggered by outflow of foreign portfolio investments. It is necessary to put in place controls in order to prevent such debilitating movements. Secondly, the Draft Resolution demands that approval of the Parliament should be must before signing an international treaty. Presently Government of India can sign an international treaty under its executive powers. Such was done when we signed the WTO treaty in 1995. Approval of the Parliament was not taken. Subsequently Bills to amend the Patents' and other laws were brought before the Parliament; and it was said that not to amend the laws would become fatal because the WTO treaty had already been signed. The Parliament was presented with a fiat accompli and reduced to position of subordination to the executive. It is necessary to take approval of the in order to prevent such excesses on the part of the executive in future. The Left parties are ideologically committed to securing people's welfare. It is a tragedy that the same people do not give votes to these parties. Reason is that they are plowing an outdated theoretical framework that supports the bureaucracy more than the people.

Belated action I
tate Government will set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to go into the 'Faigate'. It is a belated action. Aren't they opening the can of worms? Police says it has a heap of information on the activities of Fai in late 1970s and 80s. What for does the police collect and keep the well-researched information in the cold store? The SIT will tumble upon a number of questions which the government will have to answer. Don't think the task of conducting an enquiry into Faigate is that simple. And what will be the consequences? We have scams, bribery cases, evidence for them all, even confessions and then at the end of the day what happens? Is anybody held accountable? They cannot, because it is "Indian democracy" where press and media are free to put the county on sell out in the name of freedom of expression. The police knew everything about Fai prior to his escape. The police know who provided him logistical support after his passport was impounded. Our agencies know where he was when in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and finally headed towards the USA. They know who issued him a second but illegal passport. They know why he escaped and chose to go to Saudi Arabia? They know the role of Prince Turki in regard to Kashmir case during 1970s and 80s. They know Fai is a product of that process. Why did not they act for 32 years in the past when Fai was only half of his present age? Particularly after 1990, when insurgency broke out in the State and Fai found the situation ripe for opening up his ISI-planned anti-India mission in the US. UK and Brusels, where was the RAW and the IB and other intelligence agencies? But we should not jump at the conclusion. Perhaps these agencies, having sheepishly surrendered to the diktat of politicos in this country, pass the day rather than perform their duty. There is much substance in what the jokers say that the Government has no will to take on terrorism in the form in which it has been unleashed in our country. Government has politicised and communalised terrorism, and hence, it must adopt the safest policy of not opening the can of worms. Soon after 1990, Fai opened vast but most secretive network in the State and in the country. It was easy for him to hook up the American chapters that would be usable in trumpeting his voice on Kashmir. But he worked assiduously to establish the network in India. Where were our intelligence brigades claiming to have busted the hawala nexus here, there and anywhere? Why did not the follow up action come to the notice of the public? After all hawala means hard cash, and is there one whose sense of duty will not be assailed by hard cash? Fai's network has rooted deep in various segments of society. Press, of course, has been his priority. Was there non in the State Information Department or in the Union Ministry of Information to scrutinise and report to their superiors what pro-separatist press in Jammu and Srinagar and elsewhere in the country was publishing in banner lines and magnifying as well as glorifying the "achievements" of the militants, or raising hue and cry over alleged killings or rape by security forces. Was it enough to contradict the report mildly and let things continue or was it needed to nip the evil in the bud if at all anti-national propaganda was something evil? The journalists, the beneficiaries of Fai's largesse are all veterans and seasoned professionals with enormous experience in the profession. They have, one and all, be it Navlakha or Nayar or Bhasin or Baweja or Manchanda or Arundhati Roy, much more information on the funding sources of Fai's KAC than anybody else including the IB and the super agency has. Yet, in their urge for destroying the Indian state, for reasons best known to them, they turned Faustus and camaraderied with Mephistopheles. Did not our intelligence sleuths hear the broadcasts from the BBC made by one of the above mentioned journalist on his return home via London from Fai's seminar in which he heaped all such charges on the Indian Government as are the refrain of secessionists' rhetoric? Did our law enforcing authorities ever ask the Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University how a teacher of English department went all the way to attend Fai's seminars in the US and paint India in blackest colours, and then return home unscathed, unnoticed and free to strengthen the KAC's anti-India network. Did the police ever keep a record of the foreign media persons, NGOs, social activist and others meeting with this professor regularly to update their mandate for the KAC. Has it any clue to sponsored visits to Srinagar of Victoria Schofield, the author of Conflict in Kashmir and one on the regular pay roll of Fai? This is not the lonely case. We say that there is a widespread network. Unless these conduits have moles in the political structure of the country, unless they have protectors and patrons they would not have carried their antinational campaign to these heights. Obviously, if our intelligence apparatus was really up to the mark and as efficient as the one-man planner, namely Sayyid Ghulam Nabi Fai, things in Kashmir would not have come to this pass. It has to be admitted that Fai outsmarted all Indian agencies in conceptualising, planning, field-working, fund raising and managing the most formidable anti-India campaign through paper work. He has had the stupendous capability of misleading Kashmiris by telling them that he was working for aazadi' he has the tremendous capability of handling the ISI by convincing them that he works for Pakistan and not aazadi, and he has had the unparalleled capability of bringing stalwarts among Indian scribes on his wavelength. Finally, he has had the incredible potential of rendering Indian intelligence agencies irrelevant. How many among them must have been his indirect beneficiaries will never be disclosed how hard we may try to find it out.

Reduction in poverty
R
By Dr Ashwani Mahajan ecently while hearing a Public Interest Litigation, Supreme Court had expressed a shock over the definition of poverty line being adopted by the planning commission, terming it to be highly impractical and insensitive to the poor in the country. According to the definition being adopted by Planning Commission there were only 37 percent people in the country, who could be termed as poor in 2004-05. According to the definition of poverty line, adopted before Tendulkar Panel submitted its report, there were only 27.5 percent poor people in the country. After the Expert Group under the stewardship of Professor Tendulkar submitted its report about the definition of poverty, Planning Commission was compelled to revise the poverty figure from 27.5 percent to 37 percent. According to the definition given by the Tendulkar Expert Group, if a person earned Rupees 446.7 in rural areas and Rupees 578.8 in the urban areas, he/she would not be considered as poor. According to the data released in the third week of March, 2012, Planning Commission now says that a person earning rupees 28.7 in urban areas and rupees 22.5 in rural areas, in 2009-10, would be considered to be above poverty line. When asked to submit affidavit in this regard, Planning Commission in September 2011, submitted that if a person earns rupees 32 in urban areas and rupees 28 in the rural areas daily, he/she would be considered to be above poverty line. There was a general feeling that as per the Tendulkar Committee's report this number of poverty and poverty line should logically have been for 2009-10, but the Planning Commission's contention now is that this figure actually corresponded to September 2011. When the masses are already reeling under hyper inflation, finding it difficult to meet two ends this stance of Planning Commission and the government is making them sad and angry both. A new debate has started in the country and people have started doubting about the intentions of the policy makers, whether they are sensitive to the problems of poor. In fact the data released by the Planning Commission, has actually poured salt over the wounds of poor masses. But if we go deep into the issue, we find that the government continues to adopt the same flawed definition of poverty, about which Supreme Court had raised strong objections. Even after releasing the data Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission, has conceded that the figures released are not flawless, as there is serious mismatch between data released by Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) and National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). Opposition parties have even demanded the removal of Montek Singh Ahluwalia from Planning Commission's Deputy Chairmanship. The critiques argue that poverty is grossly being underestimated by adopting a wrong definition of poverty line. How can a person earning rupees 28.7 in urban areas and rupees 22.5 in rural areas can be considered to be living above poverty line. In 2004-05, Tendulkar's panel gave the figure for poverty line as rupees 19.6 for urban and rupees 15 for rural areas, and since then price index of primary products itself has increased by more than 65 percent till 2009-10, then how the figures of rupees 28.7 and rupees 22.5 for urban and rural areas respectively, be considered as correctly poverty lines. It is easily understandable that Government could bring down poverty without making much effort, just by changing the definition of poverty. There is nothing new about this 'bravery' of the Government. In 1993-94, Government played the same trick and poverty was reduced over night; by bringing down the poverty line, which was widely criticized even then. The same trick is repeated time and again. If we say growth could bring down poverty, perhaps it would not be right, as Bihar recorded a very high growth rate at the rate of 10 percent per annum, but could not witness reduction in poverty. Then the Government argues that this is perhaps due to non performance with regard to MNREGA. If the Government argues that MNREGA is the cause of declining incidence of poverty, it does not auger well with the experience. Maharashtra and Orissa did not use much funds meant for MNREGA, still they still could reduce poverty. Government then claims that it was because of good growth performance. Then why UP and Assam could not do well in poverty reduction, Government says it is because of failure in both, growth and MNREGA. Whichever may be the arguments, majority of economists are not ready to accept the claims of the Government. Some may agree with the government's claim of reduction in poverty, but are not ready to accept the numbers as claimed by the Government. They say that the definition as adopted by the Planning Commission is faulty and needs revision. Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission confesses, that there is some mistake in defining the poverty line, as there are serious mismatch between figures of National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) and National Accounts Statistics of Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) and are needed to be addressed to. Though Planning Commission has tried to wash its hands from this serious problem, by terming it to be merely a statistical problem, critiques believe that this has primarily been deliberately done by the Government and it raises question mark on the sincerity of the Government towards poor and poverty, because in this manner, Government has tried to under estimate the poverty and thus reduce the allocation of funds for poor. But one aspect, which is being ignored by all, is the phenomenon of rising inequalities in the country. No one can doubt the data of Central Statistical Organisation, according to which today per capita income in India has reached nearly rupees 53000 per annum. Even the benefits of MNREGA are also reaching the poor and unemployed, though partially, after adjusting for corruption. But the benefits of growth are actually not fully reaching the poor, due to increasing inequalities. Planning Commission concedes that between 2004-05 and 2009-10, Gini Coefficient, a measure of inequalities, increased from 0.35 to 0.37. Therefore income of the poor is not rising proportionately. This increase in inequalities is more or less found in all states. If we want to really get rid of poverty, benefits of growth should be more or less equally distributed.

VIP security
Sir, This refers to the news item 'VIPs have more guards than alloted strength' DE Apr 2. It is the first duty of the Government to provide security to its citizens whether it is a common man or a VIP. It is also a fact that some people who are serving the nation on responsible posts need to be provide round the clock security so that they can shoulder their responsibilities without any fear, threat or intimidation. But, of late, the people particularly the politicians in India claim it as their birth right to have security cover around them on the pretext of threat to their life. Though there are some politicians who need protection as country is facing terrorism and naxalism. But all politician who do not matter much also clamour for security cover. They use this cover as a status symbol, and under it fulfill their nefarious designs. On the other hand, common man who often fall prey to anti-social elements are denied security. The Government, if it is sincere, should start pruning the extra strength allotted to these so called VIPS. Nation can't bear their burden. Yours etc.... Sunil Kotwal Bhaderwah

Tribute to Hari Singh

Sir, It is heartening to see the statue of Dogra ruler Maharaja Hari Singh unveiled at an impressive function. The long pending demand of the Jammuites has finally been met. It will be a great tribute to the Maharaja who worked for the welfare of masses irrespective of religion and region. It was during his time that many welfare works were undertaken. He laid emphasis on education to fight ignorance. Standing on a high pedestal, the statue looks beautiful and has a Maharaja like feel. Noted sculptor Ravinder Jamwal who sculpted this sclupture too deserves kudos for creating such a magnificient work. His contribution to art field will be remembered by people and history. Yours etc.... Jitendra Jamwal Jammu

Sir, Refer news item 'SPCB to launch drive against polythene bags' DE Apr 1. The polythene bags are back in business after remaining out of sight for a brief period after ban was imposed on them by the Government. After much ad., and making some raids here and there, seizing some Kgs of polythene bags and imposing fine, the Municipal authorities went into hibernation. Now people are again using them for day to day use without any fear of law. These bags are choking every lane and drain of the Jammu city. When a whiff of air blows, polythenes are seen floating in air, adding to ugliness, and polluting atmosphere further. The people don't bother about them. They are not ready to accept its harmful consequences in the future. Now, it is time the State Pollution Control Board takes the problem seriously and address it accordingly. Yours etc.... Neetu Sehgal Jammu

Awareness campaign against polythene bags