30 August 2014

India, Japan sign MoU to develop Varanasi into 'smart city'

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Japan today began on a significant note with a pact being signed under which his constituency Varanasi will be developed as a 'smart city', with cooperation and experience of Kyoto, the Japanese 'smart city' which is a confluence of heritage and modernity.
The signing of the Partner City Affiliation MoU, which marks the launch of smart heritage city programme, between the two countries, was overseen by Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who made a special gesture of flying here from Tokyo to meet his Indian counterpart.
The pact was signed by Indian Ambassador to Japan Deepa Wadhwa and Mayor of Kyoto Daisaku Kadokawa soon after Modi's arrival here for his two-day first leg of his visit. Abe received Modi at the Kyoto Guest House before the signing ceremony.
The MoU provides for cooperation in heritage conservation, city modernisation and cooperation in the fields of art, culture and academics, External Affairs Ministry spokesman Syed Akbaruddin told reporters
This marks the launch of Smart heritage city programme between the two countries, he added. The pact is in line with Modi's vision of building 100 smart cities across India.
Under the MoU, a detailed roadmap of cooperation will be prepared which will form the base for further understanding.
Both cities shall endeavor to strengthen exchanges and cooperation in the agreed fields based on principles of equality and mutual respect and benefit and continuously exchange information and opinion in the agreed areas and cooperate in important fields.
After the signing of the pact, Abe hosted a dinner for Modi who has embarked on the visit with "great expectations" and hope that a "new chapter" would be written in the bilateral ties while taking the Strategic and Global Partnership to a higher level.
Before the dinner, Modi and Abe participated in a special ceremony called 'Feeding the Fish', a ritual in Japan because of the belief that it gives strength and perseverance to the fish.
Modi arrived at the Osaka International Airport earlier in the day to begin the first leg of his five-day visit to Japan, his first bilateral visit outside the subcontinent as the Prime Minister.
Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will have substantive summit meeting in Tokyo on September 1 during which the two sides will look at ways to take the Strategic and Global Partnership forward.
Modi has a substantive agenda duringthe trip which he hopes will "write a new chapter" in bilateral ties and take the Strategic and Global Partnership to a higher level.

Friends for the future,indo-japan relation


When they catch up this weekend in Kyoto, the ancient capital of Japan, Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shinzo Abe will celebrate the deep civilisational links between the two nations before they unveil the contours of a more purposeful strategic partnership in Tokyo on Monday.
That Modi and Abe have developed a personal rapport over the years is well known. Although he could not make Japan his first foreign destination as PM, Modi has kept the essence of his promise that he would attach special significance to ties with Tokyo. His trip to Japan is his first bilateral diplomatic engagement outside the subcontinent.
If Tokyo was disappointed with Modi’s cancellation of his trip to Japan at the last moment a few weeks ago, Abe is making a special gesture now by showing up at Kyoto to host a private dinner for the Indian prime minister. As they push for an ambitious agenda of bilateral cooperation, Modi and Abe are both privileging the past to address the challenges of the present.
For Modi and Abe, widely hailed and rebuked for their unabashed nationalism, the past is not really past. They are actively mobilising the past in pursuit of their current goals. If Modi is leveraging nationalism to reconfigure India’s domestic politics and its external orientation, Abe is determined to end Japan’s post-war antipathy towards nationalism and remake it as a normal state.
As they seek a larger role for their nations in Asia and the world, Modi and Abe know they need each other more than ever before. They are acutely conscious that India and Japan form unique partners for each other amid the current economic and geopolitical flux in Asia.
They have one common problem, though. Both are burdened with national security bureaucracies that are stuck with mantras of the past and slowing down the prospects for civil nuclear and defence cooperation. Modi and Abe need to press their bureaucracies to quickly wrap up the nuclear negotiations and lay the foundations for a strong defence partnership.
On the economic front, the challenges are more on the Indian side, where Modi must get his domestic act together to take full advantage of the possibilities that have opened up for Japan’s participation in accelerating India’s economic development. On a whole range of issues identified as priorities by Modi — from boosting India’s manufacturing sector to the modernisation of infrastructure, from building high-speed railways to constructing smart cities, from cleaning the Ganga to the development of green technologies — Japan is well placed to become a productive partner.
Modi’s decision to arrive in Kyoto a day ahead of schedule and Abe’s move to meet him there are part of an effort to showcase the historic Buddhist bonds betweenIndia and Japan, so visible in Kyoto and Nara, and create a broader public support in both countries for a meaningful strategic partnership. Over the weekend, Modi and Abe are likely to announce a sister city partnership between Varanasi and Kyoto. For preserving the heritage of Varanasi and making it a modern city, Kyoto is a fine place to learn from.
Past and present will also come together in the political engagement between the two leaders in Tokyo. Since he surprised the world by his return to power at the end of 2012, Abe has sought to pull Japan out of extended economic stagnation and re-establish it as a front-ranking power in Asia and the world.
For more than five decades, Japan has been content to rely on the military alliance with the US to ensure its security. It also normalised relations with China when Washington warmed up to Beijing to counter Moscow. But the context has rapidly evolved with the rise of China, its emergence as a great military power, and its intensifying territorial dispute with Japan in the East China Sea. As it worries about Beijing’s new clout, Tokyo is also concerned about America’s ambivalence in the new dynamic between China and Japan.
While the alliance with the US will remain Japan’s security anchor for the foreseeable future, Abe is taking some additional insurance. He is strengthening Japan’s military capabilities and preparing it for a more active security role in Asia and the Indian Ocean. He also wants to build stronger security partnerships with many countries in the region, including US allies like Australia and the Philippines as well as non-aligned nations like India, Vietnam and Indonesia. Abe’s vigorous policies have drawn flak from China. Beijing has charged him with militarism and accused him of trying to overturn the post-war order in Asia. It is into this East Asian minefield that Modi n’s re-emergence as a responsible power in Asia. In the seven decades that have elapsed since the end of World War II, Japan has proved to be a good international citizen, having contributed significantly to regional economic growth, including in China, and promoted political and institutional cooperation in Asia.
Endorsing Japan’s normalisation does not mean Modi will be taking sides between Tokyo and Beijing. Here again, the past offers a sensible guidance for the present. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, argued against treating Japan as a defeated power in the wake of WW II. Nehru also opposed Western attempts to isolate China after the communists won the civil war there in 1949.
Unless both China and Japan are given their legitimate due, Nehru was convinced, Asia will be neither secure nor prosperous. Modi, then, has a strong precedent to pursue good relations with both Japan and China. The PM should strengthen partnerships with Tokyo and Beijing, each on its own merit, and in the process, build up India’s comprehensive national power and make Delhi an indispensable actor in shaping Asia’s future.

Let’s talk transfer of technology


India must insist on co-development and co-production of defence systems that it plans to buy from the U.S.

It is good that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defence Minister Arun Jaitley have made it clear to the U.S. Defence Minister, Chuck Hagel, who was in India earlier this month, that the pure sale of defence hardware by the U.S. to India is far from enough.

The way we should go with the Americans has to be on the lines of the co-development and co-production of the state-of-the-art Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with the Russians.

However, India, which agreed to buy 39 AH-64D Apache helicopters for the Army in addition to the 22 now under negotiation, is in talks again for purchase by the Indian Air Force (IAF) from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing. This is being done without transfer of technology (TOT) to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the local manufacture of all these 61 helicopters, which is bad for the country. Such a number of helicopters, senior managers and engineers of HAL’s Helicopter Division argue forcefully, is large enough for substantial local content-based production. Neither the IAF nor the Army contracts with Boeing has gone so far as to make TOT result in techno-commercially viable production here feasible and viable. The Ministry of Defence should act immediately to tie-up such TOT-based production by HAL instead of proceeding with mere import of the finished product.

Defence supplies by the U.S.

Will the U.S. government agree? If we use the multi-billion U.S. dollar value of the two contracts as leverage and exert pressure, they will have to. This would mean new jobs for HAL and its sub-contractors. It would also mean we would have a nationally controlled spares production base in the country, which would be orders of magnitude cheaper than supply of spares from the U.S. The bread and butter for the supplier come from hugely priced spares; not from the main equipment.

 “Having a production base in the country would mean national control over spare parts, so as to not remain at the mercy of the supplier”

If one were to analyse defence supplies by U.S. companies under the U.S. government’s direction and control even to their “closest allies” such as the U.K., one would find that it is the policy of the U.S. government to severely restrict not only TOT in general, but transfer of technology relating to critical sub-assemblies, modules and components too, making us eternally dependent on them.

A specific case will illustrate the reality. The case pertains to the Sea Harrier, which is aircraft carrier-borne and uses vertical take off and landing (VTOL). The U.K. was the inventor of VTOL technology. India had bought two squadrons (around 30 aircraft) of the Sea Harrier from the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) way back in the 1970s for its aircraft carriers. When the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance government was in power (1999-2004), we sent our Sea Harriers to the BAC for a thorough upgrade. At that time, the Ministry of Defence, the Navy and the BAC knew that such an upgrade would call for the BAC importing some critical sub-systems, modules and components (hereafter collectively referred to as “modules”) from the U.S. This was because those modules had been imported by the BAC even for the Sea Harriers it had produced in the U.K. and supplied to the British Navy.

That the U.S. government would prove “difficult” in clearing the supply of those modules for our Sea Harriers was recognised by both the BAC and the Defence Ministry. So they sounded out the U.S. government agencies concerned. The U.S. response was non-committal. Nevertheless, the Ministry went ahead. Why? Because we did not have an option. Over 25 years, the Indian Navy operated those aircraft, but no effort was made to successfully indigenise those modules. We just merrily went along with importing those modules from the BAC, which in turn kept importing them from the U.S. companies concerned at huge increases in prices from time to time.

It was not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government refused the supplies to the BAC for fitment on our Sea Harriers. The BAC and the British Navy then told India that the U.S. government had done likewise, even in regard to the Harriers of the British Navy despite the U.K. being the country’s “closest ally.”

The U.S. government finally agreed to the export of the modules concerned, but only after former British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Washington D.C. to specifically persuade the U.S. President to release them. As far as our requirements of the modules were concerned, Mr. Vajpayee had done something similar.

This case shows how even British and European defence equipment manufacturers have to constantly face and deal with the U.S. government’s export controls on them on a wide array of modules, despite the fact that all of them are supposedly equal members of NATO.

Being circumspect in dealings

This kind of policy and practice by the U.S. government also came up with regard to the “upgraded” F-16 Falcon and the F-18 Hornet fighter-bombers which Lockheed Martin and Boeing respectively had offered India against the global tender put out by the Ministry of Defence/IAF for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) four years ago. Of all the six bidders, the TOT and terminal local content were the smallest in the case of both the U.S. planes. Therefore we have to be extremely circumspect in dealing with the U.S. government in all high technology defence systems from the transfer of technology and local production content points of view.

Constitutional duty underlined



The Supreme Court of India has a reputation for activism and has sometimes even been accused of judicial overreach. However, it needs to be said in defence of the Court that as a repository of public trust it has been wont to step in only in conditions of administrative apathy and legislative stasis to protect basic rights and constitutional values. It has in recent times delivered some significant verdicts to save the purity of the election process. It directed that the ‘none-of-the-above’ option be incorporated in the voting machine, and struck down a clause that saved sitting legislators from immediate disqualification upon conviction. When the question whether a person with a criminal background can be allowed to become a Minister was referred to a Constitution Bench, there could have been the expectation that the Court would expand the existing law to bar the appointment of those against whom serious charges have been framed. However, showing wise restraint, the Constitution Bench has declined to prescribe any fresh ground for disqualification for the appointment of Ministers. Instead, it has advised the Prime Minister, as well as the Chief Ministers, to live up to the trust that the Constitution reposes in them by refraining from advising the President, or the Governors, when it comes to appointing as Ministers those with the taint of criminality.

Even though doctrines such as implied prohibition and constitutional silence were put forward in support of a radical finding that the Prime Minister was impliedly barred from including in the Council of Ministers a person with a criminal record, the Court stopped short of doing so, correctly. Rather, it chose to invoke the principle of constitutional trust, constitutional expectation and the sanctity of the oath taken by the Prime Minister (or Chief Ministers), to counsel them against “choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption” as a Minister. In the ultimate analysis, the judgment may be no more than a learned dissertation on the subject. However, at a time when statistics of pending cases and charges against legislators are cited to assess the extent of criminality in politics, it is a timely reminder to the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers of their constitutional responsibility to preserve purity in public life. The Election Commission has already mooted some reforms to curb the criminalisation of politics, notably an amendment to make framing of charges in serious cases the basis for disqualification, instead of conviction, as it stands now. The message from the latest verdict is that these issues ought to be addressed through legislation rather than the judicial process.

Mitigating FTA challenges

This year, India completes a decade of intensive engagement with its economic partners through the bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The commencement of the negotiations with the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2004 for an FTA covering the goods sector was a significant step for the country’s engagement with the global economy. The Agreement marked a departure from India’s erstwhile position regarding bilateral/regional agreements. Until its engagement with the ASEAN in 2003, India was almost unequivocally wedded to the multilateral trading system. The only aberrations came in the form of the bilateral deals with immediate neighbours in the South Asian region. India’s preference for the multilateral trading system was aptly reflected in a discussion paper on regional trading arrangements (RTAs) that it had tabled in the early days of the Doha negotiations. In this paper, India argued that “the multilateral framework for international trade under the WTO-rule-based system needs to be strengthened by addressing issues of concern emerging on account of formation of such a large number of RTAs, including their impact on development”. These views regarding RTAs, clearly those of an outlier, changed quite dramatically with India’s engagement with the ASEAN.

The India-ASEAN FTA is also significant because it has emerged as the corner-stone of India’s “look east” policy. The FTA was conceived as a part of the 2003 Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between India and the ASEAN. This Framework Agreement set out the roadmap for deepening economic cooperation between the two sides through the establishment of an India-ASEAN Regional Trade and Investment Area (RTIA). The RTIA was to be realised through progressive elimination of tariff- and non-tariff barriers in almost all trade in goods and by progressive liberalisation of trade in services with substantial sectoral coverage. At the same time, the partners agreed to establish a liberal and competitive investment regime that facilitates and promotes investment within the India-ASEAN RTIA. The negotiations were initiated with rather ambitious targets: the deal on trade in goods was scheduled to conclude by June 2005, while the negotiations on services and investment, which were to be initiated immediately after the conclusion of the agreement on goods, were to be concluded by 2007. The negotiations went well beyond these timelines: the goods agreement became operational only in 2010 and although the negotiations on services and investment agreements were concluded at the end of 2012, they are yet to be implemented.

India’s bilateral/regional economic engagement has undergone a complete transformation since then. It is now one of the most active countries in terms of the engagement with partner countries for comprehensive economic partnership agreements (CEPAs), which have replaced the FTAs. Thus far, CEPAs have been concluded with Singapore, Malaysia, Japan and Korea. Several significant ones —including ones with the European Union (EU), Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Indonesia—are in the pipeline.

Perhaps the most significant agreement that India is currently negotiating is the Regional Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (RCEP). The RCEP will be a mega regional agreement that includes the ASEAN members, India, Australia, New Zealand and the three North Asian countries (China, Japan and Korea). In 2013, RCEP members accounted for nearly a third of the global merchandise trade and a fourth of the global trade in commercial services.

These bilateral/regional initiatives seem to support the view that they would complement the global trade liberalisation agenda of the WTO. The growing number of countries formalising bilateral trade deals and the nature of such agreements support this view. Gone are the days when bilateral deals used to be free trade agreements aimed at reducing and/or eliminating import duties on goods. Recent agreements are more “comprehensive” in their coverage. Not only do they include a number of areas that are monitored by WTO; they include issues that do not figure in the Doha Round. For instance, the CEPAs that India is negotiating include investment, an area that was excluded from the Doha Round; and in the agreement being negotiated with the EU, government procurement is included.

What is India’s experience with implementing these FTAs/CEPAs? A preliminary assessment of these agreements indicates that India has not been able to sufficiently leverage these agreements to increase its presence in the markets of its partners. In most cases, the shares of India’s merchandise exports to its FTA/CEPA partners have either stagnated or have declined since the middle of the previous decade, which roughly coincides with the period when the government entered into the agreements. Overall, the share of Indian exports to FTA/CEPA partners declined from nearly 38% in 2004 to 33% in 2012.

Disconcertingly, the share of India-manufactured goods in the total exports to all the FTA/CEPA partner countries has declined. In the case of ASEAN, the share of manufactured products in the export basket has declined from over 58% in 2005 to less than 44% in 2013, while in the cases of Japan and Singapore, the decline has been from over-50% to around 36% in the same period.

India’s inability to penetrate into the markets of its partners implies that it continues to remain a marginal player in most of these markets. With the exception of Singapore, India’s share in the partner countries’ imports show either little improvement or actual decline. In three of these cases, India’s share is yet to reach 1% of the trade partner’s total imports. These figures are clear indications that India has been unable to benefit from its economic integration with one of the more dynamic regions of the world.

Data show that while India was unable to find market access in partner countries, imports from them remained relatively high. For instance, the trade deficit with its partners as a percentage of India’s exports was nearly four-times, while in case of Korea, the corresponding figure was more than two-times. The terms of India’s engagement with its trading partners has worsened over the past few years.

In light of the above, questions have arisen about India’s preparedness to either take advantage of the opportunities offered by the FTAs/CEPAs or to meet the challenges they have posed.

India’s indifferent performance has evoked strong reactions from the government; the more dominant view is that these agreements must be reviewed. It is yet not clear, however, as to when and how the reviews will be undertaken. But at this juncture, the need is to adopt a more prudent two-pronged approach. First, to identify the weaknesses in the domestic economy causing inefficiencies in the productive sectors, and to find ways of removing them expeditiously; secondly, effective engagement with the partner countries to ensure removal of the market-access barriers that they have employed, especially the non-tariff barriers in goods and the regulatory barriers in services, which have adversely impacted Indian exports. The contours of India’s negotiating strategy must emerge from this exercise.

This is the most opportune time to carry out such an exercise. Some of the CEPA negotiations, especially the RCEP, are entering a critical phase, and India must effectively articulate its interests (offensive as well as defensive), on all the critical issues, at the negotiating table.

India to be mercury-free within 10 years


Mercury — considered highly toxic but used extensively in healthcare products, lighting and for religious purposes — will be phased out in India in the next six to 10 years.

In its first major pro-environment move, the government has decided to sign the Minamata Convention, a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of mercury.

Environment minister Prakash Javadekar told HT a formal announcement would be made at an event organised by UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon in September in New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is participating in the UNGA.

“The decision shows our commitment to grow in a clean way without jeopardising growth,” the minister said.

Mercury, also known as quick silver, has some 3,000 industrial applications in India and can be found in thermometers and other healthcare products, paints, cosmetics, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), electrical switches and fertilisers.

The country produces 10-15 million clinical instruments every year on average, including clinical and lab thermometers as well as blood pressure monitors.

Mercury is used in traditional ayurvedic and Chinese medicine, though mercury poisoning can result in impaired neurological development in infants and children, according to the US Environment Protection Agency.
Advertisement

The chemical is also used in the construction of shivlings. “Our studies show that ayurvedic medicines and the milk poured over these shivlings, which is then consumed by devotees, are very toxic,” said Ravi Aggarwal of Toxic Link, a Delhi-based advocacy group.

Its studies had a few years ago pushed the Delhi and central governments to announce its intent of making hospitals mercury-free. “For the majority of states, though, it is still a long way to go,” Aggarwal said, while welcoming the government’s decision to sign the treaty.

The Minamata Convention — named after the site of an industrial disaster in Japan in the 1950s, where mercury poured into a river poisoned thousands — calls for reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired thermal power plants, the source of 65% of India’s power generation. It also seeks to reduce mercury content in CFLs to 5 milligrams from the present 15.

When India signs the treaty, which provides financial incentives to the developing world to phase out mercury, it will join a club of over 100 countries to do so.

Besides the environmental benefits, the government — accused of going easy on green norms — expects this move to resurrect its image as one that strikes a balance between growth and environment.

President Confers National Sports Awards – 2014


President of India Shri Pranab Mukherjee here today conferred the DronacharyaAwards, Arjuna Awards, Dhyan Chand Awards,Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puraskar, Tenzing Norgay Awards 2013 and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (MAKA) Trophy 2013-14 at a function at Rashtrapati Bhawan. Following is the list of awardees:

(I) Dronacharya Awards 2014

Sl. No.
Name
Discipline
1.
Shri Mahabir Prasad
Wrestling
2.
Shri N. Lingappa
Athletics – Lifetime
3.
Shri G. Manoharan
Boxing – Lifetime
4.
Shri Gurcharan Singh Gogi
Judo – Lifetime
5.
Shri Jose Jacob
Rowing – Lifetime


(II) Arjuna Awards 2014


S. No.
NAME OF THE SPORTSPERSON
DISCIPLINE
1
Mr. Abhishek Verma
Archery
2
            Ms. Tintu Luka
Athletics
3
Mr. H.N. Girisha
Para-Athletics
4
Mr. V. Diju
Badminton
5
Ms. Geetu Anna Jose
Basketball
6
Mr. Jai Bhagwan
Boxing
7
Mr. R. Ashwin*
Cricket
8
Mr. Anirban Lahiri
Golf
9
Ms. Mamta Pujari
Kabaddi
10
Mr. Saji Thomas
Rowing
11
Ms. Heena Sidhu
Shooting
12
Ms. Anaka Alankamony
Squash
13
Mr. Tom Joseph
Volleyball
14
Ms. Renu Bala Chanu
Weightlifting
15
Mr. Sunil Kumar Rana
Wrestling

(III)  Dhyan Chand Awards 2014

Sl. No.
Name
Discipline
1.
Shri Gurmail Singh
Hockey
2.
Shri K.P. Thakkar
Swimming (Diving)
3.
Shri Zeeshan Ali
Tennis


(IV) Tenzing Norgay Awards 2013
Sl. No.
Name
Discipline
1.
Subedar  Jagat Singh
Land Adventure
2.
Shri Passang Tenzing Sherpa
Land Adventure
3.
MWO Surender Singh
Air Adventure
4.
Wing Commander (Retd) Amit Chowdhury
Life Time Achievement

(V) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (MAKA) Trophy 2013-14
Punjabi University, Patiala

(VI) Rashtriya Khel Protsahan Puruskar 2014

Sl. No.
Category
Entity recommended for Rashtriya Khel Protsahana Purushkar, 2014
1.
Employment of sports persons and sports welfare measures
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited  (ONGC)
2.
Community Sports - identification and nurturing of budding /young talent
Jindal Steel Works (JSW)
3.
Establishment and Management of sports academies of excellence
Guru Hanuman Akhara, Delhi
4.
Other forms of sports activities not covered in the four categories mentioned in the schemes
Magic Bus India Foundation

*Shri R. Ashwin, Arjuna Awardee in the discipline of cricket, was not present during the Award Ceremony as he is presently in England taking part in One Day Internationals. He will be given award later by the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Skill Development, Entrepreneurship, Youth Affairs & Sports. Date is yet to be finalized.

Featured post

UKPCS2012 FINAL RESULT SAMVEG IAS DEHRADUN

    Heartfelt congratulations to all my dear student .this was outstanding performance .this was possible due to ...