Followers

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Chandigarh at bottom of `quality of life' list again


Mumbai topped the list of 21 big cities in a survey on the capability of a city administration to deliver better quality of life over the medium and long term.While the maximum city moved eight places from last year and Thiruvananthapuram retained second position, Delhi moved one place down, to sixth, from fifth in 2014. Bhubaneswar, which came first in the smart cities contest recently , came 18th.The Annual Survey of India's City-Systems by Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy covered 18 states.
According to the survey report, all 21 cities had very low scores compared to cities such as London and New York, indicating the need to push major reforms in municipal governance as pressure increases on major urban centres. In fact, one of the few planned cities -Chandi garh -has the dubious distinction of being at the bottom for the second time in a row.The survey has revealed how all Indian cities continue to score in the range of two to 4.2 on a scale of zero to 10, while London and New York have scored 9.4 and 9.7 respectively.
Cities that have made major improvements include Hyderabad, which has moved up from 17 to nine within a span of one year and Kanpur, which ranked at 14 in 2014, moving up six spots last year.
Similarly , Chennai made remarkable improvement, while Raipur and Surat slipped significantly .
Highlighting the importance of the report, Janaagraha coordinator Srikanth Viswanath said at a time when governments have been launching urban rejuvenation programmes, “floods in Mumbai, garbage crisis in Bangalore, and more recently air pollution levels in Delhi and Chennai floods are alarm bells that more of the same solutions -a series of patchwork projects -will not suffice“.
“Root causes need to identified and addressed; the disease needs to be treated and not just the symptoms,“ he said.

source: Times of India, 15-03-2016

Monday, March 14, 2016

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents


Vol. 51, Issue No. 11, 12 Mar, 2016

Editorials

50 Years of EPW

H T Parekh Finance Column

Commentary

The University Under Siege

Book Reviews

Insight

Special Articles

Notes

Discussion

Current Statistics

Postscript

Reports From the States

Letters

Appointments/programmes/announcements 

Dr Barack versus President Obama

Barack
Obama’s foreign policy, like the main character in Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, reflects a moral duality that has befuddled friends and enemies alike and will complicate the evolving world order.
As Dr Barack, deeply influenced by the 20th century Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, he envisioned a world without nuclear weapons; promised to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp; and opposed “dumb” intervention wars to overthrow dictators that lacked international support.
Yet as President Obama, he promoted a $1 trillion proposal—the costliest postCold War plan—to upgrade nuclear weapons capability over three decades; failed to shut down the morally reprehensible Cuban camp and authorized a 10-fold increase in drone strikes; and, on the advice of the “responsibility to protect” brigade in his cabinet, undertook the calamitous intervention in Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, which (along with the earlier disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003) in turn led to the rise of the Islamic State (IS).
However, unlike the tragic protagonist in Stevenson’s book, Obama has justified and managed these contradictions, apart from Libya, which he admits was a “mistake” and is a “mess”. In fact, Libya, more than any other foreign policy entanglement, not only reinforced Obama’s original beliefs but is one he is now using to redefine the US foreign policy priorities. In a comprehensive article in The Atlantic magazine by Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama outlined three principles of his doctrine.
First, the US should get involved abroad only when there is an existential threat to it. While scholars disagree on what might constitute an existential threat, Obama has set the bar differently: he considers climate change to be a “potential existential threat” rather than the IS or even the proxy wars in Syria. Similarly, the presence and use of chemical weapons in Syria and a nucleararmed Iran also qualify as direct national security threats. In such instances, the US would be willing to act unilaterally.
Second, that the recourse to use of force in the first instance is not always the best way to address the threat. As Obama argued: “real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence” and “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you are willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force”. Indeed, two of Obama’s biggest foreign policy successes—the disarming of Syria’s chemical arsenal and the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons potential—were achieved almost entirely through diplomacy and with international support.
Third, the US should accept that, despite its dominant position, it cannot “fix everything”, especially in areas and on issues that do not pose a direct threat. Instead, in the emerging multipolar world, the US should encourage multilateral solutions because “multilateralism regulates hubris”. In this context, Obama is as critical of “free rider” allies, including Britain, France, Arab states and, notably, Pakistan, as he is of adversaries for entrapping Washington into conflicts that are not in the US interest.
These principles notwithstanding Obama’s doctrine suffers from three shortcomings. First, it does not practically envision reforming global multilateral peace and security institutions, particularly the UN Security Council. Second, it does not have a grand plan to empower emerging stakeholders in global governance, particularly India, to take on greater responsibility in providing net security at the regional and global level. Instead, it raises concerns of a G-zero scenario, where no one takes responsibility. Finally, despite recognizing the import of non-military instruments in preventing and resolving conflict, investment in them has been wanting. For instance, as Brookings scholar Tamara Cofman Wittes notes, between May 2011 and September 2013, democratic reform in West Asia moved from a “top priority” to a bare footnote.
While the Obama doctrine might move closer to the principles of Dr. Barack in the last months of his presidency, the prospects of its continuation under his successor remains uncertain.

Source: Mintepaper, 14-03-2016

UNDP chief Helen Clark calls for India to criminalise marital rape

India must criminalise marital rape as a first step towards ending violence against women, says UNDP administrator Helen Clark, in an exclusive interview to Diplomatic Editor Suhasini Haidar in New Delhi.
UNDP has completed 50 years, yet it seems the growth divide in the world is at its deepest. If you compare the global south to the north, populations maybe about 2:1, but gross national income per person is closer to 1:20…is this divide the biggest crisis?
I think it is..inequality is one of the biggest problems, inequalities between the North and the South, but internal inequalities as well. UNDP launched a report a few years ago that asserted that 70% of people living in developing countries today live in countries more unequal than they were in 1990, the baseline year for the Millennium Development Goals, so what that tell us is while there has been a lot of growth and development, inequalities have also been exacerbated. And the whole sustainable development agenda is to say look more holistically at what you are achieving. If your model of economic growth is exacerbating the inequalities in the world, if its trashing the environment, is this really the quality of growth you want? Or are there more ways to run your economy….So tackling inequality is one of the biggest goals for the sustainable development agenda.
Given that, what do you see as India’s role in the Global South? As a leader, an innovator, a centre for best practices?
Oh yes, in many ways. India is really taking to new age renewable technologies. I was on a panel in Davos and one of the key Indian players made the point that coal hasn’t been a factor in India’s energy strategy for some time. The real push is in renewable energy and that’s where the investment is. Secondly, India has an ambitious reforestation goal. So on the environmental side India knows what it needs to do. And that will help not just globally but also bring for its people food security, water, air quality etc. And when India and China move on these issues they have a global impact on these issues far beyond just them.
I wanted to ask about your own role at the UN, perhaps beyond the UNDP, I’m referring to reports that you will be running for the UN Secretary General’s post later this year….
I haven’t offered an opinion on that yet to anyone, and I don’t intend to today. But there has to be a decision on the next UNSG by the end of the year, and the processes are slowly getting under way by member states as they contemplate what they want. I say the first issue is what are the challenges in the job and what are the skill sets you need to fulfill them, that should be the question.
There is an understanding that it is the East European bloc’s turn at the job, in which case you wouldn’t qualify, is that what you are referring to when you say skill sets are the most important?
The job goes around. It has gone to the African continent twice, its gone to Asia twice, its gone to Latin America once, West Europe has had it three times. So East Europe has never been in that rotation, so of course they have put up a flag to say it should be them. I think the member states are going to look at the skill set required.
You’re saying that you are not counted out, although you aren’t willing to count yourself in at present. Do you think it is time to change how the UNSG is chosen; many countries would like the UN Security Council to forward two candidates, not one to the UNGA?
In the end that’s a matter for the Security Council. It’s a matter for the five permanent members to decide and to the best of my knowledge they aren’t planning to put up more than one candidate. Starting July they will be taking straw polls on who they think the candidates should be. The UNGA president is intending to offer declared candidates the opportunity to speak to informed groups of countries one on one next month. But in the end it is to July and to what the UNSC decides to do.
Apart from the nationality criterion, what about gender? The Hindu spoke to one of the candidates expected UNESCO chief Irina Bokova, who said a Woman UNSG is an idea whose time has come. Do you think that’s true this time?
There’s never been a woman UNSG, so of course people are saying what about this time. But whoever is selected they are going to have to fit the skill-set that they need for the job.
Do you think the US also should be looking at a woman for president?
It would be impossible for me as an international civil servant to comment on that, but my position has been women should have their share of the time at the top. Countries like my own (New Zealand) have had two women Prime Minsiters already, we are not the only ones, but many countries have yet to see a woman leader, and that must change. Women need to see, young girls need to see that no doors are closed, that it is possible on your merits to go all the way to the top in your country.
Are you in favour of quotas for women in legislatures?
If nothing else works, quotas should be tried. New Zealand go to that place by allowing proportional representation which forced parties to have more women candidates. Otherwise there are no women.
In many countries women in power haven’t necessarily translated to more empowerment for women. I’m speaking about violence against women, which also comes back to the earlier point of inequality. In particular the UN has singled out India on separate cases of rape, like the case in UP last year, or the Nirbhaya case. Is India of particular concern to the UN, as it is quite unprecedented to see the stand taken?
Globally violence against women is of great concern, and it does feature as the issue that has to be tackled in the SDGs. The lack of security for women is a blot , and is a global issue. No one country, but all countries. The PM of this country went to parliament to say the safety of women is a priority. So I wouldn’t question the commitment, but we need to make it the goal.
According to you what is the first step towards that goal?
Firstly, recognising domestic violence as an assault on women, everywhere. Unfortunately we are not on that page with every country. In New Zealand, we passed the first domestic violence act in 1982. We need to make it a specific law with a specific purpose in order for people to take it seriously. Because when it is domestic violence, the police and everyone else takes it as no business of theirs, something within the home otherwise. An assault on women at home is never something “within the family”. It is a crime. It has to be recognised and dealt with. More positively you have to change the mentality of people towards young girls and women. No impunity. Secondly assaults against women like rape and sexual assault in the home have to be treated as crimes. It hasn’t been easy to get other countries on board with this. When a woman goes to court and says she has been raped, she is the victim, but then she is victimised further, as lawyers go into their whole history. So it needs a very progressive judiciary to ask, did this occur with her consent or not. It is a struggle.
You are mentioning the attitude of the police, and of the need to criminalise domestic violence, but in India at present there is a controversy, because the Minister of Women and Child Welfare has said in parliament that it Marital rape cannot be criminalised in our country, because of our cultural attitudes towards marriage…what would you say to that?
Its pretty clear in the circles I move in at the UN that rape is rape. The issue is the consent of the women, and if it isn’t there, it is rape.
Is it important then those leaders of the country see it that way in order to conform to the SDGs they have signed on to?
Each country needs to look at its laws in the light of what the SDGs say, and whether these laws take women forward or take them back. I don’t have anything to say on any particular individual, but it is clear to me that the critical issue is one of consent.
Does violence against women impact a country’s growth then?
To the extent that it harms a woman’s capacity to be independent, to control their own destiny, be empowered. A woman who suffers abuse is a victim; it impacts their self esteem. Gender-based violence is a blight on society, let alone on the woman.
Source: The Hindu, 14-03-2016

India can ill-afford to be food insecure

The year 2016 is the United Nations year of pulses. This holds great importance for India, where it is a key source of nutrition. Visiting Indian scientists tell me that in 2015, in particular, pulses went out of reach of the common Indian citizen due to burgeoning prices fuelled by declining production and record imports. India has a billion mouths to feed and giant strides to take in the world economy. At this crucial juncture of history, it can ill-afford to be food insecure.
If we want to promote and pursue latest advancements in science and technology, policy and regulations should be consistent, fair and transparent across the board.
Government of India figures indicate that food has not been taken seriously when it comes to its production across the country’s farmlands. Over the years, they have been declining in productivity and nutritional aspects due to various reasons, including a clear impact of climate change. While the scientific community has been working on technologies which can help to combat the impact of climate change, it seems policymakers continue to lack the vision and far-sightedness to overcome the issue of food security.
This year would also be the year when genetically modified (GM) crop technology would commemorate two decades of its introduction in the US, and to date, not a single credible report based on scientific evidence has claimed of any negative impact of this technology on public health or bio-diversity. Can we allow unscientific reasoning to deprive a rising global population of their right to food?
Technology advancements, especially in the field of agriculture, could be a game changer for solving the issues of hunger and malnutrition. But what are the fallouts if such advancements are not allowed to see the light of day?
It takes 10-12 years to commercialise a new biotechnology crop. With such long gestation periods, the industry cannot survive in perennial uncertainty over whether their research will eventually reach its logical conclusion, which is benefitting society at large. A prolonged regulatory impasse and pandering to vested interests can also discourage sentiments. Such an environment is not in the best interests of the Indian economy and the farmers who are yearning for innovative technologies to boost their yields and income levels. Eventually, this will not only lead to the flight of much-needed capital for research and development in agriculture, but will also cause a scarcity of intellectual capital in the form of promising agriculture scientists, professionals and economists.
The time has come to question the motives of groups so steadfastly opposed to crop biotechnology.
So if recent news reports about India’s rising and unprecedented food import bills are anything to go by, it is time for the government set clear guidelines for field trials and commercial approval of transgenic crops, and adhere to them strictly, else the country will lose credibility in front of its own and foreign researchers and investors. There are enough and more takers around the world for innovative technology and even more who respect the cost of intellectual capital and international laws of free trade.

Henry Miller is Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution


Source: Hindustan Times, 14-03-2016




How You Respond


The untimely death of her dear son distressed the young mother Kisa Gotami. How could she live with such unbearable bereavement and exceptional calamity? She pleaded with Shakyamuni, “Lord, kindly be compassionate and make my son alive again.“ Any spiritual instruction would fall flat on the greatly saddened mother.So, the Buddha pronounced, “There is a way , for which you have to bring some mustard seeds from a house where no death has taken place.“The bereaved mother moved from door to door in search of the house that had seen no death. But she found in every house a more pitiful tale of death.She had lost her son while others had lost several young members all at once. Her own misery paled before their plight.She felt strong compassion for a grief-stricken world and wished for more insight into the mystery of life and death. Is there a way out of this suffering?
The Buddha said, “Suffering is inbuilt in the life you live.You can't arrest change of fortune, ageing, disease and death, as impermanence is the law of nature.“ He explained, “Suffering lies not in these external situations but in your response to them. Instead of being driven by attachments and emotional non-acceptance of reality, become a non-reactive observer of life-drama. Stop measuring the gaps between reality and your expectations. Accept the present moment as wonderful. Accept happenings as flows of phenomena. Transcend every attachment to self-interest and self, and acquire the spirit of enlightenment.“
Chennai tops in health insurance among metros


Chennai has the most health-insured people among metros, with more than half of its population (56.8%) being covered, reports Pushpa Narayan. This is thanks in part to a massive government health insurance scheme that covers nearly 5 crore people, or more than three-fourth of Tamil Nadu's population. Hyderabad, which is second with 49.8%, also benefits from a government insurance scheme.The corresponding figure for Kolkata is 26.1%. Among the metros, Mumbai (city) fares the poorest, with 12.4%.The data for New Delhi, however, is yet to be released.


Source: Times of India, 14-03-2016