Sunday, December 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Fast Development of Haryana?
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
FAST DEVOLOPMENT OF HARYANA?
Those who have watched Haryana’s fast march towards industrialization are full of admiration of Haryana. It has about 1346 large medium industries,and 80,0000 small scale industries. It has about 1000/- projects with foreign technical/financial collaboration. The new industrial policy is being implemented with all earnestness since June 2005. The optimism that this small state with not many natural recourses and away from the sea posts is impressing vast sections very fast. Haryana has followed the national resolve “to support private efforts by further liberalizing and focusing investments in infrastructures and promotion of new technologies for sustained growth “The State Government is equally determined to build strong agriculture and social sectors in order to sustain the high economic growth of over 11 percent. It is keen to spread the benefits of this fast industrial growth to all segments of society. In the next 10 year an investment of Rs. 2 lakh crore is expected which would generate employment avenues for ten lakh youth. . It is observed that to beat the agrarian crises that is casting dark shadows, indusrialization and development of related service sector is the only answer. Really it is so? Big question. On the other side the state is faced with the devil of recession. The industrialists in Gurgaon,
With in this paradigm how the speed of 11 percent industrial growth will be sustained? Moreover, the Haryana is agriculture based Almost 70% people of Haryana are dependant over agriculture. How the industrialization and urbanisation will be able to absorb the displacement of people from agriculture?. In
Monday, January 5, 2009
Poznan Climate Conference: Half Way To Nowhere
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
Poznan Climate Conference: Half Way To Nowhere
Raghu
THE post-Kyoto Protocol phase, or “second commitment period” of the global treaty on climate change which is to take effect from 2012 onwards, is scheduled to be finalised at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15) at Copenhagen in December 2009. The “first commitment period” till 2012 required developed countries to reduce their emissions by around 5 per cent which, with a few honourable exceptions, they have failed to do. Carbon dioxide emissions, which were increasing by about 1 per cent annually in the 1990s have been increasing by 3 per cent annually in the past decade, and scientific opinion is coming around to accept that the rise in average global temperatures over the next couple of decades will be higher than the 2 degrees Celsius earlier predicted, with dire consequences.
The rapid worsening of the situation, as brought out by the 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in mid-2008, had made it abundantly clear that far more stringent and urgent measures are now required. The Bali Conference had therefore agreed that a new agreement should be reached by end-2009 comprising two broad elements, namely, an enlarged Kyoto-style deal under which industrialised nations would commit to deep emissions reductions in the medium term by say 2020, and a longer-term agreement involving all countries.
COP 14 held in the Polish city of Poznan on December 1-13, 2008 was to mark the half-way point in the two-year process that was decided upon at the Bali Conference last year to reach a new global arrangement.
On the face of it, not much should have been expected from the Poznan meeting which, according to its formal agenda, was supposed only to have taken stock of the different proposals floating around and the modalities and scheduling of how these would be discussed prior to Copenhagen. COP 14 at Poznan dutifully agreed on what is at hand, and how and when to discuss it, and in that sense achieved its formal and very modest task. However, given the gravity of the climate crisis and the pressing need for serious action by the advanced capitalist countries chiefly responsible, it is deeply disturbing that the Poznan Conference did nothing further in pursuit of this goal. In fact, the tone of the deliberations, and the suggestions made by several of the key players, were even more distressing and indicate that the road to Copenhagen will be very rough. The future of the planet looks bleak indeed.
Impact of Economic Crisis
A part of the problem, but only a part, is that the global economic meltdown has grabbed all the attention of decision-makers especially in the advanced countries which, again, precipitated the crisis. How seriously this impacted on the Poznan Conference can be gauged by the fact that member countries of the European Union, hitherto the leading voices favouring major emissions reductions by industrialised countries, were simultaneously holding their own conference in Brussels on the economic crisis and also discussing their energy and environmental policies in that context.
The EU had already been coming under pressure from its new East European members such as Poland who were protesting against the EU’s push for deep emissions cuts on grounds that they could ill afford the supposedly high costs. The slowing down of the European economy, with even leading light Germany slipping into recession, had added to these pressures. Ideological divides in Europe on how to deal with the economic crisis, with Germany attacking the tax-and-spend approach advocated by the UK also spilled over to the climate problem. With one in seven German jobs linked to the automobile industry now facing sharp drop in demand, even “green” Germany turned protectionist. Agreeing to demands from by far the biggest auto industry in Europe to ease up on tight emission control norms, Chancellor Merkel said she would oppose any measure that would cost German jobs!
This trend is doubly dangerous. Reduced economic activity may temporarily lead to lower emissions and a consequent relaxing of checks but, on the other side of the recession, would have a disastrous upward bounce of emissions and greater resistance to emissions controls. This has been clearly evidenced in Russia which saw a sharp economic downturn and drop in emissions after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now, with increasing emissions due to the renewed spurt in economic growth, there is great reluctance to impose restrictions, with Russia declaring at Poznan that the IPCC’s target of 25-40 per cent emissions reductions by 2020 as “unfounded”.
UN secretary general Ban-Ki Moon’s calls for a “green New Deal” which echoes US president-elect Barrack Obama’s thinking that a shift to alternative energy and energy-saving technologies will provide a badly needed spur to the economy, boost infrastructure and upgrade technology found no takers at Poznan.
EU backtracks ON COMMITMENTS
EU discussions at Brussels continued till December 12, the very eve of the closing plenary at Poznan, and it became clear that the EU was watering down its previous commitments to urgently tackle climate change through deep cuts in emissions. The final declaration from Brussels proclaimed a target of a mere 20 per cent reduction in EU emissions by 2020! The Brussels meeting agreed to a so-called “20-20-20” plan under which greenhouse gases would be cut back by 20 per cent and 20 per cent of energy generated in the EU would be from wind, solar and other renewable sources by 2020. But there were huge concessions to eastern European countries and to heavy industry. The EU also raised the amount of emissions member countries could offset by sponsoring “green” projects in developing countries. Leading environmental scientists have estimated that actual emissions reductions would come down from 20 to a mere 4 per cent!
A far cry from the 50 per cent pushed for by the EU at recent G8 Summit and even at Bali, and much lower that even the 40 per cent recommended for advanced countries by the IPCC. The UK remains committed to its self-declared legislated and justiciable target of reducing emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050. EU leadership on climate change has now been severely dented.
The internal bickering among EU states at Brussels severely affected the mood at Poznan and diluted the requisite push for stringent emissions controls. The president of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, pleaded with the Europeans: “If Europe sends a signal that it can make deep cuts only in prosperous times, what signal does this send to India and China?” Clearly, as another observer pointed out, if climate protection is equated with loss of affluence, the chances of achieving an effective global climate protection agreement will decline.
Adaptation Fund
For the inveterate optimists, one could find a few silver linings among the massive and dark clouds of the Poznan discussions.
The Adaptation Fund has been one of the many unfulfilled promises of developed countries under the climate treaty arrangements. Money for the Fund was supposed to come from a 2 per cent levy on carbon trading under the so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). But shamefully little money has been collected, and none disbursed, from out of the billions of dollars that have changed hands under CDM mostly among large corporates, and that too in a few countries dominated by not-so-poor China and India with no perceptible impact on reducing emissions. Although developing countries have pushed hard for better management of the Fund, the Bali Conference made the outrageous recommendation that this management should vest with the World Bank and IMF!
At Poznan, it was agreed that developing countries would have greater say and improved access to the Adaptation Fund. In theory, with this agreement, money should start flowing to poorer nations by next year but how this translates into practice remains to be seen. Again, in theory, about $80 million is due into the Fund from various transactions but the coffers are now empty till all the procedures are worked out. The British government found some half a million pounds with which to “launch” the Adaptation Fund to help developing countries cope with the impact of climate change, but the tokenism of the gesture is obvious when one compares it with the $86 billion per year that the IPCC estimates poorer countries will need!
Developing countries pushed at Poznan to expand the Fund by expanding the levy to cover various other kinds of carbon trading. If agreed, this proposal would have multiplied the Fund many fold, since volumes of carbon trading are hundreds of times greater than the relatively small dollar value of CDM projects. But the developed countries stiffly resisted these moves at Poznan. According to the UN’s chief climate official, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) executive secretary Yvo de Boer, western nations are using this as a negotiating card to use in the run-up to Copenhagen and had decided, in his words, that “politically this is not the time to do it.”
Whatever the outcome, the entire arrangement rests upon carbon trading, the scandalous system under which the global commons have been appropriated and commodified by the advanced capitalist countries. Unfortunately, carbon trading and offsets have come to stay, and be recognised as a key element of strategies to combat climate change, the principle itself having been reiterated at Bali. It is indeed ironic that so much trust continues to be placed in a brand new financial market when the entire capitalist financial system has broken down!
Deforestation
Another supposed “breakthrough” at Poznan was an agreement, following up on discussions at Bali, to include forest conservation in the new climate change agreement. It is estimated that as much as 20 per cent of total global emissions are due to deforestation, notably in the Amazon region and tropical forests in Africa and South East Asia. Yet the so-called REDD (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and forest degradation in Developing countries) has been highly controversial, with some radical activists arguing it commodifies forests and paves the way for commercialisation of forest lands, while several leading developing countries such as Brazil pushing for it.
The present agreement for offsets does not recognise or make any provisions for preserving standing forests. Thus, money can be earned or emissions offset by planting trees which, in theory, would absorb an equivalent quantity of carbon dioxide, but no resources are made available to preserve existing forests. Developing countries with large forest tracts have long argued, rightly, that regions such as Brazil’s Amazonian forests, which are a very important part of the global sink to absorb carbon dioxide, perform an important environmental service for the whole world but, while these countries are expected and exhorted to preserve these forests, they receive no compensation to enable them to do so.
The counter argument is that any offsets or monetary transactions will only encourage conversion of primary forests to large-scale plantations in the name of afforestation even though a group of trees does not make a forest which performs diverse ecological functions such as preserving bio-diversity. Further, discussions on REDD have avoided major issues such as industrial agriculture, illegal logging, forest clearing for bio-fuel or other commercial plantation etc which are the real drivers of deforestation in the globalised capitalist economy.
Additionally, the issue of rights and livelihoods of forest-dwelling communities especially indigenous peoples has also been avoided, under pressure from both corporate interests that want forests to be seen as resources for them to exploit, and governments wishing to assert their control over them.
Typically, a compromise text was agreed upon at Poznan that left everybody dissatisfied! The rights of indigenous peoples was specifically denied, especially due to last-minute US insistence and maneuvering to delete the word “rights” and the last “s” in “peoples” thus ensuring that no collective body could raise claims in future! The text instead recognised the “full and effective participation” of local communities, avoided the issue of biodiversity and did not discuss any disincentives against uprooting natural forests, replacing them with commercial plantations and displacing forest dwellers.
Straws in
the wind
There were some interesting portents at Poznan.
A position paper on behalf of the G77 group of developing countries (including India and China) focusing on transfer of clean technologies to developing countries was circulated making many familiar arguments. Discussions of nuances of the Paper should perhaps await another article.
What was more interesting was the declaration by Mexico that it would reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, the first such declaration by any developing country. And a group of developing countries and Small Island States who are in danger of disappearing under rising sea waters circulated a paper calling upon ALL countries, not just developed countries, to reduce emissions. China and India should take note!
And lastly, the one person many hope, or even expect, to make a huge positive contribution to efforts to combat the climate crisis, and who was the subject of much discussion on the sidelines, was not even present at Poznan: US president-elect barrack Obama. None of the leading lights of Obama’s transition team were at Poznan either. Of course, many people have been mesmerised by Obama’s high-sounding rhetoric during his presidential campaign, and even expect miracles of biblical proportions! Only time will tell what the next US administration will actually do.
LOK SABHA DEBATE ON TERRORISM
Saksar Sawasth Aur secular Haryana
LOK SABHA DEBATE ON TERRORISM
‘We Have To Protect Our Cultural Ethos, Secular Fabric.’
ONCE or twice every year since 2004, we have discussed in this house terror attacks, blasts, the consequent deaths etc, and have talked of the steps required to curb this menace. In the aftermath of the recent Mumbai attacks, some quarters have been propagating that the parliament, its members, politicians and political parties have not been doing anything while innocent people are being massacred. I am not defending anybody and we have to admit that there are certain weaknesses and shortcomings in our work, which must be overcome in order to effectively curb the menace. But we have also to increase our competency level, because those who are launching attacks against us are getting heavily armed, getting trained, planning attacks, while our security apparatus is proving inadequate at every juncture.
First of all I would welcome the statement the new home minister has made regarding the ministry’s responsibility. Whenever we discussed the issue in this house, the then home minister only replied that the issue was not addressed properly. I also welcome the spirit displayed by the leader of opposition after the new home minister’s statement in the house.
This is a big achievement of the debate here --- the message has gone out that we all are one. When this issue first discussed the issue on December 5, 2004, first time after the UPA government came to power, there was a lot of acrimony between various sides, and less important issues were also dragged in. But now everybody has condemned the Mumbai attacks in one voice, and this is welcome. Yet we have to raise certain questions to be able to diagnose the problem correctly, and not to justify somebody.
On behalf of my party, I take this opportunity to express our solidarity with the ATS and other security personnel, as well as civilians and foreigners, who have lost their lives in these attacks. We will always cherish the memory of the security personnel who courageously faced the terrorist bullets. We also extend our solidarity with the residents of Mumbai who were the targets of these attacks.
In the context of these attacks, I think the discussion has highlighted the need of streamlining our intelligence. The issue of coordination between various agencies, of coordination between military and civilian agencies, of inter-ministerial coordination has been raised and discussed several times, and it is still pending. We have also talked about how we can protect our three and a half thousand kilometres long coastline, and the issue is pending since 2003. For four years we have been telling the government that we have to assess the threat perception for the country, just as we do in case of the individuals, of politicians and other bigwigs. It is good that, for the first time, a home minister talked of the need to pay attention to maritime and coastline security, adding that otherwise all our joint exercises from Malacca to Suez would be in vain. But what took place during the days preceding the Mumbai attacks was that we were getting intelligence inputs regarding the possibility of an LeT attack and, yet, various agencies kept blaming one another for the lapses.
We also know that we have a Multi-Agency Coordination Committee but we have to see how it is working and how far it is effective. Intelligence does not mean hard facts only; we have to analyse the facts and we have to cross-examine the evidence to extract some actionable points. But we have not been properly using national security index. We are not worried about the rise and fall of this index in various parts of the country at various periods of time --- when it goes up in the North East, when in Kashmir, when in Mumbai or West Coast area, etc.
I do not want to blame everybody, but there should not be media trial either. For the last 10 to 12 years, we have been witnessing that on the very next day of an attack or explosion, some individuals are arrested, a press conference is held and claims are made that some gang or its hideout has been busted, so and so have been arrested and the commander-in-chief of such and such an outfit has been killed. It is a very big country, and it is not easy for a home ministry official or a state’s police commissioner to claim, on the very next day of an attack, that everything has been solved. It is only later that we find that much of the claim was hype.
This is a new trend being set up. Instead, in case of any attack, we must concentrate on collecting hard evidence and then ask the other country, whether it is Pakistan or any other country, to compel it to act. But this is what we are not doing. You have various security agencies, you have formed a National Security Council, you have created a secretariat, you appointed somebody your national security adviser, and yet you gave the marching order to your home minister only! Let me be more specific. Several times in the last four years, our national security adviser did talk of foreign policy and other issues, or briefed political parties, but spoke very little on the security issues. Then, why don’t we make him our foreign policy adviser? We need an establishment that may correctly advise and adequately assist the prime minister to make the country securer. Accountability of this establishment must also be established, otherwise it won’t be able to go very far.
This time, the attackers came via the sea route while the earlier ones came via the land route. There was Pakistani infiltration in Kargil and a committee was formed to establish accountability. Whenever there is what we call human failure, we punish some small guy. But no human face is seen when there is a systemic failure in our country, we never tell the parliament what steps we have taken to improve the system. Sometimes we form a body after an event takes place; later we form another body; a third after that, and so on. This soon involves a feudal mentality; every organisation creates a bamboo wall around itself, and thus there is no coordination between various organisations that we have created.
We have another issue here. After such attacks, we come to know from the government the attackers received training, arms, financial help and other things from Pakistan. Then the talk of a war starts. After the attack on December 13, 2001, the government of India embarked on the Operation Parakram, and we saw on TV the army units coming out of the Meerut Cant. They were seen being garlanded, and then they did go to the border. Underground mines were planted in the border areas and they created problems for the peasants there; some of them lost their own lives or their cattle, and had to be paid compensations. I am not a military strategist, but I feel it very odd that the media were taping everything when the military was continuing its operations. This time it is as if the media had declared a war --- we are going to fight a war; you come along! Though it is a matter of international relations, of relations between two countries, somebody suggested that we must start carpet-bombing in the other country’s area. Obviously, the fellow knew carpet and knew the bombing, but did not know what carpet-bombing is. It is good that we were not swayed by such irresponsible talks.
But if we have to fight terrorism, we cannot afford to view it from a religious angle, or from the angle of a caste, linguistic group, state or country. There is no doubt that the soil of Pakistan is being used to launch error attacks against India, and the Security Council resolution number 1373, passed soon after the 9/11, says that the country whose soil is being used for such an attack is bound to act against the culprits. Moreover, the Security Council has recently asked Pakistan to act against the terror network operating from its soil. So we are not asking for a new initiative.
Here I beg to differ from the leader of opposition who wonder why we should refer the issue to the Security Council. In his speech, he talked of Kashmir, Nehru, etc, and thus came to his party’s pet agenda. But I think the whole world is in favour of eradication of terrorism, only that this fight must not remain confined to paper. So the world community has to be activated and we cannot get anything if we put all our eggs in the American basket instead of getting the world community activated. We cannot afford to have Ms Condolizza Rice mediating between India and Pakistan; we have to tell the supreme multilateral agency, the United Nations, to act against a member country which is not acting in accordance with the Security Council resolutions on terrorism. At the same time, the people and politicians of Pakistan too have to understand that they cannot hope to be spared if the terror network grows and strengthens on its soil. A message must go to the peace-loving people of Pakistan that they need to compel their government to act.
Yet we cannot but remember that the menace is the brainchild of US imperialism, which, just as they do in case of businesses, outsourced terrorism to us, and now this has become a big headache for South Asia. We know that it was the US which created the terror network to get the PDPA government of Afghanistan dislodged and to fight the Soviet forces defending that country from imperialist machinations. Religion was misused for the purpose, the slogan of “Islam in danger” was given, President Najibullah was dragged from the UN security camp and hanged from a pole, and let’s not forget that several members of our parliament then applauded this hanging. We had then told that the Afghanistan affair would not remain confined to that country but spill over to Pakistan, and this has indeed spilled over. Indeed, the people of Pakistan are today paying the price for the role of their military rulers in this game.
The imperialist game has to be understood. At one time, they made the mujahideen cry “Islam in danger, today they are talking of danger in Islam,” of the so-called “clash of civilisations” which is a new element and has grown up un the last one decade or so. But if we allow the misuse of religion for political mobilisation, it cannot but extract its price.
As for us, we have to understand that prevention is always better than cure. Getting armed with more powers, with more weapons is not a true solution of the problem. Making the country a military state is no solution. Pakistan has been a military state for long, but it s not a secure state. Let’s not forget that we have not secured the people’s human rights or civil rights. Our concept of national security needs a review and revision. We have to secure our cultural ethos that spans over thousands of years. The problem with Pakistan was that it deviated from the basic values that constituted India. We cannot afford any such deviation. We have to protect and preserve our secular fabric, our secular institutions; only then would we be able to meet this challenge. The central government is talking of creating a National Investigative Agency, but it has to get the states onboard. We have to put aside the issues of conflict and take up such issues as may strengthen our unity. There undoubtedly exists a national consensus on the issue of eradication of terrorism, and we hope this would send a message to Pakistan and the whole world that we are dead serious about meeting this challenge head on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)