Statement by Nirmala Sitharaman in Lok Sabha Regarding "India's Stand in the WTO"

1. I am making this intervention in the House today in order to place before the Hon`ble Members the facts relating to the stand taken by India in the World Trade Organization (WTO) recently. 2. The Bali Ministerial Declaration was adopted on 7 December 2013 on conclusion of the Ninth Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Bali. Ministerial Decisions were adopted on ten issues relating to the Doha Development Agenda which is the agenda for the unfinished Doha Round of trade negotiations, underway in the WTO since 2001. 3. Amongst these Ministerial Decisions, two are of particular significance — the Ministerial Decision for an Agreement on Trade Facilitation and the Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes. 4. The Trade Facilitation Agreement is basically aimed at greater transparency and simplification of customs procedures, use of electronic payments and risk management techniques and faster clearances at ports. We have autonomously taken several similar measures such as the `Indian Customs Single Window Project` announced in the Budget 2014-15 to facilitate trade, under which importers and exporters will be able to lodge documents at a single point, reducing interface with Governmental agencies, dwell time and the cost of doing business. 5. The Protocol of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) was to be adopted by 31 July 2014 by the WTO. After this the Agreement would automatically come into force from 31 July 2015 if ratified by two-thirds of the members of the WTO. 6. In contrast to their efforts on Trade Facilitation in the WTO, some developed countries have been reluctant to engage on other issues. 7. Seeing the resistance to taking forward the other Decisions, the apprehension of developing countries was that once the process of bringing the Trade Facilitation Agreement into force was completed, other issues would be ignored, including the important issue of a permanent solution on subsidies on account of public stockholding for food security purposes. 8. India, therefore, took the stand that till there is an assurance of commitment to find a permanent solution on public stockholding and on all other Bali deliverables, including those for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it would be difficult to join the consensus on the Protocol of Amendment for the Trade Facilitation Agreement. 9. Without a permanent solution, public stockholding programmes in India and other developing countries will be hampered by the present ceiling on domestic support which is pegged at 10 per cent of the value of production and is wrongly considered as trade-distorting subsidy to farmers under existing WTO rules. The existence of such a subsidy element is determined by comparing present day administered prices with fixed reference prices of the 1986-88 period which is unrealistic. 10. The problem is a very real one. Developing countries are finding themselves hamstrung by the existing rules in running their food stockholding and domestic food aid programmes. The developed world too had market price support programmes and was able to move away from such support - though not fully even now - because of their deep pockets. This is not possible for developing countries. It is important for developing countries to be able to guarantee some minimum returns to their poor farmers so that they are able to produce enough for themselves and for domestic food security. 11. Developed countries continue to have large entitlements to provide support to farmers. These would have been cut in the Doha Development Round which unfortunately remains unfinished. Had this Round, which has development at its core, concluded as per the agreed timelines and its development agenda, the world would have had an outcome in a single undertaking in which competing interests could have been balanced. Today, developing countries are fighting to keep the negotiations focused on development against the single-minded mercantilist focus of most of the rich developed world on market access issues. 12. Overall balance is important even in a limited package of outcomes. The Bali outcomes were negotiated as a package and must be concluded as such. 13. It is regrettable indeed that today the WTO is unable to agree even to fast track negotiations on an issue of such importance to millions of subsistence farmers across the developing world, while the rich world can continue to subsidise their farmers unabatedly. 14. The matter came up for discussion in the margins of the BRICS Trade Ministers meeting in Brazil on 14 July and the G20 Trade Ministers meeting in Sydney on 19 July. It was also raised by the representatives of some countries in their interactions with the Indian government. On each occasion I explained that India is a signatory to the Bali Decisions, including Trade Facilitation and is not standing in the way of its implementation but is seeking an equal level of commitment and progress in working on the issue of public stockholding which affects the country`s livelihood and food security. A permanent solution on food security is a must for us and we cannot wait endlessly in a state of uncertainty while the WTO engages in an academic debate on the subject of food security which is what some developed countries seem to be suggesting before they are ready to engage on this important issue. 15. Food security is a humanitarian concern especially in these times of uncertainty and volatility. Issues of development and food security are critical to a vast swathe of humanity and cannot be sacrificed to mercantilist considerations. 16. Developing countries such as India must have the freedom to use food reserves to feed their poor without the threat of violating any international obligations. This is our sovereign right. It is our duty to protect our citizens` fundamental rights to life and livelihood. 17. Agriculture is the mainstay of the Indian population. In a country of the size of India with 60% of the population dependent on a relatively unremunerative agriculture sector, we cannot give up administered prices. This is the only way we can procure food for the Public Distribution System (PDS), the central pillar on which our efforts to ensure food security, rest. Public stockholding is a widely used means to ensure food security in many developing countries where agriculture is largely rainfed. 18. We have to look after both consumer and producer interests. We have to enable our people to live a life of dignity by ensuring access to an adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices. 19. On 25 July 2014, India made a statement in the WTO General Council conveying, inter alia, that the adoption of the TF Protocol must be postponed till a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security is found. 20. India offered suggestions on the procedure to be followed in order to ensure time-bound delivery of an outcome on public stockholding for food security. We also urged that a similar approach be adopted on all other elements of the Bali Package notably the LDC issues. 21. The integrity of India`s stand is reflected in our unwavering efforts to offer a way forward in the face of criticism. Even on 31 July 2014, India offered a way to achieve not only a permanent solution on the issue of public stockholding for food security but also to implement the Trade Facilitation Agreement in the agreed timeframe as well as deliver favourable outcomes for LDCs. 22. We have offered practical suggestions for the way forward. The issue of a permanent solution on public stockholding is a simple one that can be addressed very easily as there are already several proposals on the table. A solution to this simple problem will be a tremendous relief for millions of farmers and poor consumers. 23. However, despite India`s efforts, our concerns were not satisfactorily addressed. 24. The Director General of the WTO reported to an informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee on 31 July 2014 that a solution could not be found to bridge the gap. 25. The General Council meeting was, thereafter, formally declared closed without adopting the TF protocol. 26. India stood firm on its demands despite immense pressure. The Government of India is committed to protecting the interests of our farmers against all odds. Our farmers work in extremely adverse conditions, most of them at the mercy of the vagaries of the monsoon, aggravated today by climate change. For farmers in many developing countries farming is a subsistence activity, not a commercial one. We are committed to their welfare and I am grateful for the support and understanding extended by farmers` organizations in this cause. 27. I must also thank Hon`ble Members of Parliament, many civil society groups and academicians who have lent their voice in support of the Government`s efforts to ensure a fair deal. 28. It is evident from the expressions of support that India`s stand has resonated across the world and I take this opportunity to also thank the countries that have stood by India in the VVTO. 29. India is an unwavering votary of the multilateral trading system and we reiterate our commitment to the WTO. We continue to believe that it is in the best interest of developing countries, especially the poorest, most marginalized ones among them and we are determined to work to strengthen this institution. The timely correction of any imbalances or anomalies in the working of the system or its rules is critical to ensure that the WTO works impartially and fairly in the interest of all its Members and not just a select few. 30. I am confident that India will be able to persuade the WTO Membership to appreciate the sensitivities of India and other developing countries and see their way to taking this issue forward in a positive spirit. This would be a major contribution by this institution towards `meeting the global challenge of food insecurity and would convey -a strong message that .the WTO is genuinely committed to the cause of development

Speech by the President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the higher educational and research institutions on the topic, “democracy and governance”

Leaders of institutions of higher learning; Heads of other academic and research institutions; faculty members; my dear students: 1. I am happy to address you at the beginning of this new academic session. I welcome all the students who have joined universities and other centres of higher learning for the first time. During the Annual Conference of Vice Chancellors of central universities held in the Rashtrapati Bhavan in February 2013, it was decided that I will have e-interaction with academic institutions twice a year - once in the beginning of the calendar year and again in August, on commencement of the academic year. I first interacted through this e-platform in January, 2014. I express my gratitude to Prof. S.V. Raghavan and his team at the National Knowledge Network, and the NIC team, for making this video-talk possible. Dear Students: 2. You, the youth of our country, are our future. You have a stake in the progress of this nation and the welfare of its people. General Elections to the 16th Lok Sabha were held in April and May, this year. Election is a great festival of democracy and a crucial milestone in a nation’s journey towards peace, progress and prosperity. Many amongst you have voted for the first time in the elections this year. That how deep the roots of our democracy are can be gauged from the fact that from a level of about 58 per cent in both the 2004 and 2009 General Elections, the voter turnout has gone up to an encouraging 66 per cent in this year’s Elections. I compliment you for your enthusiastic participation in this largest democratic exercise of the world. 3. This Election has provided majority to a single party for the formation of a stable government after thirty years, with a mandate to provide good governance. Good governance is a mechanism to establish order, pursue social and economic progress and promote welfare of the people. As developing countries grapple with a multitude of socio-economic objectives, standards of governance have come into sharp focus in recent years. In this backdrop, I have chosen to speak to you today on an issue of contemporary relevance - Democracy and Governance. Friends: 4. Though good governance entered the lexicon of development two decades back, its essentials were prevalent in India since ancient times. In Arthshastra, Kautilya had described the qualities of a King as and I quote: "The happiness of the people is the happiness of the king; their good alone is his, his personal good is not his true good; the only true good being that of his people. Therefore let the King be active in working for the prosperity and welfare of his people” (unquote). On the eve of India’s independence, Pandit Nehru in his ‘tryst with destiny’ speech outlined the aim of a free India as the ending of poverty, ignorance, disease and inequality of opportunities. It was evident that political freedom would carry little meaning without social and economic justice. 5. At the time of Independence, we the people of India chose democracy as the form of government. Our democratic ideals flow from the Constitution, which reflects our civilizational values. The Preamble, the Fundamental Rights, the Fundamental Duties and the Directive Principles of State Policy contain the ingredients of good governance. In the Preamble, we resolved to constitute India into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity, and to promote among them all; and Fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. Fundamental rights are essential to preserve human dignity. Human dignity cannot be assured without the elimination of poverty. The Directive Principles are an essential guide to good governance practices. Only good governance can eradicate deprivation and backwardness. In the landmark judgment in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala in 1973, the Supreme Court observed that both Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights are equally ‘fundamental’. The Constitution has given us the three pillars of democracy - Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. The provision of freedom of speech and expression has given rise to a powerful and vigilant media. 6. In India, I see good governance as exercise of power, within the framework of the Constitution, for efficient and effective management of our economic and social resources for the well-being of the people, through the institutions of state. Our Constitution is a living document which has evolved with time and within its spacious provisions accommodated the changing needs of a growing democracy. It is a constant reminder of our civilizational values, which we at times tend to forget. We will do well to remind ourselves, at least occasionally, that these values are sacrosanct in the functioning of our democracy. Friends: 7. Good governance is not a given in any system. It has to be nurtured by carefully developing institutions of democracy. Distortions happen when one institution does not function in the manner expected of it leading to overreach by others. What is required then is strengthening, re-invigorating and re-inventing these institutions to meet the needs of the time. It calls for wider involvement of the civil society. It entails free and open participation in the political processes by the people. It calls for ever-increasing engagement of the youth in the institutions and processes of democracy. It calls for ethical and responsible behaviour from the media. 8. Good governance is critically dependent on pre-requisites like inviolable adherence to rule of law, existence of participatory decision-making structure, responsiveness, transparency, accountability, corruption-free society, equity and inclusiveness. In short, good governance implies a framework that has well-being of the people as its focal point. Progressive legislations provide an enabling environment and empower citizens to access entitlements. Some examples are the right to Information, education, food and employment. 9. Novel legislations can work only with robust delivery mechanisms. Corruption leads to denial of equitable distribution of benefits. Complexity and opacity of rules and procedures, discretion in the exercise of power, and weak enforcement of legal provisions are factors contributing to corruption. While we might need some new institutions to fight corruption, the solution lies not merely in creating more institutions but in strengthening and reforming the existing institutions to deliver results. 10. Good governance calls for adequate decentralization of power. Panchayati Raj institutions need financial autonomy and administrative ability. Reforms in this third tier of governance are necessary for sharing of real power with the people. 11. Governance implies involving the civil society as an equal collaborator. One must therefore be conscious of her duties and responsibilities, besides rights. Intolerance and acrimony in public discourse has to be avoided. Our country needs constructive partners rather than privilege seekers. I call upon you to contribute to a healthy democratic society and good governance practices in all spheres of functioning.Friends and dear students: 12. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan had once said and I quote: "All education is, on the one side, a search for truth; on the other side, it is a pursuit of social betterment. You may discover truth but you should apply it to improve the status of society” (unquote). A sound education system is the bedrock of an enlightened society. Our institutes of higher learning are the cradle of future administrators and policy makers. The seeds of progressive thinking have to be sown and nurtured here. The core civilizational values of love for motherland; performance of duty; compassion for all; tolerance for pluralism; respect for women; honesty in life; self-restraint in conduct, responsibility in action and discipline have to be inculcated in these institutions. 13. A democracy cannot be healthy without informed participation. You, dear students, are amongst the brightest young minds in this country. The society has invested in you, and in return, you owe something to the society. You are entrusted with the people’s hopes and expectations. Read, learn and formulate views on national issues. Make the governance of this country your passion. Choose to engage with our beautiful but sometimes noisy democracy. As the future practitioners of governance, you have to play an active and positive role in ensuring that these institutions perform their duties with responsibility. 14. In the context of our democracy, good governance is a reflection of the successful functioning of the institutions of state with the singular intention of the well-being of citizens at heart. With these words, I conclude. I now leave the floor for a few questions.

Ways to grow

When the BRICS countries signed an agreement establishing a New Development Bank, political analysis should have taken into account more than its strategic importance to international development and finance. Four days later, the UN’s Open Working Group revealed its draft of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 commitments which set the global development agenda for the post-2015 world. There was a looming crisis at the heart of both initiatives, that our future is not a sustainable one. Perhaps more importantly, that our present isn’t either.

In 2015, the Millennium Development Goals, which have been the focus of development interventions for the past decade and a half, will be replaced by a new set of objectives. For the next 15 years, the world will put its efforts behind the SDGs on poverty, health, food security, industrialisation, education, water, consumption, peace and climate change, among other issues. The remarkable thing about these goals is that they represent a departure from what development has meant so far. That “development” as a paradigm is no longer adequate either for political or economic policy or for business is articulated in the new terminology. Sustainability is not expected to complement growth by numbers. The new development paradigm is sustainable development. At Fortaleza, the BRICS were not only asserting a more Southern orientation for the future of development financing, they were also acknowledging the need to mainstream sustainability within it.

Most discourse on sustainability has tended to see it as the solution to long-term challenges, in a distinctly Malthusian tenor. Malthus had infamously theorised that the world’s population grows exponentially, while its capacity and resources grow arithmetically, predicting that the planet will not accommodate the growth of people beyond a point. More recently, the science on climate change put out disaster warnings, which tended to be viewed not in terms of their current implications, but future ones. In policy, the question of sustainable development was afforded its due rhetoric and then relegated to a limited “environment” sector.

But sustainability, in its most complete sense, will be crucial to the challenges confronting our countries today. The most well-known definition of sustainable development comes from the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which described it as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The UN University’s Inclusive Wealth Report in 2012 said that, despite significant progress in the last 25 years, humanity has failed to “ensure its own long-term viability”. One might argue that the future we were supposed to build through sustainability policies is already here. Tragedies like the one wrought by the recent landslide in Pune, urban pollution and the traffic crisisin urban spaces like those of China, and the resource-conflict driven massacre of Darfur, demonstrate how ecologically conscious development is a necessary response to problems today. The zeitgeist since has taken sustainable development beyond the ecological. It is isn’t merely about managing our natural wealth with the future in mind, but about sustaining opportunity for all.

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty First Century isn’t the first work of economics to point to the long-term challenges of unequal growth. The momentum towards the need for a new economics was catalysed by the 2008 financial crises. The rational model, and the utilitarian logic which underpinned it, could neither fully explain the collapse nor justify the narrowing of economic opportunity for the majority at the bottom of the Stiglitz pyramid.

The draft SDGs are calling for “inclusive and sustainable economic growth” and “sustainable consumption and production patterns”. More interestingly, they are calling for the reduction of “inequalities within and among countries”. A high-level panel, co-chaired by David Cameron and convened by the UN secretary general, on the post-2015 global development agenda determined that a better future required fundamental and “transformative shifts” instead of the same compartments of sectoral interventions. There is a growing recognition that peace, sustainable development, equity, social justice and security are too closely interlinked to be considered separate bodies of effort.

The logical policy trajectory for states attempting to build wealthier, more peaceful and resilient societies is inclusive and sustainable development. In a future of limited resources, growth can no longer be the measure of a country’s success. The SDGs are calling for ways to measure progress that complement the GDP. Perhaps it is also time to consider development beyond development.

Becoming best friends,indo-nepal

On Nepal, Modi has much to be satisfied about. But the challenges begin now.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi made every effort to be seen as Nepal’s best friend — a commoner, a pilgrim, the guardian of a Nepali in need, and less of a prime minister of a big country. By the time he left Nepal, he had won the hearts and minds of the Nepalese, imprinting deeply the idea that he alone has the will and ability to transform Nepal into a prosperous country. His repeated emphasis on India’s respect for Nepal’s sovereignty, and the message that missed opportunities of the past and failed promises should not act as speed-breakers in “our future journey to prosperity together”, were perhaps aimed at looking ahead at the future, not harping on the past.

Modi knew that all these personalities he projected would consolidate his image and goodwill in a country where India is perceived as a neighbour with a big gap between promise and delivery — and, of late, a neighbour that involves itself more in Nepal’s internal politics, and pursues a policy of “divide and rule”.

Modi brought along with him Jeet Bahadur Saru Magar — a Nepali boy that he had a chance meeting with in Ahmedabad about 16 years ago and adopted — ostensibly to “reunite” him with his family that was discovered two years ago, at Modi’s initiative. Jeet had come to Nepal two years ago, soon after the family was discovered, and was in constant touch with them. But Modi’s decision to bring Jeet along, get his entire family to Kathmandu, pose with them for a photo-op and give them gifts, generated such publicity that this affair appears to have paid him the biggest dividend of his Nepal visit.

“Years ago, I came here as a pilgrim. And anyone who comes to Nepal once, will always belong here [sic]” he said in Nepali, before he began his extempore speech in the parliament. By projecting the image of a benevolent guardian and a devotee of Shiva — from Somnath to Pashupatinath, via Vishwanath — he could easily establish a bond with a predominantly Hindu Nepal, a country with a potential for religious tourism.

Jawaharlal Nehru disapproved of then President Rajendra Prasad’s wish to go to the renovation ceremony of the Somnath temple in the early 1950s on the ground that it would set a wrong precedent in a secular country. But almost 60 years later, Nehru’s successor took pride in offering special worship at the Pashupatinath temple and spending an hour there as a devotee, somethingnone of India’s prime ministers before Modi had done. That the new Indian prime minister is a commoner and “someone like us” was the general feeling in Nepal.

Was it all only part of diplomacy? Nobody in Nepal seems to believe that, at least for now. But then Modi , the prime minister, was much at ease in delivering the messages he wanted to — that Nepali politicians must rise above partisan politics in making the constitution. While he sent across the message that India would be happy if Nepal wrote a federal, republican constitution, he also said “that must bring poor and rich, rural and urban, hill, mountain and Terai together”. That was a clear disapproval of the identity-implying caste- and ethnicity-based federalism — a common agenda of the Maoists and Madhesi parties — something India had lent its support to earlier. His emphasis was more on linking the country and its people with its diverse geography, culture and socioeconomic strata than wedging a divide on caste and ethnic lines. He also maintained his silence on whether India wishes Nepal to be a secular or a Hindu nation.

A quiet warning and praise for Maoists for switching to “Buddha from Yuddha” — from war to peace — also showed that Modi was cautiously optimistic about their contribution to the constitution-writing. “The entire world is looking at you. Your success will discourage many who believe weapons can bring about change” — the hidden message was more obvious. The consequences of Nepal, which has already bungled one chance, not having a constitution on time would be enormous.

After all, an orderly society, guided by a constitution alone, will provide the stability that is the pre-requisite for business and investment — Modi’s clear focus. The 5,600 MW Pancheshwar project, which remained stalled for 18 years after the agreement, will see its work start within a year. He assured the Nepali side that India will not want Nepal’s electricity or power for free: “We will buy it, and that alone will change the face of Nepal… We will provide power to you now, but 10 years hence, you will remove our darkness,” he said, hinting India will move fast on the implementation of projects now.

Modi returns to New Delhi with much to be satisfied about. But the challenges begin now, as the promises enter the delivery phase. More than that, the hope that Modi has generated will have to confront the image of the Indian government’s bureaucracy and intelligence, largely blamed for the poor implementation of past projects and for getting involved in Nepal’s internal politics. The bureaucracy will not refute the allegation. But it cannot be wished away so easily. The challenge lies in getting it to perform as per decisions reached at the political level on both sides. Modi’s probation in Nepal begins now.

A story of the clean energy fund

It shows the gap between bureaucratic intent and practice. It speaks of excessive reliance on generalists in technical matters.

The finance minister announced in his budget speech that he would enhance the resources of the “clean energy fund” by doubling the cess on coal production from Rs 50 per tonne to Rs 100 per tonne. This fund was set up in 2000 to incubate, encourage and develop innovation in clean energy. A few days after his speech, I read that a significant percentage of the funds would be allocated to cleaning River Ganga. I asked a senior finance ministry official at an “on the record” gathering of CEOs whether this report had substance. I also asked why the fund was being managed by the finance ministry, and not the ministry of non-conventional and renewable energy. The latter, after all, had the domain expertise.

The answer was honest and revealing. The official said the “clean energy” fund covered more than just clean energy. It supported all projects related to the environment. He implied that “environment” is a capacious term under whose umbrella many seemingly unrelated projects can take shelter. He agreed that the finance ministry did not have domain expertise, but said that a specialist was always invited to the meeting. I found the answer to be revealing in two respects. It threw into relief two avoidable inefficiencies of bureaucratic governance — the disjunct between captioned intent and actual practice, and the skew in leadership on technical matters towards generalists over specialists.

The budget has evoked varying responses. Supporters have dug deep to locate nuggets that bear positively on growth, inflation, fiscal prudence and jobs. Critics have belaboured the absence of grandstanding reforms and the reversal of regressive policies like retroactive taxes. Both can bring logic and substance to their argument. Both make valid points. Both miss a central reality. The FM had 45 days to prepare the budget. He could do little more than signify a directional shift. Further, the budget is not the only forum for pronouncing on reforms.

It can be done at any time and through any medium. It would not surprise me, for instance, if the prime minister made a major statement on reforms from the ramparts of Red Fort on August 15. The point is that the budget was presented so early in the government’s tenure that it is wrong to use it as the touchstone to judge its commitment to reforms or for that matter, its arithmetic for evaluating the macroeconomics. What is not wrong is to evaluate the efficiency of the management of budgetary resources and the extentto which the FM will correct the institutional and leadership weaknesses that have in the past led to avoidable losses. It is in this context that the narrative on the clean energy fund is relevant.

The clean energy fund has never been constrained for money. In 2001, it had Rs 1,066 crore. This grew to Rs 3,350 crore in 2012 and Rs 8,648 crore in 2013 because of the increase in domestic coal production and imports. Now, with the doubling of the cess, the fund will be even more flush. With this level of resources, India should have been at the forefront of clean energy research. That it is not is due to the money not being deployed for the purpose intended. It was not allocated to universities, laboratories and companies engaged in researching clean energy technologies like coal gasification, fuel cells, energy storage, carbon capture and sequestration and concentrated solar. Instead, it was diverted to the consolidated fund and/ or used to support projects that were long past their technical due date. There were three reasons for this disconnect between intent and practice. One, the government was not really serious about clean energy research.

It wanted simply to generate additional revenues. A tax on a polluting industry for the purpose of cleansing the environment got it what it wanted and at the same time affirmed its green credentials. Two, there was institutional confusion. Five ministries were engaged in clean energy research — the ministries of power, coal, petroleum, non-conventional and renewables, and heavy industry. Each had some domain expertise but none had exclusive charge. As a result, and perhaps also because the money was raised through an indirect tax, the fund was placed under the purview of the Central boards of taxes and excise. The result — and this is the third reason — there was a lack of specialist leadership. The chairman of the fund was a finance ministry official with limited, if any, knowledge or understanding of the clean energy sector. As a result, there was no cutting-edge initiative.

The clean energy fund is not the only example of a case where stated intent diverged from practice. A cess has been levied for years, for instance, on oil and gas production to finance the development of the petroleum industry. The fund is captioned the “oil industry development bond”. It was always intended that OIDB funds be managed by the ministry of petroleum. The fact is that other than an initial disbursement, the funds have been kept in the finance ministry. It could be argued, of course, that there is no financial downside to the government taking funds from one metaphorical pocket to fill another. This would be an erroneous argument. There are significant negatives in adopting a cavalier approach to disbursement. Every time a project or programme is created, people are mobilised, expectations are raised and resources are deployed. The wilful non-implementation of projects creates waste and inefficiency. It leads to avoidable losses. Similarly poor and ignorant leadership also wreaksdamage. In today’s connected and complex world, such leadership can push the economy off the rails. Our system still looks to “generalist” career civil servants to provide leadership for even the most technical of subjects. It does not encourage lateral entry into senior executive positions. This has created an imbalance that needs to be corrected, for even the most gifted of generalists do not have the bandwidth to keep pace with the dynamism of technical innovation and change.

The PM has talked of maximum governance. The touchstone by which I would judge the FM is what he does to improve the management of resources. This requires him to bridge the gap between intent and usage. It requires the placement of the right people in the right job at the right time. It requires him to ensure that the mistakes that have been made in the management of the clean energy fund are not repeated.

Rape and reality

The gulf between statistics and substance is not easily bridged. The number of rape cases registered in the country may conceal the reality in two significant ways. First, only a small proportion of the rapes are reported at all. Secondly, a significant number of rape cases relate to consensual sex but have been criminalised by circumstances. The Hindu’s six-month investigation into cases of sexual assault in Delhi has revealed that four of ten cases arose out of complaints by parents of girls who had eloped with boys. Another 25 per cent involved breaches of promise by men that they would marry their partners. And rape as it is conventionally understood, either by strangers or those known to victims in their family or neighbourhood, was seen only in 162 out of 583 cases registered in Delhi in 2013. Such cases resulted in a higher rate of conviction. The association of rape in the popular imagination with predators lurking in dark lanes to prey on vulnerable women has led to a general belief that better policing and more stringent laws will be the solution. While it is entirely appropriate that women’s safety is given high priority, it is equally important to identify the strands of patriarchy discernible in the resort to complaints of rape at the instance of parents who disapprove of relationships, especially if these are inter-caste or inter-religious. If denial of freedom of choice to women in love and marriage is one issue, the disavowal of women’s agency is another.

Accounts gathered from complainants, lawyers and judges reveal that the protestations of women that they had consented to the act or eloped with the accused are disregarded so that provisions relating to statutory rape and abduction can be invoked to appease angry parents. Conviction is indeed inevitable if the girls involved are below the statutory age of consent. While some sympathetic judges used to exercise their discretion to hand down mild sentences, the much-strengthened penal law applicable since last year has made longer prison terms inevitable for statutory rape. This places a question mark on the wisdom of recent legislation raising the age of consent from 16 to 18, thereby criminalising teenage sexual activity. There is no balancing provision to distinguish sexual abuse of a minor, which ought to be dealt with sternly, from consensual sex between couples of a proximate age group. While making the country safer for women, society must move away from the inherent patriarchy behind the phenomenon. That means greater inter-generational dialogue and display of sensitivity by police officers and judges. Scripted FIRs, mechanical resort to rape provisions and pressure on women to disown relationships are not the way.

NASA creates space engine like none other

In what could be a game changer in space exploration, NASA has successfully tested a “microwave thruster system” that requires no propellant to generate thrust.

The engine appears to produce propulsion through electricity and nothing else.

In a test paper, NASA scientists said they recorded about 30-50 micro-Newtons (mN) of thrust from an electrical propulsion test article, harnessing subatomic quantum particles.

Testing was performed on a low-thrust torsion pendulum that is capable of detecting force at a single-digit micronewton level, within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure.

This means that NASA may be able to create an inexpensive low-thrust, long-term technology with virtually no cost.

The discovery can also reduce the cost of maintaining orbital stability of satellites and interstellar travel.

“This unique electric propulsion device is producing a force not attributable to any electromagnetic phenomenon, and is potentially interacting with quantum vacuum virtual plasma,” NASA said in the test paper.

The US space agency now plan to run further tests to validate its findings.

NASA’s Messenger spacecraft, sent to study the Mercury 10 years back, will observe the planet at lower altitudes.

This is likely to result in exciting scientific discoveries, NASA said in a statement as Messenger completed 10 years on Sunday. Mercury is the planet closest to the Sun.

The aim of the spacecraft blasted off Aug 3, 2004 from Cape Canaveral, Florida, was to take the small satellite dangerously close to Mercury’s surface — paving the way for an ambitious study of the planet.

The spacecraft has so far travelled 7.9 billion km including 15 trips around the Sun and flybys of Earth once, Venus twice, and Mercury thrice before it was inserted into orbit around its target planet in 2011, the statement added.

“We have operated successfully in orbit for more than three Earth years and more than 14 Mercury years as we celebrate this amazing 10th anniversary milestone,” said Andy Calloway, Messenger Mission Operations manager from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).

After Mariner 10, Messenger is only the second spacecraft sent to Mercury.

Mariner flew past Mercury three times between 1974 and 1975 and collected data on less than half the surface.

Messenger took advantage of an ingenious trajectory design, lightweight materials and miniaturization of electronics — all developed in three decades since Mariner 10 flew past Mercury.

The mission has rewritten scientists’ understanding of the planet “and given us plenty of surprises”, NASA added.