India considers magnetic levitation technology for high speed trains

India has taken the first step towards running a truly high speed train by opting for magnetic levitation (Maglev) technology under which the screech of the wheel hitting the track is obviated as the train floats at high speeds a few inches over the track.

Thus India will avoid emulating Chile and some other countries that have been running refurbished versions at higher than currently prevailing speeds on the same track.

Rather, the country is fashioning a new game altogether, said a Railway officer specialising in design. Running on dedicated tracks, the trains will come in complete sets: there will be engine cabs at both ends and non-detachable coaches in the middle. This will eliminate the swaying motion Indian travellers are accustomed to.

The trains will have under carriages placed in a way that one axle and two wheels come under one coach and the rest under the next one, thus guaranteeing rapid fire acceleration.

The snub-nosed engines, super shiny outer hull and windows merged with the coach body are some of the features that will cut air resistance, the Railway official said. With cars to be allowed right next to the platform, passengers can park in front of the allocated coach.

As the train surges to its top speed, WiFi and mobile phone connections will continue to work seamlessly, for the entire ecosystem is electronics-intensive and microprocessor controlled so much so that wayside signals rushing past the train will be reflected on the locomotive’s control panel.

Instead of the no-option, tepid railway meals, orders could be placed at well-known food chains willing to cater to these trains. One SMS and food will be available at the next intermediate station.

But before this, there is hard work ahead. The Economic Survey has warned that high tariff and large passenger volumes are required to justify investment in the project, which is highly capital intensive in nature.

During his Japan visit and interaction here with the Chinese, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be exploring complete financing options at close to zero interest rates. Simultaneously, the Railways will work on reducing overhead costs through property development and other means.

If all goes well, India will join the club of two dozen countries running ultra high speed trains. For a country which figures in the first few in having an aircraft carrier, a full fledged space and nuclear programme and an ongoing mission to Mars, this will be better late than never.

The foreign policy report card

It is perhaps too soon to try and discern a distinctive ‘Modi doctrine’, but the wider arc of foreign and strategic policy is gradually coming into focus.

The 100-day honeymoon of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government will soon be at an end. Despite pressing challenges at home, external engagements have encroached on the government’s time and attention. The calendar has been packed with visits, meetings and negotiations. What has all this added up to? It is perhaps too soon to try and discern a distinctive “Modi doctrine.” But the wider arc of foreign and strategic policy is gradually coming into focus. The government’s early initiatives have been stamped with the Prime Minister’s style, yet the real challenges lie ahead.

Let’s start with South Asia. From the outset, Mr. Modi has sought to accord the highest priority to India’s immediate neighbourhood. The decision to invite for his swearing-in, leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries showed a subtle grasp of the importance of gestures and interpersonal equations in diplomacy. The subsequent visits to Bhutan and Nepalunderscored his ability to project India’s leadership in the region without a hint of condescension. In his speeches, Mr. Modi has outlined a generous vision of shared regional prosperity.

Regional policy

All this has undoubtedly helped revivify India’s regional policy. Yet, the challenge for India has not been the absence of good intentions. Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Dr. Manmohan Singh shared these aims. Rather, it has been the difficulty of tackling underlying problems that has hobbled our regional policy.

For one thing, India has struggled to evolve a sustainable policy of engagement with Pakistan — one that is insulated from the pressures of predictable events. After a promising start, the government’s approach to Pakistan seems to be spluttering. Take the decision to cancel the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Islamabad. The government may be rightly miffed at Pakistan for meeting the Hurriyat leaders despite being warned of India’s displeasure. But it is not clear why a redline should have been drawn on this issue. At a time when the civilian government in Pakistan is on the back foot, New Delhi’s digging in of its heels will only comfort the military.

A related issue is that our policy towards neighbours is pulled in different directions by the concerns and interests of various stakeholders in the government. Think only of the deleterious role of our intelligence agencies in Nepal or the stonewalling of the Army on the Siachen glacier. Equally problematic is New Delhi’s unwillingness to meaningfully engage the States in fashioning regional policy. If anything, they tend to be seen as thwarting the government’s policy — an attitude that has created considerable problems in the past. Finally, nothing has hurt India’s claims to regional leadership as much as its inability to make good on promises. The largesse of our lines of credit is simply not matched by a capacity to complete projects. Redressing these problems is critical if India is to retain the goodwill flowing from the shift in rhetorical gears.

Extended neighbourhood

The extended neighbourhood has posed more of a challenge to the government. West Asia has been wracked by a series of crises that could potentially undermine Indian interests in the region. The government was energetic in organising the rescue of Indian nationals from Iraq. Yet, it is not clear that New Delhi has come to grips with the waves of change washing over West Asia. Nor is there any indication that it is looking beyond short-term measures such as the evacuation of Indians from hot spots. This will be unsustainable if the crisis escalates and spreads. There are nearly seven million Indians living in the Gulf region: almost 7,00,000 workers migrate to the Gulf every year. Evacuating even a fraction of these numbers will be nigh impossible. Never mind the attendant problem of resettlement.

Gaza crisis

India’s interests in West Asia can best be secured by carving out a larger role in the geopolitics of the region. This may be an unprecedented opportunity to do so. On the one hand, the ongoing crises are rapidly corroding long-standing structures and configurations of power. On the other hand, India has equities with several regional players who are arrayed against one another. At a time when India could expand and cement its influence, the government has not shown a sure touch.

Nowhere was this clearer than in the response to the crisis in Gaza. The political predilection for Israel was evident in the stance initially taken by the government. This not only equated Israel and the Palestinians but used stronger language against the latter. The subsequent vote against Israel in the Human Rights Council was a course correction, but only served to highlight the lack of a clear strategic assessment. To be sure, India does have an important relationship with Israel. However, this had to be weighed not against some abstract notion of solidarity with the Palestinians but our wider regional standing and interests in a time of crisis and far-reaching change. Strategic dithering will hardly help win friends and influence people.

On the wider, global stage, the government has been more attuned to India’s interests. New Delhi has sought to steer clear of the re-emerging rivalry between Russia and the United States. It is also keen to strike a balance in its ties with Japan and China. Mr. Modi has indicated that India’s dealings with each of the great powers will be conditioned by the interests at play — and not coloured by the perceptions of others. This is a long-standing principle of Indian foreign policy going right back to Jawaharlal Nehru. The problem, of course, is that issues cannot be neatly compartmentalised.

Consider the recent World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. Despite American attempts at cajoling and arm-twisting, the government took a strong stance to preserve subsidies for farmers. Mr. Modi observed that his government was not playing for brownie points. Indeed, the government’s position and rhetoric were tougher than those of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government which allegedly kept America at arm’s length. In so doing, though, India has, yet again, been portrayed as “obstructionist” and incapable of coming up with positive proposals.

The government may seek to shrug this off, but it will present larger challenges; not least in our attempts to resist new trade regimes like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that are currently being negotiated under U.S. leadership. Regional pacts like the TPP seek to introduce new norms on international trade that will subsequently be imported to the global regime. These norms are inimical to India’s interests. But our stance in the WTO weakens our ability to shape coalitions elsewhere. Preserving India’s interests, then, is about more than just “standing-up” to any great power or a set of powers.

Military modernisation

Then again, meaningful engagement with the U.S. may prove to be something of a challenge. The Obama administration seems too distracted and disinterested in India. The level of interest can be gauged by the fact that the administration has been unable — or unwilling — to appoint an ambassador to India. Mr. Modi has mooted the idea of joint development of weapon-systems. If this gains some traction in Washington, the relationship could acquire much-needed focus and momentum.

The Prime Minister’s proposal sits well with his wider plans for deepening the defence industrial base in India. With a view to attracting technology, the government has announced 49 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in defence. Merely raising the FDI cap is not likely to help. All manufacturers of weapon-systems operate under national laws that restrict exports and transfers. They will be encouraged to set-up shop in India only if there is a strategic agreement with their home governments.

The development of defence industries is only one aspect of the larger problem of military modernisation. A host of institutional and operational reforms need to be urgently considered. The most fundamental of these is the dysfunctional civil-military relationship. The government began with something of a handicap on this issue. By awarding a ticket to General V.K. Singh, and by subsequently rewarding him with a ministerial portfolio, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) dealt a blow to an already problematic relationship between the government and the armed forces. Be that as it may, the government has to work to restore a harmonious relationship between the military and the civilian bureaucracy. A number of proposals are on the anvil. It remains to be seen if the government will consider such serious reforms as the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff.

It will be a pity if, as in the past, reforms are forced on to the table by a crisis. The government would do well to seize the initiative on strategic issues. Appointing a full-time defence minister would be a good start.

Feeble fire in the big guns

The Indian Army is facing a critical shortage of effective artillery firepower, crucial in a limited war scenario

The Indian Army is making incremental, but confused, progress in upgrading its depreciated artillery profile that has languished gravely since the import of Bofors howitzers in the late 1980s. It recently completed trials for two 155mm/52 caliber howitzer systems and is readying its report on the try-outs in Rajasthan last summer and in Sikkim in February, for presentation to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) by the year end.

Howitzer shortage

Depending on the trial reports of whether the howitzers have met the Army’s Qualitative Requirements (QRs), principally of reliably and consistently achieving a strike range of 42 kilometres, the vendors will be shortlisted or rejected. Ideally, thereafter the howitzer price bids submitted early last year ahead of field trials would be opened, cost negotiations launched and the procurement confirmed. But such a smooth and painless eventuality in India’s lugubrious MoD is still a long way off.

Competing for the 155mm/52 caliber towed gun system (TGS) are France’s Nexter, with its Trajan gun, specially modified for the Indian tender, and Israel’s Elbit fielding the ATHOS 2052 howitzer. India plans on acquiring 400 towed howitzers and building an additional 1,180 guns via a technology transfer to the state-run Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).

Vying alongside, in support of the Army’s initial requirement for 100 self-propelled tracked (SPT) howitzers are South Korean Samsung-Techwin’s K-9 Thunder and an upgraded version of Russia’s MSTA-S SP gun modified to 155mm/52cal standards and mounted on a T72 main battle tank chassis.

All four competitors have technical agreements with local companies that are expected to extend beyond providing backup during trials, if any of the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are shortlisted for acquisition. While Nexter and Samsung are collaborating with Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Elbit has an arrangement with the Kalyani Group in Pune. Expectedly, the Russians are in a tie-up with the OFB.

The TGS howitzer trials were the fifth since 2001, plagued as they have been by a bewildering round of bureaucratic delays and frequent issuance, withdrawal and re-issuance of tenders by the MoD. The Army has further compromised the artillery programme by its muddled and, at times, over ambitious QRs that would indeed be comical if the operational ramifications of the howitzer shortages were not dire.

The latest round of howitzer trials is a long-deferred response to the Army’s Field Artillery Rationalisation Plan (FARP) formulated in 1999 that aims to import, locally develop and licence-build a mix of around 2,800-3,000 assorted guns to equip around 190-200 artillery regiments.

The ambitious Plan, possibly the world’s largest involving artillery systems, is estimated to cost $8-10 billion and is scheduled for completion by the end of the 14th Five-Year Finance Plan in 2027. Unfortunately, this is a deadline the Army and the MoD will most certainly overshoot.

The FARP envisages inducting a perplexing mix of 1,580 TGS, 814 mounted platforms and the outright purchase of 145 BAE Systems M777 155 mm/39-caliber ultra-light howitzers; that too is mired in unnecessary red tape and confusion. Also included is the outright purchase of 100 SPT howitzers and 180 self-propelled wheeled howitzers with another 120 to be built locally under a technology transfer agreement.

The critical howitzer shortage and obsolescence of existing platforms is possibly the worst of the Army’s innumerable deficiencies. These astonishingly include basic infantry weapons like carbines and assault rifles, night-fighting devices for the bulk of the Army’s 59 armour regiments, air defence equipment, light utility, attack and heavy lift helicopters, body armour and assorted ordnance, missiles and ammunition, among much else.

At present, the Army principally employs Soviet-era 105mm OFB-built Indian Field Guns and D-30 122mm field pieces, both with limited ranges of around 17 km that can be offset by long-range mortars. These are supplemented by Bofors 155mm/39 cal howitzers, now reduced to less than half their original number of 410 due to cannibalisation. Soviet M46 130mm guns upgraded to 155mm/45 cal by Soltam in the late 1990’s complete the Army’s circumscribed artillery profile.

Military planners concur that these assets are woefully inadequate to sustain the Army’s revised ‘manoeuvre by fire’ offensive capabilities and the newly formulated war-fighting Cold Start doctrine. Simply put, this envisages holding or static formations along India’s borders with Pakistan going on the offensive in a limited war scenario to achieve negotiable military gains in a nuclearised environment. Efficient and effective artillery firepower is crucial to this battlefield scenario.

Additional howitzers, especially the transportable M777s, are desperately needed to equip the proposed fourth artillery division for deployment along the 4,057-km-long unresolved Chinese border to support the two recently created mountain divisions in the northeast in addition to the 17 Mountain Strike Corps currently under raising in the same region. Meanwhile, there is a putative, albeit questionable, embarrassment of artillery riches domestically.

The OFB is currently conducting its final round of trials involving Dhanush, the Bofors FH-77B 155mm/45 cal towed howitzer prototypes it has constructed using blueprints it obtained in 1987 along with the 410 guns, but never used after the purchase became controversial. The trials became necessary after the barrel of one of its two prototypes built by the Gun Carriage Factory (GCF) in Jabalpur burst last August during try-outs in Pokhran.

Acquisition of Dhanushs

The MoD has approved the acquisition of 144 Dhanushs with the possibility of procuring another 400-odd depending on their performance.

The outcome of the Defect Identification Inquiry ordered by the MoD into this mishap is unknown, but it is widely believed in military and industry circles that it remains inconclusive. Senior artillery officers, however, believe that inducting Dhanush is at best an interim measure as it is an outdated gun, but in the short term the best option for the Army to make good shortages.

Alongside, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has successfully fabricated the Catapult MKII self-propelled artillery system by mating the 130mm gun with the Arjun tank chassis. The Army recently conducted Catapault MKII user trials following which series production of 40 platforms is expected to imminently begin at the OFB’s Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi near Chennai to equip two regiments. These 40 platforms will replace an equal number of DRDO-developed Catapult MKIs fashioned in the early 1980s by mounting the M46 gun onto the lengthened chassis of the locally licence-built Vijayanta tank.

Simultaneously, private defence contractors like the Tatas, L&T and Bharat Forge are involved in locally upgrading M46 guns provided by the Army to 155mm/45 cal in addition to developing their own 155mm/52 howitzers in collaboration with overseas OEMs. Some are also collaborating with the DRDO’s Armament Research and Development Establishment in Pune to design a 155 mm/52-caliber Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) with a 50-km strike range by 2016.

Proposals are also afoot to privatise ordnance manufacture to meet shortages. The Army faces a shortfall of some 50,000 155 mm precision-guided munitions rounds, more than 21,200 bi-modular charge systems, and around one million electronic fuses which the OFB is incapable of fulfilling.

A time to upskill

History teaches us one lesson more clearly than others. Big changes happen silently — at least to start with. A transformation has already begun in the skilling space. It is too early to call it a revolution, but I see signs of one taking shape. Let us look at the big challenges before we put the need for skilling in perspective.

Less than 10 per cent of the Indian workforce has had formal skill training, while in countries like South Korea, it is closer to 98 per cent. We have had two consecutive years of rising unemployment. Nearly 95 per cent of our workforce is in the unorganised sector, which is a way of saying the people working in this sector have had no formal training in any skill. Agriculture and construction constitute a large part of this sector.

Since its formation five years ago, the National Skill Development Corporation, a unique public-private partnership, has skilled over 2 million people. This year it is aiming to skill 3.3 million people, having skilled 1 million people the previous year. Over half the districts in India have NSDC training centres which offer 720 courses covering nearly 750 job roles in 27 important sectors.

We have made a good start. But this will not suffice when we are faced with the challenge of skilling 500 million people by 2022, of which the NSDC is committed to training nearly a third. We are talking about skilling no less than 60,000 people every single day between now and the end of 2022. While the initial years of the NSDC were focused mainly on the supply side, that is, creating physical and institutional infrastructure, the second phase must and will see greater involvement of the end-user industry. The 31 sector skill councils (SSCs) under the NSDC provide the vital link to industry. The SSCs have developed over 800 standards for specific job roles. This ensures that the skilled hands we produce meet the needs of the employers from Day One. But there are two big challenges. One, there is resistance to seeing the obvious benefits of hiring skilled people in place of casual hires, and two, paying the right wage for the same. Neither of these challenges can be met unless industry has a buy-in. This can happen only through patient and persistent advocacy. We need to reach out to industry, particularly small and medium firms, and show them the benefits of hiring skilled hands.

We need models to bridge the gap between the worlds of work and education. The National Skill Certification and Monetary Reward Scheme, also known as STAR, is one such model. STAR, the world’s largest voucher-based skilling programme, hasbeen a phenomenal success, having enrolled 1.3 million aspirants in less than a year of roll out. The biggest achievement of STAR has been the quick building of an ecosystem in which training providers are aligned to systems and processes as per NSDC requirements. The ecosystem includes Aadhaar, NPR and banks coming together to enable direct transfers. STAR demonstrated that efficient scheme implementation was possible.

As for institutional support, it is encouraging to see that the Centre and most states have recognised the need to support the Skill India mission. In his budget speech in June, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had reaffirmed his government’s commitment to skill development by announcing the Skill India mission, which will encompass the national multi-skill mission programme.

The traditional brick and mortar model of the skilling ecosystem is not conducive to being scaled up. We have to use technology for mobilisation, testing aptitude, delivering course content, assessment, certification, placement etc. The NSDC has, through its innovation platform, funded such organisations that are introducing technology in training centres. With the increasing penetration of the internet and mobile phones, the NSDC is also embarking on massive open online curriculum(MOOC)-type projects to deliver a part or all of the training programmes online. With a mobile front-end for training and assessment, the potential to use technology to scale training initiatives is immense.

We have also created an Enterprise Resource Planning-based system called the Skill Database Management System that tracks enrolment, certification and placement. This can serve as a central database for the entire skilling ecosystem. Last year, we had 11,000 employers, a majority of whom were small businesses, looking to hire from this database of skilled people. This will grow.

Finally, for the skilling mission to succeed, it must be a national movement. It must go beyond just being a government deliverable to becoming a people’s movement. Just like the freedom struggle caught the imagination of all Indians because they had a stake in it, we must build Skill India into a movement that catches the imagination of all stakeholders and results in participation of all with shared benefits

An emergency called ebola

The World Health Organisation has declared the current outbreak of the Ebola virus disease in some countries in West Africa as a public health emergency of international concern. The aim of this declaration is to contain existing outbreaks and prevent the further spread of Ebola through an internationally coordinated response. The declaration also serves as an international alert, so that countries can prepare for possible cases. It will help mobilise foreign aid and action to fight Ebola in affected countries. As of today, there are no cases of Ebola in the 11 countries of the WHO’s Southeast Asia region. This is the time to step up preparedness. A successful public health response will need strong health systems with sensitive surveillance, infection control and community mobilisation.

Since 1976, when the Ebola virus was first detected in Africa, it has been responsible for several outbreaks within a few African countries. The virus moves from its natural reservoir to humans through animals. Ebola is associated with high mortality, and no vaccine or cure is available at present.

The current outbreak of Ebola in the four West African countries of Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, has been ongoing for months. It has caused the highest number of cases and deaths and the widest geographical spread ever known for an Ebola outbreak. This complex outbreak involves multiple countries with a lot of cross-border movement among communities. The large number of cases in peri-urban and rural settings makes this one of the most challenging Ebola outbreaks ever.

Though the risk of the spread of this disease to countries outside Africa is currently assessed to be low, there is an urgent need to strengthen national capacities for its early detection, prompt management and rapid containment. The WHO believes that countries with strong health systems can quickly contain any imported cases using strict infection control measures.

While the global focus is on Ebola, we must not forget that several pathogens have and shall continue to threaten the world. Since the discovery of the Ebola virus in 1976, more than 30 new pathogens have been detected. SARS and H1N1 influenzea are two such pathogens that have caused pandemics in this millennium. Fortunately, both could be contained in a short period.

The International Health Regulations, IHR (2005), call upon countries to be transparent in sharing information on diseases that may have the potential to move across countries to facilitate an international response. IHR regulations also specify, among other capacities, the importance of surveillance, response, laboratories, human resources, risk communication and preparedness for early detection and prompt treatment.

The 2009 pandemic of H1N1 influenza demonstrated the importance of the IHR, as countriesshared information on disease spread in real-time to enable the global community to mount a coordinated response. Since the inception of the IHR, the countries in the WHO’s Southeast Asia region have been striving to strengthen their national capacities. Substantial progress has been made, but more work is to be done. Many countries have developed plans to achieve the desired level of competence before June 2016. To supplement national efforts and address the gaps, the WHO has established several institutions of excellence and collaborating centres.

More than 100 WHO staff are deployed in Ebola-affected countries to support national health authorities. Hundreds of global experts have also been mobilised. An accelerated response is being implemented through a comprehensive plan in West Africa. The WHO has sought international financial aid of $101 million to effectively implement this plan.

No infectious disease can be controlled unless communities are informed and empowered to protect themselves. Countries must provide accurate and relevant information to the public, including measures to reduce the risk of exposure. Ebola spreads through contact with the body fluids of the patient. Avoiding this contact prevents transmission of infection. In communities and healthcare facilities, knowledge of simple preventive measures, including hand hygiene and standard infection control precautions, are crucial to the national public health response.

The WHO does not recommend imposing travel bans to or from affected countries. A ban on travel could have serious economic and social effects on these countries. A core principle of the IHR is the need to balance public health concerns with international travel and trade. The risk of infection for travellers is low, since person to person transmission results only from direct contact with the bodily fluids or secretions of an infected patient. People are infectious only once they show symptoms. Sick people are advised not to travel and to seek medical advice immediately if Ebola is suspected. All countries should be alert and have the capacity to manage travellers from Ebola-infected areas who have unexplained febrile illness.

Preparedness, vigilance and community awareness will be crucial to success in our fight against a complex public health emergency like Ebola. It will take effective national efforts to support an internationally coordinated response.

DRDO Awards Function 2014 – A Curtain Raiser

DRDO AWARDS for the year 2013 for outstanding contribution in various areas of technology will be given away by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, in the august presence of Hon’ble Defence Minister Shri Arun Jaitley and a galaxy of dignitaries on 20th August 2014 in a brief ceremony to be held at Kothari Auditorium, DRDO Bhawan. The DRDO awards in 10 categories are being given to honour individual Scientists/Teams of DRDO, partners of DRDO from other sectors for their outstanding contributions in furthering DRDO’s efforts in achieving self-reliance. DRDO Life Time Achievement Award 2013 is being conferred on Dr. Dipankar Banerjee formerly Director, DMRL and Chief Controller R&D of DRDO for his distinguished contributions to the field of Metallurgy, Materials science & Combat Aircraft Program. Technology Leadership Award: In recognition of outstanding contributions and leadership qualities, the Technology Leadership Award for the year 2013 is being awarded to Shri S Anantha Narayanan, Distinguished Scientist & Director Naval Physical & Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), Kochi towards development of underwater surveillance systems, new technologies in underwater transducers, onboard processors and deployment mechanisms and fostering industrial partnerships leading to proliferation of a large number of systems in the Indian Navy. ACADEMY EXCELLENCE AWARDS are given to members from academia associated with DRDO for research in emerging areas. The two Academy Excellence Awards for the year 2013 are being conferred on Emeritus Prof. S Mohan, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru for his noteworthy contributions to several projects of DRDO. His innovative ideas and advice have helped DEBEL to successfully carry out technology demonstration of the concept of TDLAS Oxygen Sensor for Air Borne application, Ammonia Sensor, Micro needle Array for EEG and MEMS based pressure Sensor and Prof. V Kamakoti, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai for his outstanding contributions to the area of Computer Architecture, Reconfigurable System Design and Indigenous VLSI/EDA software, Secure Operating Systems, Indigenous IPs and to improve the performance of ANURAG developed ANUPAMA/ABACUS processors using higher level design abstraction. Silicon Trophy for the Best Systems Laboratory of DRDO is being awarded to Defence Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad for outstanding contributions towards development of tactical and underwater launched guided weapon systems. TITANIUM TROPHY for the Best Science Laboratory of DRDO is being awarded to Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Sciences (DIPAS), Delhi for outstanding contributions in improving performance and health of the soldiers deployed at high altitude and other operational environments. DRDO awards for PATH BREAKING RESEARCH AND OUTSTANDING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT for the year 2013 are being conferred upon: ·         Dr. SC Sati,Director, Aerial Delivery Research & Development Establishment (ADRDE), Agra and his team for their outstanding contributions towards design, development, realisation and testing of P-16 Heavy Drop System comprising multi stage parachutes and platform. ·         Dr. S Guruprasad, Scientist ‘H’, and Director, Research & Development Establishment (Engineers) (R&DE (E)), Pune and his team for their outstanding contributions towards development of a cost effective manufacturing technology for composites, Resin Film Infusion and materials for the same, leading to realisation of large size, light weight and multifunctional structural components for military applications. ·         Shri RS Chandrasekhar, Scientist ‘F’, Research Centre Imarat (RCI), Hyderabad and his team have made outstanding contributions in developing innovative and robust Alignment methodologies for Inertial Navigation Systems for Air-to-Air tactical weapon and Ship-launched Strategic weapon. DRDO AWARD FOR PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE are being conferred on Shri PS Subramanyam, Distinguished Scientist & Director, Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) Bengaluru and his team along with Dr. K Tamilmani, former Chief Executive, CEMILAC  and his team towards accomplishing an unprecedented milestone in Defence Aviation through indigenous design, development and certification of a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, Tejas for induction into services. Tejas has been granted Initial Operational Clearance (IOC) in Dec 2013. This rare feat of the team has catapulted India into the elite club of nations which possess the technological capabilities and infrastructure to build and roll out their own fighter aircraft with state-of-the-art technologies. SPECIAL AWARD FOR STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION 2013 is being conferred on: ·         Smt. U Jeya Santhi, Scientist ‘F’ and her team for significant contributions towards successful design, development, erection and commissioning of Strategic Command and Control infrastructure comprising a secured, multi-layered, Strategic Communication Network and specialised Blast and EMP hardened structures. ·         Shri K Ravi Sankar, Scientist 'F', Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR), Bengaluru and his team for outstanding contributions to the development of Security Solutions for Strategic Communication Networks (SCN) for securing sensitive data transmitted over PSTN links, high-speed point-to-point links which incorporate indigenous high grade encryption algorithms, automated and fast robust synchronization, user friendly end-to-end key management, innovative capture resiliency techniques with robust authentication mechanisms.  ·         Shri Rajeev Thaman, Scientist 'F', Scientific Analysis Group (SAG), Delhi and his team have made significant contributions in developing various indigenous information security SW Solutions for Cyber Defence, which have been deployed at various Defence Establishments, Strategic Programmes and other Intelligence Agencies providing high level of security assurance. Defence Technology Absorption Award is given to DRDO’s industrial partners for their support in transformation of technologies developed by DRDO into products/systems/processes for Armed forces. The award is being given to:- ·         M/s Accord Software & Systems Ltd., Bengaluru, has immensely contributed towards indigenous design, development and production of advanced high dynamics GPS+GLONASS+GAGAN receivers with state-of-the-art technologies and features in multiple configurations to the specific requirements/ specifications of Indian Defence programmes in close coordination with DRDO laboratories. ·         M/s Aerospace Engineers, Salem, Tamil Nadu, has displayed profound technical expertise in absorbing various technologies and has delivered high-precision and quality elastomeric products manufactured out of these technologies for use on various airborne systems developed by DRDO that include LCA, Lakshya, Nishant, Missiles, Life Saving Systems, aircrafts and helicopters. ·         M/s Krishna Industries, Mumbai has displayed pioneering efforts towards indigenous production of “Bulb Bars” of various sections of DMR-249A grade steel, on industrial scale, in association with DRDO for construction of warships by devising ingenious roll design, rolling parameters and novel heat treatment technique.  Their sustained efforts have culminated in producing high quality bulb bars for the first time in the country, thereby meeting the requirements of the Indian Navy in a timely and cost effective manner. DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY SPIN-OFF AWARD 2013 is being awarded to Defence Food Research Laboratory (DFRL), Mysore for significant extension work in the rural sector for the benefit of tomato farmers & women entrepreneurs by means of commercialization of tomato-based value-added products

The post-euphoric world

What we are witnessing in the spreading turmoil around the world — in Iraq, in Ukraine, in Gaza — is the silent rejection of a central tenet of U.S. post-World War II foreign policy: that global prosperity would foster peace and stability. Countries would rather trade than fight. Promoting economic growth would suppress the divisive forces of nationalism, ideology, religion and culture. So we thought.

It’s an idea with a long pedigree in American thinking, going back to at least Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of free trade, he and his followers believed, “was not merely to promote commercial prosperity everywhere but to promote peace everywhere,” writes historian Gordon Wood. Free trade “would tie nations together peacefully and change the way international politics had traditionally been conducted.”

The idea is not just wishful thinking. It succeeded in the decades after World War II to help pacify Europe, to return Japan to the community of nations and to triumph in the Cold War. But in the euphoria accompanying the Soviet Union’s collapse, this success was unrealistically generalised into a universal law of nations. In 1989, Francis Fukuyama had written a famous (and naive) essay arguing that we had reached “the end of history.” Most countries would march toward democratic political systems and relatively free-market economies, he said. How reassuring.

There was also a lot of sloppy support for “the McDonald’s theory of international relations,” which held — as my perceptive colleague Anne Applebaum noted in a recent column — that two countries with McDonald’s would never fight, because both were integrated into the world economy and wouldn’t jeopardise the benefits. As Russia with 400 McDonald’s and Ukraine with more than 70 face off, writes Applebaum, “We can finally declare the McPeace theory officially null and void.”

The leaders of large expanses of humanity never bought into the idea that achieving prosperity was life’s central purpose or what fundamentally defined them. They had other competing beliefs, traditions and ambitions that qualified and limited the power of economic growth. This applies to Iraq and Afghanistan, much of the Middle East and — including the influence of nationalism — China and much of Asia.

One characteristic of this post-euphoric world is a pervasive contradiction. On the one hand, we are being drawn closer together by the explosion of low-cost digital technologies, cheapening transportation and expanding trade. In a word: globalisation. On the other hand, we’re being pulled further apart by deep and durable ethnic, religious, historical and nationalistic schisms. The power of the former make the latter more threatening, because unwanted consequences and conflicts are more easily transmitted across borders. Think terrorism, cyber warfare, mass migrations and Ebola.

Globalisation amazes and disappoints. The McKinsey Global Institute — the research arm of McKinsey & Company, the management consulting firm — recently estimated the value of all cross-border flows of trade, money and services, including data. The total was $25.9 trillion in 2012. Said McKinsey:

“Today, 35 per cent of goods cross borders, up from 20 per cent in 1990. More than a third of all financial investments in the world are international transactions, and a fifth of Internet traffic is cross-border.”

It is not just that we overestimated globalisation’s power to subdue traditional sources of mayhem. We also failed to see that it could breed conflict and upheaval in its own right. In some circumstances, it can encourage countries to resort to force: They assume that their trading partners will not retaliate for fear of harming their own economic interests. In Ukraine, Vladimir Putin seems to have made that calculation; the resulting sanctions have proved him at least partially wrong. But in the South China Sea, China may be making the same dangerous assumption.

The more obvious peril is that globalisation will prove economically unstable. The financial crisis of 2008-09 has already discredited the seductive notion of constant income gains. Because that crisis originated in the United States, it was easier to combat. If the next one were truly global, we might be hampered in fighting it by limited global cooperation and understanding. We have only a primitive grasp of how the world economy, with its huge money flows and intricate supply-chain connections, operates. Even without a full-blown crisis, the slowing of global economic growth has intensified the competition among countries for commercial advantage.

The world arena is simply not the place we imagined it would become. This does not mean that we should succumb to the false temptations of isolationism, which would amplify international disorder. Nor should we abandon the pursuit of prosperity for ourselves and our close economic partners. But we should recognise that it is no panacea and that we should rethink its realistic possibilities and limits. In this post-euphoric time, we cannot afford to believe in utopias.