Radically reforming higher education

In spite of having immediate access to a large body of knowledge, Indians are largely consumers rather than producers of knowledge

The higher education sector in India cries out for reform. The public have flagged issues ranging from the politicisation of public institutions, a perceived lack of regulation of faculty and the desirability of creating knowledge as opposed to disseminating it. Some of these issues fall within the domain of governance; others under the ambit of regulation. As the institutions concerned vary in terms of scope and intent, it would make little sense to specify one governance structure and mechanism for all. However, there is only one regulatory body for India’s universities, the University Grants Commission (UGC). This makes it relevant to make proposals that can be implemented via this body.

Actually, a form of regulation of the faculty does exist: college lecturers are required to teach for around 16 hours a week. This must amount to at least three times the global average. It is anybody’s guess what the quality of these lectures is, given that young teachers have no time to prepare for them. Note that the suggestion of a cap on lecture hours is not motivated out of sympathy for lecturers as much as out of the concern that this mode of content delivery encourages passive attendance by students. To address this concern, tutorials should be instituted to complement lectures. This is not just to ensure that students have a second chance to comprehend difficult ideas, but to encourage them to actually communicate what they have learnt. Spoon-feeding spells the death of imagination, leaving young Indians far behind in the global race to creativity.

Faculty accountability

Much has been said about the lack of faculty accountability, especially in relation to high salaries following adoption of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. The surest way of inculcating it would be to institute student evaluation of courses. Globally, this practice is not only routine but its results are available in the public domain. There is no case for postponing its immediate implementation in India. It is important, however, that these evaluations are treated in the right spirit. They are not meant to control the lecturer as much as instil confidence in students. They are also meant to act as an incentive to better performance. Student evaluation of courses publicly displayed is the surest way of instilling accountability among faculty. It should also be taken into account when a lecturer comes up for promotion. All this would substantially take care of the problem flagged not only of teacher absenteeism but also of the poor quality of instruction. At the same time, once teachers have taught what was expected of them, made themselves available to meet students at pre-specified times, and participated in departmental duties, they must be left to their own devices. It is not clear what public interest is served by expecting lecturers to be present all day in buildings that have no individual offices, up-to-date libraries and computers or even decent toilets.

The purpose of a university is the creation of knowledge. As Indians are generally Anglophone, they have immediate access to a very large body of knowledge, which is not the case with those located in some other parts of the global south. However, in the republic of knowledge, we are largely consumers rather than producers. This is related to our approach to knowledge creation. A few years ago, the UGC instituted a form of research evaluation based on a points system. This approach to governing knowledge creation is subsumed under the metric Academic Performance Indicator (API), a quantitative summary of a lecturer’s output. Research itself is scored on the basis of a ranking of journals in which it is published. In practice, one of two approaches appears to have been followed. In one, the faculty adopts a scheme on its own. This runs the risk of majoritarianism or of compromise, neither of which are in public interest. A second approach is based on the ranking of journals according to their “impact factor.” Impact is calculated as the number of citations of articles in a journal in relation to the number of articles published in it. It was originally created as a tool to help librarians identify journals to purchase, not as a measure of the scientific quality of research in an article. In July 2013, a group of scientists and publishers issued a statement called the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). While identifying peer-reviewed papers as central to an evaluation of research output, they argued for eliminating the use of journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) in funding, appointment and promotion considerations. It was recommended that research ought to be assessed on its own merits rather than on the basis of the journal in which it was published. It is significant that among the original signatories of DORA was the American Association for the Advancement of Science. We need to heed this call. Quantitative scoring based on JIF may wear the garb of objectivity, and cardinality may even bring with it the comfort of transparency to some, but it cannot be a substitute for assessing knowledge creation. The long-standing practice in India had been to have research peer-reviewed and these reports considered by a committee of experts. There should be a return to this practice as it is superior to the points-based system which prejudges content and quality. Finally, in issuing a guideline for assessing research, the UGC must focus exclusively on the researcher’s contribution to knowledge and cease privileging “foreign” publications over “Indian” ones and “international” conferences over “national” ones.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, a recent experience is worth recounting. An internationally decorated Indian academic was recently invited by Delhi University to participate in a selection interview for lecturers. His heart sank as he observed the abilities of the first set of interviewees. However, as the day wore on, his spirits lifted, for the quality of candidates steadily improved, and a suitable candidate finally emerged. Upon enquiry, our academic was told that the candidates had been presented to the selection committee in descending order of their API! The nation looks to the UGC to address the pathetic state of its higher education sector.

An opportunity to seal a deal with Pakistan

Gradualism does not work because those who fear peace stymie it. The only way to defeat this easy subversion is to clear away the problems in one fell swoop

Prime Minister Narendra Modi thinks out of the box. He showed this in inviting his counterparts from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to his swearing-in. In his meetings with them, however, going by what was reported, he toed the standard line, which, on issues new to him, was both understandable and prudent. As he moves forward, though, he should review received wisdom on our neighbours, above all on Pakistan.

If the Foreign Secretaries meet only to talk about talks, they will simply mark time. We want satisfaction on terrorism before we talk on other issues, though Nawaz Sharif has made clear that Pakistan wants a dialogue that is comprehensive, even if not “composite”. There is a huge irony in this, because in the sincerest form of flattery, Pakistan has embraced our traditional position and we have appropriated theirs. For over two decades after 1971, we urged Pakistan to discuss all issues with us, while it refused without satisfaction on Kashmir. We argued that it was absurd to reduce relations between neighbours to a single issue, no matter how important, and took it as a triumph when Pakistan eventually agreed to what we dubbed the “composite dialogue”. Bizarrely, we have now disowned what we conceived and Pakistan has adopted the foundling, but as we reduce ourselves to a single issue — terrorism — we give Pakistan the excuse to revert to its own one-child policy — Kashmir.

Settlement on Kashmir

For over a decade now, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has used terrorism against India for two entirely different purposes.

The first is to derail any initiative that might lead to the peace that they dread; the attack on our Embassy in Kabul in 2008, on Mumbai later that year, on the Consulate in Herat before Mr. Sharif flew in for the inauguration, were all launched to make it hard for any Indian government to reach out to Pakistan.

The second is to derail India’s growth by targeting the cities and centres that fuel it because an economically strong India would be militarily more powerful, increasing the asymmetry with Pakistan.

Therefore, a settlement of Kashmir will not necessarily mean the end of terrorism. In fact, if Mr. Modi takes India back to pre-2009 rates of growth, terror, driven by envy, will return unless Pakistan’s civilian government gets and is given the strength to stop it. Nothing will boost its standing more than an honourable settlement on Kashmir. Such a settlement would bring the prolonged misery of the Kashmiris to an end, and is therefore as much in our interest. Assuming that it will take a couple of years for our growth to resume, there is a window of opportunity now to move forward. It is also a window that might close, for other reasons, around the same time.

From later this year, as the U.S. abandons Afghanistan, the Pakistan Army will use all its energies to get its proxies into Kabul. Over the next two years, hordes of young Pakistanis will be sent off to fight a jihad there. It is unlikely that the regime in Kabul can hold out after the last U.S. troops leave in 2016. From 2016, battle-hardened Pakistani jihadis will be in surplus to requirements in Afghanistan, and will start returning home, where neither the government nor the Army will want them, fearing that they will be the next targets. Their ISI handlers will have every incentive to send them eastwards, as they did after the Taliban takeover in the 1990s. Terrorism from Pakistan will spurt again, with the potential to disrupt relations, unless the two governments already have in place understandings that will give the government in Islamabad every incentive, and the leverage, to rein the ISI in.

We should therefore try to resolve problems now, starting with Kashmir, on which there is nothing left to negotiate. Over several years, very skilful interlocutors in the back channel have negotiated an agreement that represents the maximum that either country can concede.

Both Prime Ministers have inherited a draft which their opponents cannot object to or undermine. In Pakistan, Mr. Sharif can point out that the draft was negotiated entirely under the supervision of General Musharraf; the Corps Commanders and General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, then DG (ISI), were briefed on the broad outlines and concurred. Since the Pakistan Army claims to be the custodian of Pakistan’s security, this cannot be an agreement that in any way harms its interests.

Mr. Modi has the same safety net. This is a draft negotiated entirely by the last regime. Sanjaya Baru writes in his book that on the nuclear agreement, Dr .Manmohan Singh told former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee that he had simply completed what his predecessor had started. On Kashmir, Mr. Modi can say as much to Dr. Singh. The Congress can hardly disown its own Prime Minister’s handiwork, while other parties have no reason to be disruptive. A historic agreement can and should be sealed.

The Prime Minister will be counselled that it is best to move slowly, plucking the low-hanging fruit first. This is unwise. Gradualism does not work with Pakistan, because those who fear peace stymie it. Every tentative step will have a hurdle placed before it, usually of bodies killed by terrorists, and we will stop. The only way to defeat this easy subversion is to clear away the problems between us in one fell swoop. This means that we should settle Siachen and Sir Creek as well.

On both, settlements are feasible, and in our interest. On Siachen, our army now claims a strategic advantage in staying on the Saltoro Ridge, since it is a salient between Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the Shaksgam Valley, which Pakistan ceded to China.

In this day and age, there are enough means to monitor the large-scale movement of troops over difficult terrain which would be essential if Pakistan tried to reoccupy the glacier or the ridge.

Human, economic benefits

Sir Creek is even more easily settled, since we now have agreed maps, jointly drawn up. Political decisions are needed on the concessions each side is prepared to make on the final alignment, which will in turn determine the shape of the maritime boundary. Settling that would bring us two important benefits, one human, the other economic: firstly, our fishermen, all from Prime Minister Modi’s State, who stray over a notional boundary, would have a clear idea of what is off bounds; the numbers rotting away in Pakistani jails would plummet. The economic gain would be that with the maritime boundary settled, the claim we have lodged with the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf would be much more easily accepted. Pakistan does not have the financial or technological means to explore the shelf and the seabed, but we do.

Finalising India’s offers on Siachen and Sir Creek should be part of the agenda for the first 100 days that Prime Minister Modi has asked for. On Kashmir, it is entirely his call. If these three issues are resolved, as they can easily be, Pakistan will have no excuse to drag its feet on any other bilateral issue. The Pakistan Army’s refuseniks will still oppose peace, but will find it increasingly hard to get its citizens to believe that India is an enemy, against which terror can be let loose.

Melting glaciers, more rain to swell Himalayan rivers

Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween and Mekong rivers sustain agriculture and 1.3 billion people in a dozen countries

As the climate warms, increased melting of glaciers and more rain along the Himalayas is likely to enhance the flow of water into the big rivers that arise in this vast mountain range, according to research just published.

Researchers in The Netherlands and Nepal used high-resolution modelling to study how a warmer climate would affect run-off in the Himalayas into the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween and Mekong rivers in the coming decades. These five rivers sustain agriculture and 1.3 billion people in a dozen countries.

There would be increased run-off into the five rivers at least until 2050, Arthur F. Lutz and his colleagues noted in a paper carried in Nature Climate Change.

As a result of rising temperature, “a decrease in glacier extent is projected for all basins.” However, the decrease in glacier area would be compensated by a higher rate of melting. Consequently, the contribution from melting glaciers to the five rivers would not change much till 2050, they noted.

“If glaciers continue to retreat, at some point in time there will be a net decrease in melt water,” remarked Mr. Lutz in a press release issued by the Utrecht University in The Netherlands.

The Indus, however, was likely to see increased run-off from accelerated melting of glaciers in the period up to 2050, according to the paper.

In the case of the other four rivers, it would be more rain along the Himalayas that swell their flow. The upper Ganges basin could see its yearly run-off growing by up to 27 per cent. In the press release from Utrecht University, the scientists emphasised that their projections were only until 2050.

New realities in the world order

While Narendra Modi’s immediate task will be to focus on bailing India out of its current economic crisis, it would be a mistake to ignore the massive shifts the world has undergone while India was caught up in election fever

Sometime in 2005, goes the story at the Indian Embassy in Beijing, the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi got in touch as he wanted to visit China and study business and investment opportunities. The Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi was cold to the idea, given the taint of the Gujarat riots of 2002, while the Embassy was unsure of what kind of protocol Mr. Modi could receive as no dignitary was available to meet him.

Mr. Modi’s reply startled them as he said his was a “study tour,” and if they wished to, they could treat it as a personal visit. Officials describe how Mr. Modi arrived a few months later, on his own, armed with only a notebook and pen. Gujarati businessmen helped open a few doors for him, but for the most part Mr. Modi travelled to state capitals and economic zones like Shenzhen, taking furious notes. At the end of his visit, Mr. Modi said that he had been struck by three things — the importance of economic diplomacy, the marvel of urban planning (his plan for the Sabarmati riverfront possibly came from here), and the fact that China was hampered most by the lack of spoken English in the country.

Driven by trade

Each of these impressions has had lasting impact on Mr. Modi, who made four official visits after the first one to China, and was even received in the Great Hall of the People in 2011. He has made it clear that his foreign policy will be driven by trade and boosting investment in India. Mr. Modi’s ideas include getting Indian States to drive investment by engaging with foreign countries directly (à la ‘Vibrant Gujarat’), having an economic officer in every Indian embassy (a hint that non-service officers and businessmen will be enlisted for the job), and a key goal, according to reports from his team, of raising India’s ranking in the World Bank’s “Ease of doing business” index from the current 134 to less than 100.

Global power structures

As Chief Minister, Mr. Modi was able to keep the focus on business in bilateral ties. In the midst of the border row with Chinese troops and the anger over stapled visas for example, he paid a visit to Beijing and Shanghai, to speak of R&D investment from Huawei and a deep sea port for Gujarat. Despite tensions at the Line of Control in July 2013, Mr. Modi had an official delegation from Pakistan to discuss solar energy projects. On visits abroad too, he has confined himself to countries where business opportunities are most viable — China, Japan, Israel, Singapore and Australia. But for America’s visa ban, the United States would undoubtedly have been high on that list. The new External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, has certainly taken the same cues from here. As she kicks off her bilateral meetings with a visit from Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi this weekend, she has yet to confirm whether she will give any time to the U.S. Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, Nisha Desai Biswal, at the same time.

However, while Mr. Modi’s task will be to focus on bailing India out of its current economic crisis, it would be a mistake to ignore the massive shifts the world has undergone while India was caught up in election fever — to begin with, the situation in Ukraine, a lightning rod for what is now called “Cold War 2.0” between the U.S. and Russia. While the unrest in the country may ease up after the presidential elections, and the impending withdrawal of Russian troops from the Ukraine border, there are even more far-reaching consequences for the new Indian administration to study. Russia’s annexation of Crimea has not only changed the map in the most dramatic way possible, but has also changed power structures in the world, with Russian President Vladimir Putin gaining the upper hand. In their campaign against Russia at the U.N., U.S. and European Union officials have warned that Mr. Putin’s actions hold a dangerous precedent for India too, especially when it comes to possible designs by China on parts of Arunachal Pradesh. Conversely, the actions of western diplomats and U.S. non-governmental organisations in Ukraine, who openly supported anti-Russian protesters to oust their government while attempting to pull Ukraine into the EU, is also a dangerous precedent for the world. Mr. Modi will face his first look at all these new realities in mid-July, when he meets Mr. Putin at the BRICS summit in Brazil, and when the world, especially the U.S. and EU countries, will be watching his statements.

BRICS Summit

The BRICS summit will also be an occasion for Mr. Modi to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, and set the course for India-China ties. Chinese think tanks and newspapers have hailed Mr. Modi’s electoral victory, and chosen to downplay his campaign speech on China’s “expansionist mindset.” Yet, China’s actions in the South China Sea in the past few months will be, like Crimea, another talking point in Brazil. The latest stand-off has been sparked by China building an oil rig in waters that Vietnam lays claim to. Tensions have also been building with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam over China’s increasing claims on airspace and maritime boundaries in the region. For its part, India has resisted joining the argument. But once again, the world will be scrutinising the interactions between Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi, more so Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo¯ Abe, who has welcomed Mr. Modi to Japan in the past and made glowing references to him in the just concluded “Shangri-La” Dialogue conducted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in Singapore. When Mr. Abe won his 2012 election, Mr. Modi was one of the first to congratulate him. Mr. Abe even follows Mr. Modi on Twitter (significant because Mr. Abe only follows three accounts). The two leaders spoke for 15 minutes when Mr. Abe called to return the greetings on Mr. Modi’s win. It will be important to see how he balances Japan’s concerns with his own old relationship with the Chinese leadership.

Perhaps the most significant discussion at the BRICS summit, however, will be over West Asia, and nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia) that hope to reach some conclusion in July. If the talks succeed, it could rewrite history, given the far-reaching consequences on the oil economy, nuclear energy and Arab-Persian rivalry in a region that houses and employs six million Indians. The talks so far have been ignored in the din of the election, but repercussions, including the anger of U.S. allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will have an impact on South Asia as well.

Finally, there are all the significant developments in India’s neighbourhood — Afghanistan’s historic elections that will possibly confirm front runner Dr. Abdullah Abdullah’s victory in June; Pakistan’s talks with the Taliban, and the rise in attacks on the media.

Inviting all South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) leaders to Mr. Modi’s swearing-in is certainly a nice touch to start with, and hopefully heralds India’s re-engagement with a world it has effectively shut out during nine months of what has perhaps been its longest campaign. For Mr. Modi, unlike his experience of 2005, the welcome mat is no longer a problem, but the new Indian Prime Minister may want to keep that notebook and pen handy as he sets out to deal with new realities in the world order.

India Ranks Second in Global Textiles Exports

India has improved its ranking as per the recent data released by ‘UN Comtrade’ in Global Textiles as well as Apparel Exports. In Global Textiles Exports, India now stands at second position beating its competitors like Italy, Germany and Bangladesh, with China still retaining its top position.

Mr. Virender Uppal, Chairman, AEPC, expressed his happiness over this impressive growth and stated that, “Despite having slow recovery in USA and EU, our biggest traditional markets as well as prevailing global slowdown coupled with sustained cost of inflationary inputs, we made the best possible efforts to reach here. The Government policy of diversification of market and product base has helped us and we ventured into the newer markets, which paid huge dividends. We also leveraged our raw material strengths and followed sustained better compliance practices which attracted the buyers and international brands across globe to source from India.”

India’s share in Global Textiles has increased by 17.5% in the year 2013 compared to the previous year. Currently India’s textiles exports to the world is US$ 40.2 billion. This growth is phenomenal as the global textiles growth rate is only 4.7% compared to India as it has registered the growth of 23% beating China and Bangladesh which has registered 11.4% and 15.4%, respectively.

Total global textiles exports is to the tune of US$ 772 billion with India commanding 5.2% of the share. This growth in the increase in share of the Textiles Exports from India is largely attributed to the growth in the Apparel and Clothing sector as it accounts for the almost 43% of the share alone. The Apparel Exports ranking has also improved from 8th position in 2012 to 6th position in 2013. India’s apparel exports, was to the tune of US$ 15.7 billion in 2013, as against US$ 12.9 billion in 2012. Among the top five global clothing suppliers except for the Vietnam; India’s Apparel Exports growth was highest registering 21.8% growth during the year 2013. Apparel exports from India accounts for 3.7% of share in the global readymade garment exports.

Mr. Uppal, while lauding the efforts of the apparel exporters, conveyed his concerns also that while Industry is actually itching to do more, stressed that, “The availability of specialty fabric is a big bottleneck for which AEPC has been aggressively demanding 5% duty scrip for the imports of fabrics. It must be considered favorably by the new Government to boost India’s apparel exports. Garment exporters may be permitted to import it with 5% duty scrip on the input, so as to increase exports and optimally use to the fullest extent our potential. The rising interest rate is another issue which hampers growth for which AEPC once again has put in its request to the Government for a Separate chapter for pre and post shipment export credit at fixed rate of 7.0% interest, as was done in the past also to the apparel export sector and treat Readymade Garment as the priority sector lending. As the Government is contemplating new Union Budget and Foreign Trade policy, I earnestly request Government to concede these two demands of RMG sector utmost priority.”

Increasing labour cost in China, non-compliance of large number of factories in Bangladesh provide India a big opportunity in view of its relative advantage, risk appetite of Indian entrepreneurs and a small push from the Government may help India to get more business as overseas buyers are looking at India as safe and reliable option for the sourcing. But to capture the space in market left by China and Bangladesh, we have to be competitive in pricing, apart from meeting strict timelines, better quality delivery by Indian exporters and therefore, Government agencies active support is very crucial. AEPC is pushing in this direction to seek export friendly enabling environment from the Government, Mr. Uppal added.

Greenhouse catastrophe

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1869.

If one believes that science is an orderly march to the truth, he will be surprised at how sharp the disagreements are. The consensus of scientists is a very weird thing. The issue of global warming from greenhouse gases (GHGs) ~ carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, water vapour and nitrous oxide ~- is a case in point.

For years scientists have debated the issue of global warming. The climate sceptics are of the opinion that the atmosphere, ever in quest of stability, triggers its own natural immunity by activating the buffer mechanism (negative feedback process) that serves as a thermostat to maintain a temperature level. As the earth’s temperature rises, more and more water vapour loads the atmosphere which, in turn, may lead to forming more clouds. But clouds warmed by GHGs will produce rain more efficiently than cooler clouds, and thus both the humidity and the greenhouse warming will get reduced. It has also been claimed that the earth’s climate system is so resilient that it can, in any event, absorb unlimited quantities of GHGs without any harmful consequences. To them the term ‘Greenhouse effect’ is a total misnomer. There are more than 100 other misleading, peripheral, irrelevant, false, and unscientific arguments that are pushed relentlessly in the media by climate sceptics.

Warming of the climate system seems to be self-evident. Many of the extreme weather disasters that have claimed so many lives and caused so much suffering are now directly linked to global warming. “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, according to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consensus document produced by over 2,000 scientists representing every country in the United Nations. The earth’s surface over each of the last three decades has been warmer than any preceding decade since 1850, and has warmed by 0.85 degree Celsius on an average since the pre-industry era. The five hottest years in the entire 20th century occurred in the decade of the 1980s. The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest on record, the UN’s World Metrological Organisation (WMO) noted. Significantly, some regions, like the Arctic and the Himalayas, are warming much faster than this average and the temperature rise has reversed, indicating a downward trend in the earth’s average temperature.

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) has also warned of the possible impacts of the overwhelming global warming ~ all countries and all social classes will be affected by changes which are likely to be “severe, pervasive and irreversible.”

The devastating effects of global warming are already palpable. Cold days, cold nights, and frost have become less frequent, while heat waves are more common. Globally, precipitation has increased even as Australia, Central Asia, the Mediterranean basin, the Sahel, the western part of the USA, and many other regions have seen more frequent and more intense drought. Heavy rainfall and floods have become more common, and the damage caused by storms and tropical cyclones have increased. During a one-century time scale, the human-induced climate change has been occurring so fast that it gives society and the ecosystem little time to adapt to the rapid speed. According to a study by Princeton University researchers, global warming is facilitating the spread of bacteria, viruses, and fungi that cause human diseases into areas that were formerly hostile to them. Crop diseases and pests are increasing with global warming. Water resources, already under stress, are likely to come under even greater stress. The impact of global warming through diseased agricultural yields, floods, drought and desertification will be felt more intensively mostly in the tropical zones. Animal species face an increased risk of extinction. The best estimates of species losses suggest that around 10 per cent of species will be condemned to extinction for each 10° C temperature rise, with even greater numbers at risk for significant decline.

Throughout the history of urban civilisation, the seas have been slowly and gently rising, as the warmer temperatures of the interglacial period have caused the thermal expansion of ocean water and the melting of terrestrial ice. The rise in the sea-level, witnessed in the 20th century, seemed largely to be linear ~ about one-third of its rise came from thermal expansion ~ from the fact that water increases in volume as it warms. Indeed, during the last half century, global warming has accelerated the melting of ice almost everywhere on the planet. So far it has been mostly mountain glaciers, but the major concern for the future is the giant ice-sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Climate scientists now estimate that Greenland and Antarctica combined have lost on an average about 50 cubic miles of ice each year since 1992 ~ roughly 200 billion metric tons of ice annually. The main sources of the rise in the sea level in the 21st century will be the melting of ice-sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, a non-linear process. Since 1900, the global sea-level has risen about eight inches. It is now rising at about an eighth of an inch a year. If the accelerated melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice-sheets continues, by the end of the 21st century the sea-level rise would be as much as six feet globally. In case the massive Thwaites Glacier in western Antarctica breaks free from its rocky berth, the sea-level will rise by three meters ~ nearly ten feet.

Using a conservative prediction of a half-meter rise in the sea-level, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that by 2070, as many as 150 million people in the world’s large port cities will face the risk of coastal flooding. A recent study states that the water-level in the Sundarbans has been rising at the rate of 3.14 mm per year. “Climate refugees” from coastal areas of Bangladesh have already crowded into the city of Dhaka.

Agricultural areas in low-lying coastal regions are already suffering from the intrusion of sea-water into their freshwater aquifers caused by sea-level-rise. More than 30 percent of CO2 emissions end up in the oceans, turning them gradually more acidic. The resultant acidification seems to impact many forms of sea organisms, especially those whose shells or skeletons are made from calcium carbonate like corals and shell fish. It also interferes with the reproduction of the plankton species which are a vital part of the food web under the sea. Acidity of sea water has also resulted in coral bleaching by expulsion of symbiotic algae. The ocean acidification has been dubbed as the ‘Evil Twin’ of climate change. Even if we stop emissions now, ocean acidification will persist for thousands of years.
The message of the IPCC and climate scientists is crucial and unambiguous. Today’s fossil-fuel-driven civilisation is altering the planet profoundly through changes in the earth’s climate and ocean chemistry. The protracted climate change negotiations are going nowhere with nations entangled in a ‘prisoners’ dilemma. One country suspects the motives of the other; they agree to take measures only if others do so. A worldwide consensus is urgently required to soften the impact of greenhouse gases. Edmund Burke had once remarked: “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

ख़्वाहिशों से नहीं गिरते महज़ फूल झोली में,
कर्म की शाख को हिलाना होगा
न होगा कुछ कोसने से अंधेरें को,
अपने हिस्से का दीया खुद ही जलाना होगा