Followers

Thursday, August 27, 2020

Sustain the Naga peace talks

 The Indian State has a novel way of dealing with what seem to be intractable armed conflicts. Engage (with stakeholders, including rebels); assert (the State’s authority) and coerce; divide (especially rebel groups which are often prone to fragmentation); concede (but only partially, without compromising on core principles); and repeat the cycle. The template has been applied, with varying degrees of success, in different contexts. But broadly, it helps ensure peace without concessions, maintains the centrality of the State, and either weakens rebel groups or creates incentives for them to stay within the framework of a peace agreement.

The Naga peace talks between the Centre and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (I-M), which started in 1997, have followed a similar trajectory. Asia’s oldest insurgency, when talks began, appeared intractable — Naga groups were insistent on their distinct identity; they wanted a Greater Nagaland, which included Naga-speaking parts of other Indian states and Myanmar; they saw Nagaland as sovereign, with its own symbols. New Delhi was clear that neither would a Greater Nagaland be possible, nor would these groups be allowed to claim absolute sovereignty. But to keep the peace, the State often, rhetorically, accepted the distinct identity of Nagas; it informally allowed NSCN (I-M) to operate (including allowing it to function as a de facto parallel regime which had its own armed militia and collected tax); it also bridged differences and accepted the idea of “shared sovereignty”, a form of asymmetric federalism.

But there was no pact, and the perils of prolonged talks are now visible. RN Ravi, the key interlocutor for the Naga talks and now Nagaland’s governor, expressed the State’s exasperation at the operation of a parallel regime when he criticised “armed gangs”. NSCN(I-M), exasperated by the lack of a tangible solution despite a framework agreement signed in 2015, and annoyed at what it perceives as lack of respect, wants a new interlocutor and structure for talks. The geopolitical churn makes the situation more challenging — remember China has historically encouraged many armed insurgents in the Northeast, and given the current state of India-China ties, renewed Chinese support for those against the Indian State is quite possible. The Naga peace process is an achievement. It has kept the peace in a region troubled almost since Independence. New Delhi must sustain it and break the stalemate, by reviving talks and institutionalising an agreement. The old template must be tweaked to accommodate new realities.

Source: Hindustan Times, 26/08/20

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Quote of the Day:August 25, 2020

 



“He who has health has hope, and he who has hope has everything.”

‐ Arabian Proverb

“जिसके पास स्वास्थ्य है, उसके पास आशा है तथा जिसके पास आशा है, उसके पास सब कुछ है।”

‐ अरबी कहावत

Economic & Political Weekly: Table of Contents

 

Vol. 55, Issue No. 32-33, 08 Aug, 2020

Editorials

From the Editor's Desk

From 50 Years Ago

Alternative Standpoint

Commentary

Review Article

Perspectives

Insight

Special Articles

Discussion

Postscript

Current Statistics

Letters

Appointments/Programmes/Announcements

Engage Articles

What is Oxford university’s ChAdOx1 Covid-19 vaccine?

 

Oxford University Coronavirus (Covid-19) Vaccine: The Oxford shot is one of the front runners in the vaccine race and is already undergoing a combined Phase II/III trials in the UK, Brazil and South Africa.

Oxford Coronavirus (Covid-19) Vaccine: In a significant development, the Covid-19 vaccine jointly developed by British-Swedish company AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford has been found to be safe and induced an immune response in early-stage clinical trials. The AZD1222 vaccine, based on a chimpanzee adenovirus called ChAdOx1, elicited antibody and T-cell immune responses, according to results published in The Lancet medical journal on Monday.

The Oxford shot is one of the front runners in the vaccine race and is already undergoing a combined Phase II/III trials in the UK, Brazil and South Africa. AstraZeneca has signed deals to produce 400 million doses for the US and 100 million for the UK if it is successful in human trials.

According to the World Health Organization’s latest count, over two dozen experimental vaccines are being tested in humans and more than 160 are in earlier stages of development.

What is Oxford’s ChAdOx1 Covid-19 vaccine?

Oxford’s AZD1222 vaccine is made from a genetically engineered virus that causes the common cold in chimpanzees. However, the virus has been modified so that it doesn’t cause infection in people and also to mimic the coronavirus.

Scientists did this by transferring the genetic instructions of the coronavirus’ “spike protein” – the crucial tool it uses to invade human cells – to the vaccine. This was done so that the vaccine resembles the coronavirus and the immune system can learn how to attack it.

Earlier, the Oxford vaccine was tested on monkeys in a small study and had shown some promising results on them. Researchers involved with the ChAdOx1 vaccine trials said the candidate had shown signs of priming the rhesus macaque monkeys’ immune systems to fend off the deadly virus and showed no indications of adverse effects.

Moreover, research by Britain’s Pirbright Institute revealed that a study in pigs has found that two doses of the Oxford vaccine produced a greater antibody response than a single dose.

For phase I in April, 1,102 participants were recruited in multiple study sites in the UK. On May 22, Oxford announced that 1,000 immunisations “have been completed and follow-up is currently ongoing”.

Last month, Professor Adrian Hill, the director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, told a webinar of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology that the “best scenario” would see results from “clinical trials in August and September and deliveries from October”.

Source: Indian Express, 20/07/20

Why Sanskrit has strong links to European languages and what it learnt in India

Newer scholarship has shown that even though Sanskrit did indeed share a common ancestral homeland with European and Iranian languages, it had also borrowed quite a bit from pre-existing Indian languages in India.

In 1783, the colonial stage in Bengal saw the entrance of William Jones who was appointed judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William. In the next couple of years, Jones established himself as an authority on ancient Indian language and culture, a field of study that was hitherto untouched. His obsession with the linguistic past of the subcontinent, led him to propose that there existed an intimate relationship between Sanskrit and languages spoken in Europe.

Jones’ claim rested on the evidence of several Sanskrit words that had similarities with Greek and Latin. For instance, the Sanskrit word for ‘three’, that is ‘trayas’, is similar to the Latin ‘tres’ and the Greek ‘treis’. Similarly, the Sanskrit for ‘snake’, is ‘sarpa’, which shares a phonetic link with ‘serpens’ in Latin. As he studied the languages further, it became clearer that apart from Greek and Latin, Sanskrit words could be found in most other European languages. For instance, ‘mata’ or mother in Sanskrit, is ‘mutter’ in German. ‘Dan’ or ‘to give’ in Sanskrit is ‘donor’ in Spanish.

To Jones’ surprise, there were many such words which were clearly born out of the same root. The Sanskrit for ‘father’, ‘pitar’ for instance, has remarkable phonetic relations across European languages. It is ‘pater’ in Greek and Latin, ‘padre’ in Spanish, ‘pere’ in French, and ‘vader’ in German.

“Jones’ hypothesis was picked up enthusiastically by European linguists in the last decade of the 18th century. From then, till about the 1930s, linguist after linguist in Russia, Iran, India, and Europe actively sought out similar words, their interconnections and etymologies, compiled dictionaries and histories of grammar to see if Jones’ thesis could be endorsed or refuted,” says linguist G N Devy in a telephonic interview with Indianexpress.com.

English scholar Thomas Young coined the term, ‘Indo-European’ for this widely spread group of related languages. But where did these languages come from and how did they migrate over such a large expanse of geographical territory? The question of the ancestral homeland of the Indo-European languages has, for more than two centuries, intrigued scholars. The issue has also led to several upheavals in the modern world, and continues to shape theories of racial supremacy. Yet, newer scholarship has shown that even though Sanskrit did indeed share a common ancestral homeland with European and Iranian languages, it had also borrowed quite a bit from pre-existing Indian languages in India.

The great Indo-European migration

In the middle of the 19th century, linguistic scholarship entered a new phase wherein the Indo-European languages were assumed to be derived from a common ancestral language called ‘proto-Indo-European’ (PIE). The PIE was a theoretical construct, and we still do not know what this language was like or who precisely were its speakers.

With the advancement of linguistics and archaeology, by the middle of the 20th century, some theories were put forward to explain the spread of the Indo-European languages. First is the Kurgan hypothesis, formulated in the 1950s by a Lithuanian-American archaeologist, Marija Gimbutas. It claimed that in the fourth millennium BCE people living in the Pontic steppe, north of the Black sea, were most likely to be the speakers of PIE.

Anthropologist David Anthony, in his book ‘The horse, the wheel, the language’, claims the domestication of horses, and the invention of wheeled vehicles gave the speakers of PIE an advantage over other settled societies of Europe and Asia. “As the steppes dried and expanded, people tried to keep their animal herds fed by moving them frequently. They discovered that with a wagon you could keep moving indefinitely,” writes Anthony. “With a wagon full of tents and supplies, herders could take their herds out of the river and live for weeks or months out in the open steppes between the major rivers,” he adds.

Consequently, the Kurgan theory claimed that the PIE speakers expanded in several waves in the third millennium BCE. “They started moving because of their military superiority. Some of them came to India, some went to Iran and others to Europe. The branch that went to Iran became Indo-Iranian, and the one that came to India became Indo-Aryan,” says Devi.

Even though other theories have emerged that have suggested the homeland of the proto-Indo-European speakers in Armenian highlands and in Asia Minor, scholars have largely refuted these claims and the Pontic steppe continues to be the most widely accepted region from where the source of Sanskrit and European languages emerged.

It was this theory of Indo-European migration that became the basis of Adolf Hitler’s Aryan supremacy theory. In India, Hindutva ideologues have long held the view that the Indo-European language speakers or the Aryans spread out from the subcontinent elsewhere.

The multiple migrations to India

Even as Hindutva ideologues have remained resistant to the theory of Sanskrit being a product of migration, newer research from 2010, particularly those based on genetics, have further complicated the picture. These studies of ancient DNA have shown that the Indo-European migration was preceded by several other rounds of migration and the South Asian language and culture is a product of different kinds of external and internal influences.

In the hugely popular 2018 book Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From, journalist Tony Joseph claims there indeed was large-scale migration of Indo-European language speakers to South Asia in the second millenium BCE. However, he further goes on to explain that “population groups in India draw their genes from several migrations to India”. He writes: “There is no such thing as a ‘pure’ group, race or caste that has existed since ‘time immemorial’.”

Yet another book, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past’, written by American geneticist David Reich in 2018, reiterated how the modern man is a product of several rounds of mass migration. “The formation of South Asian populations parallels that of Europeans. In both cases, a mass migration of farmers from the Near East nine thousand years ago mixed with previously established hunter-gatherers, and a second migration from the European steppe after five thousand years ago brought a different kind of ancestry and probably Indo-European languages as well,” he writes.

Also read: ‘There are 600 potentially endangered languages in India… each dead language takes away a culture system’

“Sanskrit arrived in the subcontinent around 1800 BCE at a time when there were already pre-existing languages here. These pre-existing languages were fairly developed, capable of producing philosophy and poetry,” says Devy. Devy explains how ancient Sanskrit developed in India in collaboration with these pre-existing languages. A good example to mention here is the addition of the sound ‘ri’ to Sanskrit, that produces words such as ‘rishi’, ‘richa’ and ‘ritu’. “This sound is not present in Indo-Iranian languages. It is derived from the ancient mother of Assamese language that was already existing in India,” says Devy.

Yet another instance of Sanskrit borrowing from pre-existing languages in India is that of ‘sandhi’, or compound words. “Take the example of ‘nava’ and ‘uday’ it becomes ‘navyodaya’. This feature of compounding words, through which a phonetic change occurs in the original words, did not exist in the pre-Sanskrit version of Sanskrit. Neither will you see this feature in Greek, German or other European languages. Whether Sanskrit acquired it from an earlier version of Tamil or Pali is difficult to say. But it is clear that it did acquire this feature after coming to the Indian subcontinent,” explains Devy. He goes on to remark that these are gifts that pre-existing languages in India gave to Sanskrit.

Further reading:

Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins by Colin Renefrew

The horse, the wheel, the language by David Anthony

Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From by Tony Joseph

Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past by David Reich

 Source: Indian Express, 25/08/2020

Friday, June 26, 2020

Quote of the Day


“Honesty needs no disguise or ornament; be plain.”
‐ Oatway
“ईमानदारी के लिए किसी छद्म वेषभूषा अथवा साज श्रृंगार की आवश्यकता नहीं होती है; सादगी अपनाएं।”
‐ औटवे

Are Some IITs Over-Pampered and Underperforming


The fifth edition of the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) was released online June 11. This year, seven of the top 10 places have gone to the IITs. In all five instalments, the old and preeminent IITs have been at the top spots.
On June 14, I had pointed out that the NIRF methodology had an important flaw. It builds a single score from five categories: teaching, learning and resources (TLR), research and professional practices (RPC), graduation outcomes (GO), outreach and inclusivity (OI), and perception. These five broad heads are built up from various sub-heads, and a complex weighting and addition scheme is used to obtain the overall rating score, which can take a maximum value of 100. The institutions are finally rank-ordered based on these scores.
The flaw is that output and input scores are added to obtained the final score instead of being divided. Any performance analysis requires identifying an input score and a quality score based on the ratio of output (RPC and GO being appropriate proxies) to input (TLR). Instead, NIRF adds the inputs to the outputs, i.e. TLR, RPC and GO along with OI and perception, to get the final score. Note in addition that OI and perception relate neither to academic excellence nor research excellence, but these are added as well.
P. Sriram of IIT Madras recently pointed out in a personal communication that the NIRF uses performance parameters in several groups, including TLR, publications and graduation outcomes as reflecting “desirable” and “undesirable” traits, where the desirables get positive and high scores and undesirables get low scores. From this viewpoint, the TLR parameter receives a high score for a high faculty-student ratio, high spending on infrastructure, high PhD enrolment etc. NIRF adds up all the scores – but completely overlooks the systems’ paradigm. That is, from a systems viewpoint, the ‘best’ institute should be based on the ratio of outputs to inputs.
Now, nowhere in the NIRF portal can a measure be found for the size-dependent input nor a size-dependent proxy for the output, both vis-à-vis academic excellence. The systems approach allows one to compute quality as output score divided by input score. Professor Sriram suggested that capital expenditure can be a meaningful input measure, but a lot of experimenting showed that the major chunk of expenditure is committed to salaries of faculty members and non-teaching staff, and that it may be better to use ‘total expenditure’ as a proxy for the input.
Keeping this in mind, I computed the total expenditure (sum of capital and operating expenditures) as a proxy for input and the sum of RPC and GO scores as the output scores for the top 100 engineering institutes (in the current form of the NIRF rankings). Then the cost effectiveness of each institution becomes simply the ratio of output to input.
The table and figure below summarise what we found. IIT Indore and Jadavpur University stand out on this basis. Many National Institutes of Technology get into the top positions. And most of the preeminent IITs vanish from this list, as the law of diminishing returns comes to the fore. So perhaps we must ask if some of the IITs are over-pampered and underperforming.
Source: The Wire, 25/06/20