Chinese Physicist Yu Min awarded State Preeminent Science and Technology Award 2014

Prominent Chinese theoretical physicist Yu Min has been awarded State Preeminent Science and Technology Award for 2014. Chinese President Xi Jinping gave him the award in the ceremony held at Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

He was awarded for his groundbreaking research which led to the development of China’s first hydrogen bomb in 1967. It was tested after China’s first successful atomic weapons test.

About Yu Min

He was a researcher at the Modern Physics Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

His work on nuclear weapon theory played a critical role in the design of the nuclear weapons of China and number of high-tech research projects.

He has also won China’s national scientific progress prizes three time and was honored as a national labor model, and in 1992 was awarded the Guanghua Special Prize.

Maithripala Sirisena sworn-in as 7th President of Sri Lanka

Maithiripala Sirisena has sworn-in as 7th President of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court Judge K. Sri Pawan administered the oath of office to Maithiripala Sirisena at a oath taking function held at the Independence Square in Colombo.

While, United National Party (UNP) leader Ranil Wickramasinghe was sworn-in as Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister.

Election verdict: Maithiripala Sirisena was declared elected in Presidential electionsafter he had defeated incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa by more than 4 and a half lakh votes. In this election he had secured 51.28 per cent of total votes casted

Pravasi Bharatiya Samman 2015

Pravasi Bharatiya Samman 2015 has been awarded to 15 prominent non-resident Indians (NRI’s) on the concluding day of 13^th Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas.

They have been conferred with award for their contribution in various fields. The awards were presented by Vice-President Hamid Ansari at Mahatma Mandir in Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

Recipients of awards are 

• Satyanarayan Nadella- CEO of tech giant Microsoft.
• Donald Rabindernauth Ramaotar- He is President of Guyana and awarded for his work for the Indian diaspora in Guyana.
• Mala Mehta- For her contribution to Hindi language. She is founder of Indo- Australian Bal Bharatiya Vidyalaya in Thornleigh suburb in Sydney. Since its establishment, she has been pursuing the growth of Hindi in Australia.
• Rajaram Sanjaya- He is India-born Mexican scientist. He is winner of the ‘2014 World Food Prize’ for developing 480 wheat varieties that have been released in 51 countries.
• Kanwaljit Singh Bakhshi- He is Member of Parliament (MP) from New Zealand. He is also known for work he had done for the Indian diaspora in New Zealand.
• Essop Goolam Pahad- He is a South African politician. He was Minister in the Presidency from 1999 to September 2008 in South Africa.
• Mahendra Nanji Mehta- Uganda-based businessman of Indian origin.
• Professor Nathuram Poori -He is founder of Purico Group are also chosen for their contribution to Indian diaspora.
• Lord Raj Lumba- He is a philanthropist and founder of clothing company Rinku Group. He is a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom.
• Kamlesh Lulla- He is chief scientist for Earth observation in the Human ExplorationScience Office at the Johnson Space Centre at NASA. He has named for the award for his exceptional service to the space science.
• Nandini Tandon- She has been given this award for her work in life sciences andHealthcare and IT in USA and India along with other emerging markets.
• Rajmal Parakh
• Duraikannu Karunakaran
• Shah Bharatkumar Jayantilal
• Ashraf Palarkunnummal

Vice President Presents “Pravasi Bhartiya Samman Awards -2015” to 15 Distinguished Persons at Pravasi Bhartiya Divas at Gandhinagar

The Vice President of India Shri M. Hamid Ansari presented the “Pravasi Bhartiya Samman Awards -2015” to 15 distinguished persons at the Valedictory Session of the ‘Pravasi Bhartiya Divas’ at Gandhinagar, Gujarat today. Addressing on the occasion, he said that today, Overseas Indians are estimated to be around 25 million. They are in virtually every country and region of the world. Jidhar dekhta hoon faqat tu hi tu hai. Some, particularly in recent times, have gone voluntarily; the ancestors of others were victims of circumstance; compulsions of livelihood propelled many others. He said that no less diverse is the mix of skills and professional callings that range from blue collars workers to white collar experts in diverse fields, to men and women of science, doctors, engineers, IT professionals, business persons, entrepreneurs and investors. Some reside permanently in the countries of their work and have acquired nationality; others remain abroad for shorter periods and return home after a few years. They have, like most of us, multiple identities: a common denominator is their emotional bond to India, and to its cultural legacy. They cherish it, individually and collectively, and so do we here. The institution of the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas is an occasion of bonding. The Vice President opined that beyond these emotional bonds, and nourishing them, are modern day economic imperatives. NRI remittances, principally from those who are short-term residents abroad and need to sustain families back home, constitute an important element in our balance of payments. They also help propel in varying degrees economic activity in their home states. The more affluent segments of the NRI groups are increasingly a source of investments in diverse fields including information technology, healthcare, energy, mineral resources, retail, hospitality, gems & jewellery etc. The continuing liberalisation of the Indian economy, and the most recent policy initiatives taken or proposed by the Government, are expected to galvanise the involvement of the Overseas Indians in the many fields of economic activity.  He said that India today is on the cusp of change, in the process of actualising the expectations of its vast population for a better life. India aspires for a better place in the comity of nations. Both of these require rapid economic development, accompanied by better educational, health and social parameters. This requires a massive collective effort by all segments of our population. The governments at central and state levels need to provide visionary leadership and are determined to do so. In this endeavour, an important role can be and must be played by the Overseas Indians. They have knowledge and resources to reinforce the effort in niche areas; they also have the experience of other lands where similar efforts were pursued successfully. We welcome such initiatives, which will replicate these valuable experiences here and save us from reinventing the wheel. Following is the text of the Vice President’s valedictory address : “I am happy to be here this evening to confer the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards, on the occasion of the 13th Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, to fifteen distinguished personalities. This year is a special one. It coincides with the centenary of Mahatma Gandhi’s return to India from South Africa, following which he took on the mantle of leadership of perhaps greatest non-violent struggle for independence against the colonial yoke. Gandhi ji was also, unquestionably, the greatest Pravasi Bharatiya of all. Today’s Awards, as per our national legislation, are conferred on Non-Resident Indians and on Persons of Indian Origin, or on organizations and institutions established by them, who have made significant contributions in any of a set of eight fields in which they have through their individual contributions brought name and fame to India and Indians.  Many amongst the vast body of Overseas Indians have done so, and continue to do this in their own chosen way. A common thread amongst them is their affection for their land of origin and their adherence to its heritage, culture and traditions and the values emanating from them. I congratulate the winners of this year’s Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards. We are grateful for their contributions to society. They are deserving recipients of this recognition. Through their exemplary work, they have also proved to be outstanding envoys of peace, friendship and cooperation between India and countries of their residence. Today, Overseas Indians are estimated to be around 25 million. They are in virtually every country and region of the world. Jidhar dekhta hoon faqat tu hi tu hai. Some, particularly in recent times, have gone voluntarily; the ancestors of others were victims of circumstance; compulsions of livelihood propelled many others. No less diverse is the mix of skills and professional callings that range from blue collars workers to white collar experts in diverse fields, to men and women of science, doctors, engineers, IT professionals, business persons, entrepreneurs and investors. Some reside permanently in the countries of their work and have acquired nationality; others remain abroad for shorter periods and return home after a few years. They have, like most of us, multiple identities: a common denominator is their emotional bond to India, and to its cultural legacy. They cherish it, individually and collectively, and so do we here. The institution of the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas is an occasion of bonding. Beyond these emotional bonds, and nourishing them, are modern day economic imperatives. NRI remittances, principally from those who are short-term residents abroad and need to sustain families back home, constitute an important element in our balance of payments. They also help propel in varying degrees economic activity in their home states. The more affluent segments of the NRI groups are increasingly a source of investments in diverse fields including information technology, healthcare, energy, mineral resources, retail, hospitality, gems & jewellery etc. The continuing liberalisation of the Indian economy, and the most recent policy initiatives taken or proposed by the Government, are expected to galvanise the involvement of the Overseas Indians in the many fields of economic activity.  Relationships, even emotional ones, are not a one-way street. The Overseas Indians have expectations aimed at facilitating and intensifying their involvement with India. The Government of India, and the State Governments, have acknowledged the validity of these sentiments and taken or initiated steps to attract, assist and promote a deeper and multifaceted relationship, which is mutually beneficial and long lasting. We in India attach highest importance to issues of interest and concern to the overseas Indians. India today is on the cusp of change, in the process of actualising the expectations of its vast population for a better life. India aspires for a better place in the comity of nations. Both of these require rapid economic development, accompanied by better educational, health and social parameters. This requires a massive collective effort by all segments of our population. The governments at central and state levels need to provide visionary leadership and are determined to do so. In this endeavour, an important role can be and must be played by the Overseas Indians. They have knowledge and resources to reinforce the effort in niche areas; they also have the experience of other lands where similar efforts were pursued successfully. We welcome such initiatives, which will replicate these valuable experiences here and save us from reinventing the wheel. What then is the challenge before us in this task of linking India more closely with its overseas community? In my view it is to maintain and strengthen the linkages between the next generation of Pravasis and their counterparts in India. It is essential that the new generations at both ends continue and strengthen this mutually beneficial bond. The Youth Pravasi Bharatiya Divas organized on the 7th of January is a good step in the right direction.

Resolving the nuclear liability deadlock

By putting in place a comprehensive, fair and pragmatic legislation on civil nuclear liability, there is no reason why India cannot reap the long-term benefits of civilian nuclear energy and resolve a prickly foreign policy issue

On January 26, Barack Obama will become the first U.S. President to attend India’s Republic Day celebrations. It will also mark nearly 10 years since the first announcement on the India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement. In contrast to those heady days when the promise of nuclear power meeting India’s gargantuan energy needs was in the air, the present situation is bleak. A target of installing 63 Gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2032 has been reduced to 27.5 Gigawatts and none of the landmark deals envisaged has been struck. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010 which contains a speedy compensation mechanism for victims of a nuclear accident has been deemed responsible for this deadlock. Specifically, provisions on recourse liability on suppliers (Section 17(b)) and concurrent, potentially unlimited liability under other laws (Section 46) have been viewed as major obstacles in operationalising nuclear energy in India and bilateral relations with key supplier countries.

A question of recourse

Under Section 17(b), a liable operator can recover compensation from suppliers of nuclear material in the event of a nuclear accident if the damage is caused by the provision of substandard services or patent or latent defects in equipment or material. This is contrary to the practice of recourse in international civil nuclear liability conventions, which channel liability exclusively to the operator. Specifically, it contradicts Article 10 of the Annex to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), an international treaty which India has signed.

“U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit is an opportunity to address misgivings over the nuclear liability law and to also meet foreign governments and the supplier community halfway on the issue.”

That Section 17(b) is contrary to the global norm is undeniable. However when the global norm itself is inequitable, there are justifiable reasons to depart from it. The inclusion of Section 17(b) recognises historical incidents such as the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 for which defective parts were partly responsible. The paltry compensation paid to the victims was facilitated by gaps in legislation and an extraordinarily recalcitrant state machinery. This is not a peculiarly Indian phenomenon — accidents such as Three Mile Island occurred partially due to lapses on the part of suppliers. More recently, forged quality certificates were detected for parts supplied to nuclear plants in South Korea. That Section 17(b) incentivises supplier safety and reduces the probability of a recurrence of such instances is equally undeniable.

A step too far

India can retain Section 17(b) while ensuring compliance with its international legal obligations in two ways. First, the CSC allows countries to make reservations to certain provisions in treaties despite being signatories to them. India could make a reservation to Article 10 of the Annex to the CSC since it satisfies the requisite criteria for making a valid reservation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thereby excluding its application. Second, Article XV of the CSC implies that the rights and obligations of States under general rules of public international law are exempt from the application of the CSC. One such principle of international law is the “polluter pays principle” — applicable both to the state and private entities. The principle comes into operation via the mechanism through which compensation can be recovered from a polluting entity for the environmental harm it causes. Exercising either of these options will allow India to retain Section 17(b) without violating the international treaty regime.

However in pursuing the safety of supply, Section 17(b) goes too far in keeping liability for suppliers entirely open-ended. If liability on suppliers is unlimited in time and quantum, the possibility of getting adequate insurance cover will reduce. Even if such insurance is available, it could make nuclear energy economically unviable. To address this, Rule 24 of the CLND Rules dilutes the right of recourse conferred by Section 17(b) by limiting compensation payable by suppliers to a specified amount and for a specified time period. Both these are made standard terms of the contract entered into between the supplier and operator.

Though the end that Rule 24 seeks to achieve is justifiable, the means adopted are questionable. Rule 24 arguably violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India because there is no specific power in the CLND Act to limit liability in the manner that Rule 24 does. Further, the terms of the contract potentially dilute Section 17(b), which gives operators an untrammelled right to proceed against the supplier by way of recourse. It is a basic principle of law that a contract cannot violate the provision of a statute — if it does so, it is opposed to public policy. For these reasons, Rule 24 should be deleted. The limitation on time during which the supplier can be held liable should be inserted by means of a provision in the main Act. This will ensure that not just the end but also the means of limiting liability are legally tenable.

As far as the limitation on the amount is concerned, without Rule 24, the liability for each supplier potentially extends to the general liability cap of Rs.1,500 crore. If all suppliers have to be insured up to this value, insurance costs will be unnecessarily pyramided. To address this, countries with a history of nuclear power have in place mechanisms to provide for insurance coverage through international insurance pools where insurers, operators and states share the risks of an accident, providing access to a wide pool of compensation. There are about 26 such pools in existence, which also provide reinsurance to each other. Insurance pools typically require members to be signatories to an international convention (such as CSC), and to allow reasonable inspections of their nuclear installations.

While provisions for the creation of a domestic insurance pool for operators exist in Sections 7 and 8 of the Act and Rule 3, they need to be made explicit and amended to include suppliers in order to prevent the pyramiding of insurance premiums. This is particularly relevant to India’s domestic nuclear suppliers who would otherwise need to individually take out coverage, which would be prohibitively expensive. In order to access international reinsurance pools, the Central government could utilise the provisions in Section 43 and 44 of the CLND Act (Power to Call for Information from Operators) to establish a satisfactory inspections regime.

Sanctity of a special mechanism

Finally, Section 46 of the CLND Act contradicts the Act’s central purpose of serving as a special mechanism enforcing the channelling of liability to the operator to ensure prompt compensation for victims.

Section 46 provides that nothing would prevent proceedings other than those which can be brought under the Act, to be brought against the operator. This is not uncommon, as it allows criminal liability to be pursued where applicable. However, in the absence of a comprehensive definition of the types of ‘nuclear damage’ being notified by the Central Government, Section 46 potentially also allows civil liability claims to be brought against the operator and suppliers through other civil law such as the law of tort. While liability for operators is capped by the CLND Act, this exposes suppliers to unlimited amounts of liability. Obtaining insurance coverage for any future liability costs on account of claims by victims in such a case would be next to impossible.

Section 46 should thus be limited to criminal liability, and should clarify that victims who suffer on account of ‘nuclear damage’ can institute claims for compensation only under the CLND Act and not by recourse to other legislations or Courts. A clarification issued by the Attorney General’s office, if not an amendment to the law itself, will provide much needed assurance to suppliers while furthering national interest.

The issue of the liability law has, for far too long, been a thorn in India’s bilateral relations especially with the United States. Mr. Obama’s visit provides a historic opportunity to address these misgivings and meet foreign governments, as well as the entire supplier community, Indian and foreign, halfway on the issue. This will signal the seriousness of the Government of India in setting its own house in order and put the ball firmly in the court of the supplier community. By putting in place such a comprehensive, fair and pragmatic legislation on civil nuclear liability, there is no reason why India cannot reap the long-term benefits of civilian nuclear energy and resolve a prickly foreign policy issue, the time for whose resolution has come.

When accountability is not institutional

Higher education in India suffers from a lack of a democratic leadership that understands its true nature. For those heading academic institutions, accountability is personal and not institutional or societal. The erosion of autonomy and accountability in centres of education is the biggest challenge an aspirational and rising India faces

The Director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, has resigned because he was sought to be marginalised by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD). The faculty and alumni of IIT have come out in his support but the issue festers. Unfortunately, this has little to do with the real problem facing IITs — a lack of adequate faculty and little cutting-edge research. Even before the indiscriminate expansion of the IITs began, these institutes faced a shortage of faculty; at times to the extent of 40 per cent. The IITs face a reverse filtration of talent. The best obtain a B.Tech degree and either leave for foreign shores or move on to study management. The second best continue pursuing higher degrees which in turn leads to a weak research programme. Like IIT Delhi, other institutions of higher education in the capital have also been in the throes of crisis.

The country’s best university, Delhi University, has been in a state of turmoil for several years. Its vice-chancellor, who has been responsible for this continues in spite of accusations of wrongdoing. His presence is demoralising for academic staff and the student community. Since a university is not about its buildings but crucially its students and faculty, their alienation damages the institution irreparably.

The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) faces a crisis because the earlier vice-chancellor recklessly expanded its scope. While this provides a false sense of dynamism, for an institution of higher learning, this spells trouble since it is almost next to impossible to get good faculty in a short period of time. Dependence on outside experts for courses is problematic since they do not bear primary responsibility. The vice-chancellor, accused of wrongdoing, is under investigation.

Autonomy being eroded

These are not isolated institutional problems. They are generic in nature and can be found to exist in different degrees in almost all institutions. What plagues Delhi University once prevailed at Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University. A shortage of faculty and the use of ad hoc teachers affects almost all universities.

The highest National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)-rated university, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), faces declining standards of research. The university, whose raison d’être was research, confronts growing instances of plagiarism because those in authority brush it under the carpet. The problem is being dealt with mechanically by providing software. Instead, the real problem is the breakdown in trust between student and teacher. Many students have little time to spend on their dissertation since they are working elsewhere and/or preparing for competitive examinations.

Some faculty in order to be popular dilute standards and supervise three or four times the number of research students prescribed under University Grants Commission (UGC) norms. There are others who run non-governmental organisations and institutions outside JNU. The result is a conflict of interest and where academics with little time for research supervision allow anything to pass. There is a lack of leadership at JNU but this is true of other institutions also where decisions are not made on time.

“The claim that India has arrived on the world stage rings hollow without an independent technology base”

All this is symptomatic of a lack of a vision of higher education in the entire system — from the Ministry to the UGC to the institutions of higher learning. The Ministry and the UGC expect their diktat to run, little realising that their demands from these institutions may not suit all. “One size fits all” and “standardisation to achieve standards” is anathema to higher education. Such prescriptions damage the better institutions as has been the case with the introduction of the mechanical Academic Performance Indicator (API)-based recruitment and promotions. Rather than ensuring quality, this move has led to the emergence of poor quality journals, conferences and so on and the promotion of mediocrity. It is undermining the autonomy of academics which is crucial in fostering accountability to the long-term interest of society.

The HRD Minister’s conclave with the vice-chancellors of the Central Universities in September suggested fundamental changes in the running of these universities. Since the Central Universities are some of the premier universities in the country, what they do becomes the model for other universities. Therefore, it is important to know whether what was discussed would help resolve the problems of these universities. The same vice-chancellors who created the problems described earlier are now heading the committees working on the proposed changes.

Apparently, a council of the vice-chancellors of the Central Universities, with the Minister of HRD heading it, has been proposed. In addition, all the Central Universities are to be brought under a common Act, there is to be a common curriculum, a teacher’s recruitment board, transferability of students among these universities and so on. If any of this is implemented, the autonomy of Central Universities will be severely eroded. This was the programme of the United Progressive Alliance government and is perhaps being pursued because the bureaucrats of the Ministry are driving the agenda.

Key problems
The key problems confronting higher education in India are quality, equity, access and financing. In the last 10 years, there has been a massive ad hoc expansion of Central Universities, IITs and Indian Institutes of Management resulting in a shortage of faculty by 40 to 50 per cent. Established older institutions are doing a bit better but not much since about 33 per cent of the positions at Delhi University and JNU lie vacant. Shortage by itself does not reflect the extent of the problem since quality of faculty is crucial. Appointment of ad hoc teachers at salaries close to minimum wages and for years at a stretch is demoralising and results in a deterioration in quality.

Good faculty are reluctant to join newer institutions as they lack infrastructure and because many of them are in remote areas. Transferability of teachers across Central Universities can only spread good academics thin and lead to a deterioration of quality in established universities. In an authoritarian system, this can be used to punish teachers by posting them to remote areas, thus undermining autonomy and leading to sycophancy.

When transferred to weak institutions, good academics could become demoralised. Sending weak academics to good institutions may not lead to their betterment but could result in a deterioration of quality in these institutions. Good students would not transfer to weak institutions but poor quality students would want to migrate to good institutions and this could lead to corruption.

Teaching and research

Our education system is plagued by the separation of teaching and research. Knowledge is largely acquired through rote learning of notes or reading books that are a “cut-and-paste job”. Thus, understanding is at a discount. Consequently, many Indian intellectuals tend to be “derived intellectuals”, recycling knowledge from the West. Exams are mechanically passed by “mugging up” material which is then promptly forgotten. Knowledge is neither assimilated nor converted into wisdom. The result is that the system largely produces people with indifferent quality and where industry complains of a lack of skills.

Independent intellectuals are seen as being troublemakers and are harassed. Mediocre academics, realising that they cannot excel academically, resort to petty politicking and/or become sycophants of those in power in order to climb the ladder. Those at the top take the support of the latter group and adopt the principle, “show me the face I show you the rule” It is this group that violates rules secure in the knowledge that the authorities will not act against them. They bring a bad name to higher education and erode the accountability of the institution.

The government has announced a slew of programmes like ‘Make in India’ which depends heavily on a strong research and development capability which in turn requires a dynamic system of higher education. The claim that India has arrived on the world stage rings hollow without an independent technology base. It is no wonder then that we are forced to borrow technology from China for bullet trains or ask the U.S. to help clean our cities. The ‘Swachh Bharat’, ‘Clean Ganga’ and other such campaigns require citizenship which a democratic and inclusive education system can deliver but a purely formal education system cannot. Unless the crisis in higher education is tackled, the government’s best laid plans can be derailed.

In brief, higher education in India suffers from a lack of a democratic leadership that understands its true nature. Those heading these institutions are usually the favourites of those in power (political or money). They largely implement the agenda of their masters and, therefore, do not feel the need to be accountable to the academic community. To them, accountability is personal and not institutional or societal. They undermine the autonomy of the democratic bodies of universities, like the academic council through threats and inducements. Some institutions have no unions that can balance the autocratic behaviour of their heads. Thus, the erosion of the autonomy and accountability in institutions of higher learning is both from within and without. This is the biggest challenge before an India that aspires to arrive on the world stage.

Mr Obama's passage to India

The United States president's visit should help in cultivating India as a reliable partner in international affairs

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vigorous foreign policyin the seven months since he took office has surprised observers. After inviting the leaders of Pakistan and other neighbouring countries to his inauguration, he embarked on trips to China, Australia, and the United States. More recently, he welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin to New Delhi and signed a large number of trade deals and orders to import Russian nuclear reactors. India, Mr Modi is telling his fellow citizens, is strong and well regarded around the world.

Next month, United States President Barack Obama will travel to New Delhi as Mr Modi's special guest at events commemorating Republic Day, India's national holiday - just three months after the two leaders held substantive talks in Washington, D C. The visit should, thus, be regarded as a clear signal of Mr Obama's desire, no less than Mr Modi's, to strengthen United States-India relations.

So what is likely to be on Mr Obama's mind when he meets his Indian counterpart again, and what does he think can be done to cement bilateral ties? Three issues stand out - beginning with trade, which is as important politically as it is economically.

Mr Obama hopes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will be concluded in 2015 and ratified by the United States Senate. The TPP will not be as powerful a free-trade agreement as originally intended, owing to exclusions and a very long phase-in period. But it will tie the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries (including Japan but excluding China) together in a new economic bloc. Mr Obama should be eager to stress that India's exclusion from the TPP is a matter solely of geography - India does not abut the Pacific - and that the United States wants to increase bilateral trade and direct investment by American firms.

The second issue is terrorism. The United States authorities are worried that American citizens who have been fighting with the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda in West Asia will return home to commit terrorist acts. India has experienced horrific acts of terrorism on its own territory. Continued cooperation between the American and Indian intelligence agencies can help both countries prevent future incidents.

Terrorism includes not just physical violence, but also assaults in cyberspace. China, Russia and Iran have been the source of frequent cyber attacks on banks, companies and government agencies; North Korea, the United States alleges, was behind the recent breach of Sony Pictures' computers. Though Mr Obama presented evidence to Chinese President Xi Jinping of technology theft by hackers based in China, the Chinese authorities continue to deny it. More recently, Russia and others have been planting malware in the control systems of the United States power grid and other sensitive networks.

Looking ahead, the United States worries about cyber attacks by non-state actors like the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. Although these groups' members may lack the sophistication to commit such acts, they may try to hire individuals with the necessary skills. India has a large number of talented computer engineers, including some who might be sympathetic to the Islamist cause. The United States and India could both benefit from cooperating to prevent and disrupt such recruitment efforts.

The third issue on Mr Obama's mind is bound to be China's asserted goal of dominating Asia and excluding the United States from the region. Chinese hegemonic ambition runs counter to India's strategic interests as well - reason enough for Mr Modi's eagerness to strengthen his country's relations with its neighbours as well as with the United States. Mr Obama has already made it clear that the United States understands that Mr Modi's willingness to cooperate with Russia, despite Western sanctions imposed on the country, stems from India's desire to discourage a Sino-Russian alliance against it.

Mr Modi won a landslide victory in an election that reflected the Indian public's disappointment with the policies and performance of the previous government, led by the Indian National Congress. Though India had experienced annual real gross domestic product growth of more than eight per cent for several years, growth has slowed since 2010, to less than five per cent in 2013, owing to a populist shift in policies dictated by Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi.

By contrast, the Modi government plans to pursue a pro-growth agenda that includes reducing bureaucratic delays, increasing infrastructure investment, stimulating manufacturing activity and shifting to a simpler unified tax system. Mr Modi's agenda also evidently includes an active foreign policy - as it should.

Cultivating India as a reliable partner in the global economy and in international affairs is a high priority for the United States as well. Mr Obama's visit to India can help to realise that relationship's potential.

Cyber-attacks are no longer fiction

On Monday, November 24, 2014, employees at Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) headquarters in Culver City, California, had a shock when they switched on their workstations. A red skeleton popped up with a bullet-pointed message. Hackers, who self-identified as "Guardians of Peace", said they controlled all Sony's data.

SPE shut down servers and took its corporate network offline. It suffered massive damage. Unreleased movies were dumped onto the internet. So were e-mails, medical records and compensation data for executives. The personal information of sundry Hollywood stars and entertainers was also released.

The attack was said to be orchestrated by North Korea(officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or DPRK) in retaliation for a Sony comedy, The Interview. This film (released post-hack) is about an assassination attempt on Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. Then, a hacker group, "Lizard Squad" forced DPRK off the internet for two days in December.

US President Barack Obama blamed North Korea. The DPRK accused the US of a counter-attack. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says the Sony hackers were careless, and revealed internet protocol addresses of DPRK origin.

Consider the damage. SPE, a $8-billion subsidiary of Japanese parent, Sony was crippled for weeks. The digital infrastructure was ruined without physical damage. The release of private data made employees and movie stars personally vulnerable. There was loss of revenue as copyrighted films were released. Future plans were compromised. SPE may even be liable for lawsuits due to the poor encryption of private data of individuals. Insurers will examine this case closely and it could lead to modifications in industrial insurance policies and practices.

The hackers face few consequences. They were anonymous people operating from outside the US borders. There is "deniability" for the DPRK, which is said to have a cyber warfare cell of over 6,000 hackers. The combination of deniability, and the ability to cripple infrastructure without necessarily causing physical damage is tempting. So is the ability to garner intelligence and data.

Not surprisingly, there have been multiple earlier instances of cyber-attacks, allegedly by nations.

Iran's nuclear programme was hit by the Stuxnet worm, which targeted industrial control systems in reactors and research institutions for years. Stuxnet was very sophisticated. It's said to have been developed by Israeli and US coders but, of course, there's no confirmation. Stuxnet found vulnerabilities in specialised chips designed for one purpose.

In 2009, an allegedly Chinese operation, "GhostNet" hacked data off government servers in many nations. In 2007, Estonia was knocked offline by a coordinated attack, made by at least a million hacked computers, turned into a "zombie army". Russia was blamed, given tensions between Estonia and Russia. Georgia was knocked offline during the South Ossetia Crisis of 2008. Again, Russia had circumstantial motives. In the 1990s, the US hit Serbian infrastructure to knock out air traffic control and facilitate UN bombing operations.

Military infrastructure and equipment is heavily dependent on computers and networks. All military equipment relies to some degree on specialised chips, or on networks. General civilian infrastructure is also vulnerable.

The global financial system, for example, is networked and interconnected. Banks, credit cards issuers, financial markets servers, central banks, tax authorities and so on all "talk" to each other. Power grids are smart. So are airport traffic control and airline routing systems, railway networks, traffic lights and so on.

The "Internet of Things" is also growing. This consists of smart unmanned devices connected to the internet. It includes items as diverse as industrial robots, police drones, refrigerators and car navigational systems. Botnet armies of "things" have already been created.

At least 140 nations have cyber war programmes. The US spends untold billions distributed across many agencies. It has a Cyber Command, which is part of Special Operations Forces. The US also has an articulated framework of "five pillars" for active and passive cyber-warfare. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO has a separate "Tallinn manual" developed after the Estonia episode mentioned above.

While other countries lack similar resources or focus, even small investments in cyber capabilities can pay off big in offensive terms. And, of course, defensive capacities in this area are imperative. This is one area of civilian-cum-military capability where India cannot afford to fall behind.