Detach and Renounce

In order to be detached, does one have to renounce everything? We often imagine that a person who is detached will be indifferent to those around him and dislike everything that reminds him of what he has renounced. This is not true. Detachment is only possible for those who remain unaffected or undisturbed by every situation in life. Only the person who is able to maintain equipoise and balance in the face of success and failure, love and hatred, pain and pleasure, is truly detached. With attachment arises dependence on the object of your attachment, and with dependence comes slavery — you are then controlled by your attachments. If the object of your attachment is out of your reach, you become miserable and hanker after it. Then again, if you manage to own it, you are in constant fear of losing it. Thereby, your freedom of expression, behavioural patterns and outlook on life become limited. With attachment arises the idea of possession, the sense of ownership — my house, my car, my family, my wealth. With each new possession, your ego is reinforced, until finally your possessions begin to dominate and control your life. Detachment, on the other hand, is the ability to remain unaffected in the face of trials and tribulations. Although detachment is a spontaneous inner development, karma sannyasins can implement it in their lives by first developing attachment. It is only after you have developed a universal attachment to everything around you that you will begin to experience inner detachment.

Source: Economic Times, 22/09/2018

Implications of data mirroring

It remains to be seen whether such a policy will backfire when it comes to the potential threat of data colonialism

Data is the new oil and a driver of growth and change. Indeed, India is a supposed to become data rich before becoming economically rich. This digital growth is being pushed by large foreign digital companies. They are largely fuelled by the data of their users. And they are being welcomed by the establishment as is evident by the visits of the prime minister and Union information technology minister to Silicon Valley over the past few years as part of the Digital India campaign.

Important sectors such as e-commerce, social media, digital entertainment, online communication, and information and communication technology (ICT) hardware in India are predominantly served by foreign companies, or domestic companies funded by foreign capital.

Indian users today are accessing digital technology-driven services not only within India’s national boundaries, but also outside its jurisdiction. Consequently, these foreign service providers are free to process the personal data of millions of Indians within their own shores. The advancement of digital tools and technology in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), has enabled them to monitor and profile user behaviour, preferences and even daily routines, granting them the potential power to influence their decisions through targeted communications.

Many experts have been ringing the alarm bells for the past few years, warning the government of digital colonialism by such companies. Data is now considered a strategic asset by many, and data driven network effects coupled with user feedback loops have given first mover advantage to the more developed western world. The data processed by these companies is not only used offshore to track and profile users, but is also fed as fuel into modern technologies like AI and the Internet of Things (IoT), which are touted to be the drivers of modern manufacturing, service delivery and governance. Perhaps that’s why it is Silicon Valley that is expected to lead the way in researching, implementing and controlling digital technologies, earning it the reputation of being the new Rome.

Recognising the gravity of the issue, the Srikrishna committee in its draft data protection bill has rightly observed that the freedom to share personal data in the digital economy works selectively in the interests of certain countries that have been early movers. These countries can support a completely open digital economy without any detriment to their national interests by virtue of their technological advancement. It goes on to state that popular websites owned by foreign entities refuse to provide data to Indian law enforcement agencies in many instances. It has also flagged other related critical issues in the realm of personal data protection and data sovereignty, such as preventing foreign surveillance and fostering AI in India, all of which need to be addressed.

However, it remains to be seen whether the bill will backfire with respect to the potential threat of data colonialism.

The path recommended by the committee to accomplish the feat is mandating local storage of a copy of user’s data, or data mirroring, something which has not gone down well with its critics. Contemporary public discourse interprets digital colonialism as a large global economy wherein small local players are left out. It has also been argued by industry players, academia and consumer groups that mandating data mirroring will raise entry barriers in the Indian market and adversely impact a variety of smaller domestic stakeholders, such as start-ups and micro, small and medium enterprises .

Valid concerns in this regard are based on the premise that large foreign companies will be able to mobilise the requisite resources to invest in setting up their data centres (DCs) within India, though the same may not be possible for smaller domestic companies. The possible enhanced costs of setting up or renting such infrastructure along with the non-availability of cheaper foreign cloud services may affect their business interests. It may also impact their access to the use of the latest technology.

Such entry barriers, coupled with fears of potential long-term adverse impact on innovation and economic growth, may deepen the existing issues of monopolisation of data and the digital economy, leading to enhanced risks of digital colonialism.

Though with the right intention, it seems that the committee has taken the most obvious path to achieve data sovereignty without exploring other and possibly better alternatives.

The observation of the committee must be treated as a recommendation—one that should be judged from the perspective of India having to carefully balance the possible benefits of localisation with the costs involved in mandating such a policy.

Accordingly, there is a need to do a regulatory impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the proposed data mirroring mandate before its enactment and implementation. This need is further exacerbated considering the committee’s observation that there was no conclusive evidence presented to them demonstrating a CBA on the above arguments and counter-arguments.

This effectively means that though a draft law has been formulated, it is yet to be determined whether data mirroring will do more harm than good.

Source: Livemint epaper, 21/09/2018

Is the NITI Aayog relevant today?

It is introducing new ideas and bringing about a greater level of accountability in the system

The NITI Aayog was formed to bring fresh ideas to the government. Its first mandate is to act as a think tank. It can be visualised as a funnel through which new and innovative ideas come from all possible sources — industry, academia, civil society or foreign specialists — and flow into the government system for implementation. We have regular brainstorming sessions with stakeholders from various industries and sectors. Initiatives like Ayushmaan Bharat, our approach towards artificial intelligence and water conservation measures, and the draft bill to establish the National Medical Commission to replace the Medical Council of India have all been conceptualised in NITI Aayog, and are being taken forward by the respective Ministries.

An action think tank

In that sense, I think of NITI Aayog as an action tank rather than just a think tank. By collecting fresh ideas and sharing them with the Central and State governments, it pushes frontiers and ensures that there is no inertia, which is quite natural in any organisation or institution. If it succeeds, NITI Aayog could emerge as an agent of change over time and contribute to the Prime Minister’s agenda of improving governance and implementing innovative measures for better delivery of public services.

We also work to cut across the silos within the government. For example, India still has the largest number of malnourished children in the world. We want to reduce this number vastly, but this requires a huge degree of convergence across a number of Ministries, and between Central and State governments. NITI Aayog is best placed to achieve this convergence and push the agenda forward.

NITI Aayog is also bringing about a greater level of accountability in the system. Earlier, we had 12 Five-Year Plans, but they were mostly evaluated long after the plan period had ended. Hence, there was no real accountability.

NITI Aayog has established a Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office which collects data on the performance of various Ministries on a real-time basis. The data are then used at the highest policymaking levels to establish accountability and improve performance. This performance- and outcome-based real-time monitoring and evaluation of government work can have a significant impact on improving the efficiency of governance.

Using such data, we also come up with performance-based rankings of States across various verticals to foster a spirit of competitive federalism. That is another big mandate of NITI Aayog. We identify the best practices in different States in various sectors and then try to replicate them in other States. We also play an important role of being the States’ representative in Delhi, and facilitate direct interactions with the line ministries, which can address issues in a relatively shorter time.

Improving innovation

The Atal Innovation Mission, which is also established under NITI Aayog, has already done commendable work in improving the innovation ecosystem in India. It has established more than 1,500 Atal Tinkering Labs in schools across the country and this number is expected to go up to 5,000 by March 2019. It has also set up 20 Atal Incubation Centres for encouraging young innovators and start-ups.

With its current mandate that is spread across a range of sectors and activities, and with its unique and vibrant work culture, NITI Aayog remains an integral and relevant component of the government’s plans to put in place an efficient, transparent, innovative and accountable governance system in the country.

Source: The Hindu, 21/09/2018

The setting up of the sex offenders registry is timely

The sex offenders’ list will help in enabling justice and monitoring an offender’s future behaviour but the State must ensure that there is no overreach and misuse.

India on Thursday joined eight other countries that maintain a registry of sex offenders. The registry, which will be maintained by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), will include names, address, photographs and fingerprints details of convicted sexual offenders.

In the United States, the sex offender registry is available to the public, whereas in India, and countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and Trinidad & Tobago, the registry is available only to law enforcement agencies. The Indian registry is expected to list 4.4 lakh cases but the state police have been asked to update data from 2005 onwards. The government has promised that the database will not compromise any individual’s privacy. The database will have details of offenders convicted under charges of rape, gang rape, POCSO and harassing women.

The opening of the registry is timely because crimes such as rape, voyeurism, stalking and aggravated sexual assault are on the rise. The latest National Crime Records Bureau data shows there has been a 12% rise in rapes between 2015 and 2016, and that the majority of offenders are known to the victim. In a situation like this, the sex offenders’ list can definitely help the investigation and monitoring process as well as work as a deterrent.

However, there are some issues that need to be tackled before the registry starts its work.

First, what will be the process of categorising offenders? For example, can the recent rape of a minor in Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir, be termed more heinous than the rape that has been reported at a school in Dehradun, or vice versa?

Second, while in a digital age it is reasonable to expect the use of technology in crime detection and investigation, despite a promise to not to compromise the privacy of any individual, there will be legitimate concerns about the misuse of data. This concern has been tackled partly by allowing access to the registry only to law enforcement agencies.

Third, there is a possibility that this registry may tarnish a person’s life forever even if he is reformed after serving his legal sentence.

While the sex offenders’ list could help in enabling justice and monitoring an offender’s behaviour, the State must ensure that there is no overreach and misuse of the list. The government has also launched another portal to record complaints from citizens on objectionable content related to child pornography and other sexually explicit material.

Source: Hindustan Times, 20/09/2018

Sustained efforts must to reduce India’s infant mortality below 25 by 2030

It would require better institutional delivery, strengthening routine immunisation, scaling-up of special newborn care units to treat malnourished and ill newborns, providing holistic nutrition, and meeting the national commitment to make the country open-defecation free by 2019, to help us reach the goal.

India’s under-five mortality rate (U-5MR) dropped four points in a single year in 2016, to 39 deaths per 1,000 live births from 43 in 2015. Apart from being the sharpest fall in a year, the decline also brought down India’s U-5MR below the global average of 39.1, according to data released by the United Nations on Tuesday. With 26 million births each year, India has the world’s largest birth cohort, and the four-point reduction in Infant Mortality Rate has led to 120,000 lives saved in one year. Another first for India is that its proportion of child deaths equals its share of the global births, with India accounting for 18% of the total births and 18% of U-5MR deaths worldwide.

Just three years ago, more than one million children died before reaching their fifth birthday from preventable and treatable causes, such as preterm birth complications, acute respiratory infections such as pneumonia, intrapartum-related complications, congenital anomalies and diarrhoea. Neonatal deaths, or newborn deaths within 28 days of birth, because of pregnancy-related complications, accounted for 53% of all under-five deaths in 2016. Many of these newborns and children could have been saved by increasing institutional deliveries, postnatal follow-ups, improving mother and child nutrition, and providing water, sanitation and immunisations. Only one in five new mothers in India get the full antenatal care, shows National Family Health Survey 2016.

The sharp decadal increase in institutional deliveries in public and private hospitals, up from 38.7% in 2006 to 78.9% in 2016, has lowered birth-related complications and helped India eliminate maternal and neonatal tetanus. But more needs to be done. It is imperative to widen the immunisation net so that all children are protected against vaccine-preventable diseases, such as diarrhoea and childhood pneumonia. Boosting breastfeeding is another low-resource method to heighten childhood immunity and lower risk of infections. Only 41.6% of children under the age of three were breastfed within one hour of birth in 2015, up from 23.4% in 2005.

Though there has been fourfold decline in the gender gap in survival of the girl child from 10% in 2012 to 2.5%, the bias against the girl child remains high in India. Globally, girl child survival rates are 11% higher than boys.

Further increasing institutional delivery, strengthening routine immunisation under Mission Indradhanush, scaling up of special newborn care units to treat malnourished and ill newborns, providing holistic nutrition under Poshan Abhiyan (national nutrition mission), and meeting the national commitment to make the country open-defecation free by 2019, will collectively help reach its Sustainable Development Target to bring down U-5MR below 25 by 2030.

Source: Hindustan Times, 19/09/2018

What Does Peace Mean?

Peace is not understood only in terms of avoiding war; peace is to establish an active culture of living in peace. Since ages, we have found excuses to fight. If we do not work for individual transformation, talking about world peace is just one more form of entertainment. Without attending to individual human beings, trying to bring about any kind of change in the world, always leads to more problems. If there are no peaceful human beings, there is no peaceful world. Today, the world’s focus is on economics. Since the planet’s resources are limited, and our lives are driven by the engine of economics, war is inevitable. Unless subtler aspects of life become important, peace remains a dream. Any destruction of life, beyond the need for one’s survival, is violence. Religion and quarrelling cannot go together. Somewhere, we have lost the basic sense of what religion is. True religion is an inward step. But, today, it has become only about belonging to this group or that group. This has only brought hatred, conflict and separation among people. What the world needs is not more religions or more followers, but people committed to becoming peaceful themselves. If people just learnt how to be absolutely still with great intensity, you would see all violence simply evaporate from the planet. It is not slogans and statements that will bring peace to the world, but a lifelong striving to produce peaceful human beings. Peace is not in terms of just avoiding war, but establishing an active culture of living in peace in the world.

Source: Economic Times, 21/09/2018

Dismantling the public university

The debate on privatising higher education must be founded on the role of such institutions in developing a democratic and inclusive society.

Motihari University, Manipur University, Hyderabad Central University, Jawaharlal Nehru University — these names have become shorthand for a set of problems that get framed differently depending on who does the analysis. The list of campuses of public-funded higher education institutions where anger is simmering or has flared up is too long to be recounted here. But we would err if we failed to mention Allahabad University, Banaras Hindu University, Aligarh Muslim University, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and the Film and Television Institute of India. The latest entrant to this list is Hidayatullah National Law University.

No matter which side of the debate one is on, it would be hard to deny that this is a list of the best public higher education institutions of India. The recent story of each of these institutions has some common tropes — hostile vice-chancellors who also tend to be underqualified, narratives of sexism and sexual harassment, labelling of students from minorities and vulnerable sections as seditious, violence against dissenting students and teachers, subverting of statutory bodies and processes, and victimising teachers and bringing in expensive technocratic fixes for non-existent problems. Throw into this mix two prominent TV news channels beating their chests about tax payers’ money and lazy/dangerous teachers and students, the situation becomes a flashpoint. Enter a student-wing of a cultural organisation as the source of ignition and you get the picture.

This is a picture of problems public university campuses in India are fraught with. They arise from an attempt to reformulate education as a marketable service that people should have to buy, and from the idea of students pursuing higher education are a drain on public funds (“tax payers money”). It also helps that, in the same breath, any criticism of the government and its policies is dubbed anti-national.

The need then is to place the debate on public-funded universities in India in the context of the role of higher education in developing a democratic and inclusive society.

Through a concerted and violent suppression of dissent on various university campuses, the stage is being set to knock down two well-established principles. One, that public funding of higher education is the only way to ensure that students from all kinds of socio-economic background can access it. And second, that if higher education is to be seen as a means of fostering a democratic, equitable society it must be governed through democratic decision-making with the inclusion of all stakeholders in universities.

Since it is difficult for any government or university administration to clearly say that they will be undermining public funded institutions in ways that private players have a field day, terms such as “autonomy” and “institutions of eminence” are being used as a façade behind which the commercialisation of higher education can take place. A bevy of pliant and willing vice-chancellors in central universities have been functioning along these lines, aided and abetted by well-timed and precisely aimed salvos from the UGC and the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development. The way these were misread and wrongly interpreted was breathtaking but more shocking are the ends that are achieved by a string of illegalities committed by the VCs and their administrations — subverting the law of the land on reservations for SC/ST/OBC/PH persons in institution of higher education, scuttling decades of progress on gender justice, and undermining the academic freedom and autonomy.

The process has already been set in motion when, recently, the MHRD Ministry granted “graded autonomy” to universities across India. Each university in India is formed through an act of the Parliament and is meant to be an autonomous entity. To grant autonomy, then, to institutions that are inherently autonomous is a strange move and must be scrutinised. What does this autonomy entail?

In the universities anointed “autonomous” the VCs are essentially getting a free hand to run the university. Lack of public funding would not only deal a death blow to the research, writing and publication by the faculty — which ironically is what drives rankings of universities, among other things. It will also reduce access for students from the marginalised sections of society to higher education. It would also mean that nearly no students from SC/ST/OBC/PH categories will be able to enter the institutions. Nearly all students who do get to pursue higher education will either be from rich families or will have to incur debilitating education loans.

The Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) proposes to fund civil and laboratory infrastructure projects in universities through 10-year loans. Access to loans will be regulated by asking universities to escrow their existing funds to HEFA. The universities will have to raise their own funds through fees and research earnings to pay the loans back. Universities will be turned into corporate entities, entangled in a web of real-estate and finance dealings.

While many have rightly argued that the building blocks of this fatal aspiration for grandiosity were put into place by the previous UPA governments, it is important to pay attention to how this NDA government has chosen to lay these bricks — or rather bring the house down. The Sam Pitroda-led Knowledge Commission argued unambiguously for increasing government spending, going so far as to peg an actual figure — 1.5 per cent of the GDP exclusively for higher education out of the 6 percent of the GDP that the Commission wanted spent on education. Although the Commission did argue that since even this will not suffice for a “massive expansion of higher education”, sources of financing higher education may be “diversified” to “complement the increase in public expenditure”. The argument for enhanced funding from both public and private sources came with carefully-crafted caveats related to the protection of students from deprived sections and arguments urging caution against cutting back UGC funding for universities that might manage to raise funds from other sources such as corporate philanthropy.

Higher education in India is already privatised to a great extent with the number of private colleges and universities growing by leaps and bounds every year. Most of this “growth” is in the so-called marketable courses. These are failing spectacularly in meeting the needs for knowledge creation. Those who advance the “privatise for efficiency” argument could perhaps ignore this reasoning. But it is amazing how they can turn a blind eye to the reports of thousands of seats in these institutions for which there are no takers. These issues have been flagged by the Yashpal Committee Report also.

The UGC was created through an act of the Parliament. While nobody can defend many of its past ills, it has to be underlined that the UGC’s grant-making function must not be put at the direct mercy of the party/politicians in power.

The humiliation of teachers and threat of physical attacks must be seen as attempts to break the spirit of those who are resisting and critiquing this cannibalisation of public institutions of higher education. Citizens — teachers, students and parents — must not fail to resist these sweeping changes that will transform the very character of public universities, one that fosters the spirit of academic excellence and upholds the principles of diversity and social justice.

Jha is professor, Department of Social Work, University of Delhi and an RJD Rajya Sabha MP. Jamil is assistant professor at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and joint secretary, JNU Teachers’ Association. 

Source: Indian Express, 19/09/2018