|
|
|
|
|
|
Job Creation & Incentive: CONNECTING DOTS VITAL, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 9 July 2025 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 9 July 2025
Job Creation & Incentive
CONNECTING DOTS VITAL
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The Cabinet’s decision to roll out the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI)
scheme with an outlay of over Rs 99,000 crore to create 3.5 crore jobs over the
next two years, to be run by Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) from this
August is welcome. Job creation is a critical problem given that the workforce is
increasing with every passing year in a country with a massive population.
Delving into the scheme, it needs to be stated that its focus is on the
formal sector which, no doubt, needs attention. The decision to pay one month’s
wage of Rs 15,000 in two installments is fine but the limit prescribed i.e. up
to a salary ceiling of Rs 1 lakh should be reconsidered. It’s very much on the
higher side and should have instead been a maximum of Rs 50,000. Firms participating
in the scheme will get a cash incentive of ₹3000 for each additional
employee hired for two years. However, this should have been raised as it would help in garnering more employment.
Such an incentive scheme is necessary for the informal sector where
conditions of work and the meager salary they receive need urgent attention. It
would have been better if the government had simultaneously announced some
scheme for this sector as it makes a valuable contribution to the country’s
economy and absorbs a large section of the workforce.
It is also a fact that India needs to generate at least 8 million jobs
every year over the next decade to stay on course for its goal of becoming a
developed nation by 2047. This was rightly pointed out by Chief Economic Advisor
V Anantha Nageswaran while addressing the Columbia India Summit 2025, at
Columbia University in April. Nageswaran underlined the imperative to increase
job creation and the proportion of manufacturing in the GDP of the country. He
stressed that although India cannot dictate the international environment, it must
work within its limitations to create a robust domestic growth trajectory
conducive to creating more employment.
“We have a vision to construct a developed India in the 100th year of
independence. But we must realize that the world around us in the next 10 to 20
years will not be as accommodative as it was in the past,” Nageswaran said.
While our political leaders are harping on artificial intelligence, he warned
that new technologies could potentially endanger low-skilled and entry-level
jobs, rendering job generation a multifaceted endeavor. “We have to achieve the
right equilibrium between technology take-up and jobs-led policies,” he said.
Not just Nageswaran but most economists have been emphasising the need
to build India’s small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which are critical to
expanding the manufacturing base. “No country has made it in manufacturing
without a strong SME base,” he added. But unfortunately, the contribution of
manufacturing to GDP has not increased while job creation in this segment is
far from satisfactory.
It is estimated that over 66 per cent of its population is of working
age. India’s median age is 29.5 years, which starkly contrasts with China’s
39.8 years and the United Kingdom’s 40.6 years. This emphasizes the tremendous
potential of a dynamic, innovative, and youthful workforce but providing adequate
employment is not an easy task in this age of mechanisation. Though some label
it as an opportunity, it may be so for a developed economy but not an emerging
one like India.
Going by statistics, between 2014 and 2024, India created 17.19 crore
more jobs, compared to the previous decade’s creation of just 2.9 crore jobs
(2004-14). Notably 4.6 crore jobs were added in the year 2023-24 alone. Some
initiatives of the government helped in reducing unemployment and increasing
workforce participation. The unemployment rate fell from 6 per cent in 2017-18
to 3.2 per cent in 2023-24, while the labour force participation rate rose from
49.8 per cent to 60.1 per cent during the same period.
These figures offer little reassurance, as
both unemployment and significant underemployment persist. Low wages remain a
problem even for qualified candidates; for instance, most MBA or B.Tech
graduates earn only Rs 20,000–25,000 to start. Those relocating for work must
cover living expenses from already modest salaries.
The obvious reason for the low remuneration is the large number of
candidates available in the market and they cannot dictate terms. Economists
believe that the salary structure has remained the same for the last 7-8 years
or even more. With such low salary, the profitability of companies has
obviously increased. The government may consider fixing an entry-level minimum
salary for such candidates, joining the private sector.
At this juncture the government should focus more on high-skill,
high-pay employment opportunities. India has one of the world’s most
significant numbers of graduates in STEM -- science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics -- fields. A closer look at technical education is imperative
as India produces 1.5 million engineers annually. But only 10 to 15 per cent of
this number was expected to secure deserving jobs in 2024. Materials engineers,
more relevant for industrial manufacturing, are only a few thousand.
For job creation, there is a need for the institutions to coordinate
with industry and reorient technical education as per their needs. It also
needs to be pointed out in this connection that the government should support
self-employed sectors, which show higher mobility potential and need support
through credit, training, digital inclusion and market access.
Specialized skills in areas such as artificial intelligence, automation,
robotics, electric mobility as also marine engineering, space technology etc.
may help in garnering employment but that would not be sufficient to tackle the
problem of job creation. India’s ambitious target of achieving 500 GW of
non-fossil fuel energy by 2030 is good for the environment and this may become
one of the biggest job generators. Likewise, the Indian space economy, valued
today at $8.4 billion, is supposed to reach $44 billion by 2033 and would
create thousands of specialised jobs, directly or indirectly.
While private sector investments are called for in a big way, the thrust
must be on the labour-intensive cottage and small units and special incentives need
to be given to them. Moreover, export incentives may also be considered so that
they can tap the global market. Plus, there is a need for professionalism and
technology upgradation to compete in the international market.
What is of equal importance is that India needs to transform its present
education curriculum with special emphasis on skilled education, right from the
school statute. More investment in education is required for candidates to get
the requisite qualification to enter the job market. It should go hand in hand
with the incentive scheme. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Political Hoolaginism: MAIN NETA HOON, TUM KAUN?, By Poonam I Kaushish, 8 July 2025 |
|
|
Political Diary
New Delhi, 8 July 2025
Political Hoolaginism
MAIN NETA HOON, TUM KAUN?
By Poonam
I Kaushish
The more things change the more they remain
the same. Daily we are treated to some antics, inane tantrums, silly
shenanigans by our leaders. Of which ‘follow-no-rules’ is a fundamental part,
instead they rule by law and are the law. No IDs’, no frisking and
long queues, gaddis filled with
gun-toting bodyguards jumping red lights to exhibit their ‘power’ might. God
forbid, if anyone questions their misdemeanor, be prepared for open fury, “Main neta hoon, tum kaun?”
Welcome to
the world of arrogance of power or should one say political hoolaginism. Last
week we were treated to two high jinxes by our leaders in two States. In Odisha
Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation’s additional commissioner was dragged out of
his chamber and assaulted by a group of miscreants who asked the officer to
apologise to BJP leader Pradhan, resulting in Odisha Administrative Service and
Odisha Revenue Service officers going on mass leave. Thankfully, it ended well
with Pradhan and Co arrested.
If this was appalling, next day saw a repeat in Himachal where two National
Highway Authority officials accused Rural Development Minister Anirudh Singh of
assaulting them even as Singh denied allegations asserting an FIR against him was
to divert attention from NHA’s negligence resulting in collapse of a five-storey
building in Shimla. Earlier a train passenger was beaten for refusing to swap
his seat with a neta in Madhya
Pradesh.
It hardly
matters that Himachal has Congress and Odisha and Madhya Pradesh BJP Governments.
Similar incidents across the country over the years underscore an environment, wherein our power-drunk netas times out of number behave like Bahubalis with an overblown sense of entitlement and impunity nurtured
by political patronage, disrespect for aam
aadmi, rules of the game and belief that the law can be bent at will.
Whereby, they and their henchmen are neither afraid of penalties or
imprisonment with the State maintaining a deafening silence.
Alas,
these latest high jinx of our ‘don’t-you-know-I-am-a-Neta’ underscores the
vestige of 19th century India, colonial mindset and feudal intent still lingers whereby our neo-Maharajas MPs and MLAs are afflicted
by two diseases: Acute Orwellian disorders of “I am more equal than you” and
“always asking for more” with
in-your-face boorishness sans accountability being their trademark. Immortalised
by Mumbai mafia don-turned MLA Arun Gawli: “Ab
mere pas bullet-proof jacket hai!.”
Remember Shiv Sena MP who assaulted an Air
India manager because he was denied a Business Class seat on an economy
Pune-Delhi flight. “I hit him 25 times with my sandals, tore his clothes, broke
his specs….I have no regrets…I have many criminal cases against me….I am an MP
and will not tolerate any insult.” Or BJP’s
Indore MLA assaulting a municipal corporation officer with a cricket bat for
going against his diktat and carrying out demolition of an ‘unsafe’ building.
And Maharashtra’s Congress MLA assaulting an
engineer, parading him and tying him to a pillar pouring buckets of dirt and
mud on him. Questioned, said he, “I was merely acting on public complaints
against inaction by authorities and to ensure it does not happen again”. Sic.
Worse,
instead of feeling remorse, our netas
strut and preen like peacocks. Accentuating an inherent mindset of Hum Khaas Hain, which translates to
living life king-size and nauseatingly flaunting it. Showcasing their power via
elaborate power trappings: retinue of chamchas
who applaud even the inane and ludicrous.
Undeniably, we seem to live in an India where
only ‘powerful’ matter, living life in the slim strip called ‘official’ in a
race for privilege. Wherein there is a wide chasm between aam aadmi and our khaas
aadmis. Alongside, the high octane decibels of Saada Haq whereby, just about everybody, who’s anybody abuses power
and public resources topped by being protected all at our expense.
Big deal if this leaves a bitter taste in people’s
mouth, increasing frustration, disconnect and contempt for rulers which results
in defiance by people at large. Raising a moot point: Do our leaders actually
deserve this extra importance? Aren’t symbols of authority contrary to the
basic feature of republicanism enshrined in our Constitution?
Can our poor country afford braggarts as
legislators? Haven’t we had enough? Whatever happened to democracy by the people, of the people, for the
people? Considering, most rulers barely discharge their responsibilities
honestly and honourably. Do our leaders know the reality of Asli Bharat which they ad nauseum vow to protect? Where over 500
million live below poverty? Succinctly, they don’t give a damn.
After all,
its’ open secret that compromised elements in our criminal justice system often
yield to the powerful and even in the face of popular outrage no long-term
action is taken against the perpetrators. Highlighting a disturbing
winner-takes-all attitude stems from the belief that being in power translates
to being above law.
Thus, in a
political culture that makes fear and favour its currency, this means the
ruler-subject model which should have no place in a democracy becomes
routinised. This is unacceptable. Assaulting bureaucrats or citizens must be
met with exemplary punishment as such crimes undermine public faith in the rule
of law and act as steeping stones to further criminalization of politics.
Time for
law enforcement machinery to shed its perception of preferential treatment to
our political Bahubalis and enforce
law in a transparent manner. Parties too must signal zero tolerance policy
towards roguery, no matter how big a vote-catcher the accused might be. By
making cynical myopic choices Parties are undermining rule of law as babus are not durbaris in a raja’s
court.
Plainly, the don’t-you-know-who-I-am’ term is
outdated in a democracy. It is ironic
that those elected to serve people deny the very people they serve access to
themselves. They need to dispense with the jo
hukam sarkar culture and dismantle their privileged fortresses if we have
to survive as a nation. This would force them to experience the pathetic state
of affairs in Mera Bharat Mahan and
understand how democracy is undermined when netas
break all rules.
Importantly, India is today at the moral
crossroads. More so, in our present all pervasive decadence interspersed with
growing public distaste, cynicism and despair. If not stopped now it could
result in breakdown of institutions, society, culture and ethical values.
Our rulers
need to understand Parliamentary majorities are not immortal. The right to
remain in power is not immortal. It gets shaken by their arrogance of power. As a new generation
comes of age our leaders need to remember a home-truth: Democracy is based on
the fundamental premise of equality for all. Gone are the days when leaders
were revered, today they symbolise everything that plagues India, warts and
all.
Thus, in a milieu where simplicity and
austerity is Utopian to our polity, it is time our high and mighty wake up to
the danger lurking and smell the coffee. If they don’t change they will become
increasingly irrelevant. We do not need gestures which total zilch. It remains
to be seen whether our polity will continue to behave like Bahubalis and reduce hum-toh-janata-ke-sevak-hain
to mere tokenism? ---- INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
The Great Scrap Vehicle: INDIA JUNKS Rs 18 Trn, By Shivaji Sarkar, 7 July 2025 |
|
|
Economic Highlights
New Delhi, 7 July
2025
The Great
Scrap Vehicle
INDIA
JUNKS Rs 18 Trn
By Shivaji
Sarkar
India is a powerful
economy. It is now officially $4trillion — but in truth, it is far more potent.
It does something no other country in the world does, not even the US: it wants
to junk vehicles worth Rs18 trillion every year!
In Delhi, 62 lakh
so-called “end-of-life (ELV)” vehicles have been targeted. Policemen, unable to
prevent crimes, are deployed instead to chase down and impound nearly 200
vehicles from people on their way to work, hospitals, or schools — merely for
the ‘offence’ of entering Delhi or stopping at a petrol pump. It’s a new,
innovative form of harassment that humiliates citizens and deprives them of
property — a cruelty even the much-maligned Leftist regimes never committed.
Many of these vehicle owners have just completed seven years of EMI payments.
Now, the state treats their hard-earned asset as waste.
The Quixotic policy
also destroys the concept of the National Capital Region (NCR), once envisioned
as an integrated urban unit across Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan and the
national capital, Delhi.The central government must now scrap this
unimaginative car-junking policy. Let vehicles run until they reach their true
end-use — perhaps 40 years or more — and let Indian wealth grow naturally.
Families maintaining vehicles with care are now being punished. Even vehicles
with less than 10,000 km are being deemed unfit.
Two crore vehicles
discarded annually — that’s an astounding figure. How can any economy junk so
much capital and still sustain or grow? No one has answered this. Based on an
average cost of Rs 9 lakh per vehicle (with actual prices ranging between Rs 6
to Rs 13 lakh), this means Rs18 lakh crore would be destroyed every year.
Including buses and trucks, this figure could cross Rs 30 lakh crore.
This is not policy —
it’s madness. The destruction of this wealth impoverishes nearly two crore
families annually. Public transport in states like West Bengal is crumbling, as
private operators are forced to replace old buses they cannot afford to upgrade.
With vehicle costs having multiplied, and with banks reluctant to lend for “scrap”
vehicles, the impact on rural mobility is devastating.Even the Delhi Transport
Corporation (DTC) has stopped running buses into neighbouring states like UP,
Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. But nobody seems concerned.
This mass scrappage
is no accident. It appears to be a rigged game — a racket that enriches a few
by stripping millions of their assets. The Central government has allocated Rs
5,000 crore to incentivize states, even in difficult North-East, to push
scrappage — a move unheard of anywhere else in the world. No sane economy
invests public money to destroy functioning wealth.
The government’s
scrap vehicle policy claiming to cut pollution is illogical. Pollution checks
show that most 10-year-old vehicles emit no more than 1 percent or a bit more —
hardly reason for scrapping. So, what’s the real motive?Earlier Delhi’s Sheila
Dikshit Congress government had suggested restrictions on diesel and other
polluting vehicles, not a ban.
The dubious figure of
banishing two crore ELVs comes from a report by the Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE), a body now embroiled in controversy. Why? Because the study
was funded by one of the biggest car manufacturers Tata trusts. This creates a
glaring conflict of interest. Some foreign organisations such as Sida (Sweden),
MacArthur Foundation, European Commission also funded the CSE on project basis,
says Jayant Mundhra, who writes about commodities, and logistics. But Tatas had
a committed financing.
A policy based on a
report bankrolled by a carmaker undermines public trust. That this has gone
unnoticed is due to two reasons: first, a company’s public relations machinery
is unmatched in India; second, much of the media today functions as a glorified
PR agency.CSE continues to push the narrative that vehicles are the main
culprits behind Delhi’s pollution — a claim unsupported by facts. A National Investigation
Agency (NIA) probe is needed into this nexus.
During 2023–24 alone,
1.4 lakh vehicles were tagged ELVs, including 75 lakh light vehicles,
two-wheelers and 45 lakh commercial vehicles. According to an information
portal FACTLY, 6.1 crore vehicles have been labelled as ELVs — a term coined to
boost automakers’ business. But life cannot be predetermined — not for people,
not for machines. The “end of life” date is not divine prophecy. It’s decided
by a bureaucrat, a policeman, or a scrap dealer — often in collusion.
The Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways (MoRTH) says over 51 lakh light motor vehicles are above 20 years
old, and 34 lakh above 15 years. Another 17 lakh medium and heavy vehicles run
without valid fitness certificates. MoRTH claims these emit 10–12 times more
pollutants than new vehicles, but this is simply not supported by emission
tests.Most operational vehicles, unless poorly maintained, emit less than 2
percent as all have Euro mark. Across the world, vehicles, even airplanes, in
India or the US, run for 40 years or more. India is alone in building a
business on scrappage propaganda.
Vehicular emissions
account for just 12 percent of total pollution. Industry contributes 51
percent. Is this policy a smokescreen to hide industrial failures?Some say
other countries also scrap vehicles. Misleading. The US introduced the end-use
idea in the 1960s when junkyards overflowed. Even today, there is no age bar.
As veteran journalist Hasan Suroor writes from London: “In England, no car is
banned for age. If a car fails a test, it’s fixed and made roadworthy. I drive
a 21-year-old car without an issue.”
If pollution is
really the concern, why did India increase coal consumption from 900 million
tonnes to 1 billion tonnes in 2023–24? Why fell millions of trees to build
highways? Everyone knows coal is the dirtiest fuel. It’s clear the scrappage
policy is more about boosting new car sales.In fact, new cars pollute more in
production than older ones in use. In Indian families, a car is a generational
asset. Who can afford a new one every ten years?
As the saying goes: “Indians
are sheep, ruled by wolves.” Maybe we deserve what we tolerate.The Central
government must immediately repeal this absurd rule and allow the cars have
true life of 40 years. It serves no public good. It creates panic, destroys
wealth, and punishes the average Indian. Let the economy grow on real strength
— not artificial crises.Why should the government be in junking business when it
has withdrawn from production? Let us stop hurting our people in the name of
progress.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
DeepSeek—China’s Vision Of World Perception By Maciej Gaca, 5 July 2025 |
|
|
Spotlight
New Delhi, 5 July 2025
DeepSeek—China’s Vision Of World Perception
By Maciej Gaca
(Centre For Intl Relations, Poland)
When DeepSeek-R1 debuted at a conference in Hangzhou this February, the
atmosphere was electrifying and unsettling. There were loud cries of delight at
possibilities it opened for programmers and companies as well as nervousness on
stock exchange listing Western technology companies. There were quiet sighs too
from experts fearing a new information weapon might be hiding under guise of
“democratisation.” However, history teaches us that technology can just as
easily facilitate concentration of power as it can emancipation.
DeepSeek-R1 in China didn’t have to reach for tanks or prisons to
monopolise the discussion. Official messages were primarily embedded in it
during the learning process. As a result, instead of confronting different viewpoints,
the model itself promotes a single, state-owned version of history, and users
receive a ready-made, contradiction-free story as an unquestionable fact. This
is a more subtle process than traditional censorship and more engaging, because
the user himself willingly reaches for content that the model selects according
to political guidelines dictated to him.
DeepSeek-R1 has been met with great enthusiasm on Chinese social media. On
the largest sites, Zhihu and Weibo, computer science students and novice
programmers enthusiastically described the model’s lightning-fast responses,
its effectiveness in solving complex algorithmic tasks, and the impressive image
quality it created, as evidenced by numerous entries in the column series “从0到1了解DeepSeek” (‘from 0 to
1 we get to know DeepSeek’ - a series of short articles on Zhihu presenting the
model’s functions and capabilities). However, over time, the technological
experiment has become a sociological observation: users noticed that when asked
about political events, R1 consistently avoided references to Tiananmen Square protests
or critical analyses of Beijing, Taiwan and Xinjiang issues, it reproduced only
official, party narratives.
The breakthrough was brought by safety reports, a study published on
arXiv “Safety Evaluation of DeepSeek Models in Chinese Contexts”, showing the
model’s 100% effectiveness in simulated disinformation attacks and near complete
rejection of content that deviated from the state line. Posts on internal
educational forums instructed how to “bypass” DeepSeek’s self-censorship, but
the model itself instantly blocked accounts that distributed links to
independent sources. This change in mood – from admiration for the architecture
and computing power, to a bitter conclusion about the ideological penetration
of the neural network’s weights (numbers the model changes during training to
better “understand” and favour certain information) – reveals that young
Chinese increasingly see DeepSeek’s “openness” not as a true democratisation of
technology, but a sophisticated mechanism for maintaining a single, official
vision of the world.
Ultimately, what’s at stake is not just technical supremacy, but the
foundation of our shared cognitive space. If every powerful actor – Beijing,
Washington, Brussels – introduces its own “objective” AI-generated versions of
history, younger generations will find themselves at crossroads of alternative
“truths” isolated in hermetic information bubbles. Without international
mechanisms of mutual accountability, transparent audits of training data, and
open procedures for verifying algorithms, even the most reliable open-source
projects can become vehicles for narrative tyranny. And then we are one step
away from turning a historical dispute into an armed conflict and from
completely eroding trust in the very concept of information.
OpenAI-ish ChatGPT, Google Bard and Meta LLaMA draw their data
from a wide range of sources--international agencies such as CNN, AFP and
Al-Jazeera, through academic repositories in languages, to archives of rarely
cited periodicals and informal discussion forums. Only after an initial
training, during which the model “swallows” entire web pages, does the arduous
work of “fine-tuning” begin -- successive rounds of human evaluation, analysis
of deviations from neutrality and attempts to restore balance. Of course, it
was not possible to eliminate all extremes.
Researchers from Munich and Copenhagen have shown that ChatGPT sometimes
tilts towards pro-ecological and left-libertarian narratives, while Bing Chat is
slightly more favourable to tech industry. Nevertheless, each is regularly
audited, by Swedish FOI, Norwegian NUPI and French Fondation pour l'Innovation
Politique, which describe with surgical precision where the training data comes
from and what rules govern how people evaluate their answers. Thanks to this,
reports can be looked at by both a defender of free speech and an activist
fighting discrimination and each will find arguments to accuse the model of
overrepresenting some sources or underrepresenting minority voices.
In contrast to openness of Western solutions, DeepSeek-R1 operates “in
secret” in educational chatbots or government apps in Asia and Europe, but the
effect is more perfidious: instead of bypassing censorship, the model
reinforces it, surrounding the user with a tight record of a uniform narrative.
These are not ordinary recommendation algorithms but airtight information
bubbles, in which every story, news item, piece of advice must fit the official
line. Eli Pariser, an American internet activist and author of The Filter
Bubble, warned a decade ago that algorithms that personalise content can
cut us off from opposing views. Today, when technology tempts us with appearance
of objectivity, isolation is even more dangerous. Young internet users, fed an
endless stream of TikTok or WeChat, rarely verify information. One-click
answers replace critical questions, and the bubble becomes their entire world.
Prospect Foundation in a study “Narrative-Building Trumps Island-
Building for Beijing in Sandy Cay” warns competition for dominant AI models
threatens to spark a real “narrative war.” Similar conclusions are by a report
by Taiwan Foundation for Democracy on disinformation during 2024 presidential
election – analysts have shown that algorithms driven by conflicting state data
sets from China, US, and Europe are creating isolated “information islands”
where young recipients become accustomed to competing versions of reality and
are less likely to verify them.
Analysts emphasise while local regulations may tighten requirements for
one platform or service, they won’t stop phenomenon of information
fragmentation if each government implements its own AI model. French
Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI), in White Paper on AI published in 2023, demands
transparency of training data origin, arguing only a full list of sources
allows users to understand what materials shape the model’s operation. Swedish
SÄPO insists that multi-party audits by independent expert teams are necessary,
which as thorough analysis of model’s code and behavior, especially in sensitive
questions, can reveal hidden biases or mechanisms filtering truth.
Both institutions also point to educating young generation in critical
reception of content generated by AI. It’s worth introducing classes devoted to
“algorithmic texts” at school, i.e. learning to understand how models formulate
their answers and compare them with independent information sources. Without
such preparation, society will be condemned to accept competing and isolated
narratives as indisputable facts. Experience shows every technological
revolution promotes concentration of power. DeepSeek-R1, managed and paid for
in Beijing’s bureaucratic structures, is today becoming a more subtle tool of
centralisation than traditional network censorship or media access blockades.
When the model independently selects/edits historical narratives using
neural network weights, it builds a performative story of the state, which over
time is considered a “natural” reality. This is a seemingly bloodless cascade --
no one calls ‘Guards’ when the algorithm enters subsequent history versions into
the code, and society begins to live according to these predefined patterns.
Ultimately, what’s at stake is no longer the fight for technological
supremacy, but the very foundation of our collective understanding of reality –
the space in which we establish what we consider to be fact. Without clearly
defined rules of accountability, mandatory audits, and transparent verification
criteria, even the most “open” source models can be used to impose their own
versions of the world. As Yuval warns Noah Harari (cf. 21 Lessons for the 21st
Century, 2018), if we do not build mechanisms to protect against fragmentation
of truth into atoms, we’ll find ourselves in a world where conflicting
narratives, each equally convincing, compete like feuding tribes, undermining
the very meaning of the debate.
In turn, Yanis Varoufakis (The Other Now, 2020), reminds us that in this
chaos of alternative “truths”, international solidarity is weakening. Instead
of facing global challenges together, we are sinking deeper and deeper into
isolated information bubbles. Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum preach
the slogan of “shared responsibility” for technological advancement, but it’s hard
not to see how often this serves Beijing’s centralist aspirations. Under
inclusiveness banner, WEF becomes a platform where authoritarian regimes, including
China’s, can present their digital infrastructure as “innovation for common
good” while simultaneously reinforcing systems of mass surveillance.
If we want to avoid such a scenario, empty slogans about openness will
not suffice. We need real international agreements that will enforce standards
regarding the origin of data, model training processes and their controlled
exploitation - as well as national laws that impose tough legal consequences
for AI activity. Only in this way will technology cease to be a tool of interests
and become an infrastructure on which a democratic society can be built, not a
war of narratives. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Quad Meet In US: AN INDIA MOMENT!, By Dr. D.K. Giri, 4 July 2025 |
|
|
Round
The World
New Delhi, 4 July 2025
Quad Meet In US
AN INDIA MOMENT!
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of
Institutions)
The Quad Foreign Ministers’
meeting in Washington on 1 July opens up strategic opportunities for India.
Will New Delhi make the most of it having missed the bus a few times before?
This is the time for reckoning for Quad in the context of freedom and security
in India Pacific in the face of Chinese belligerence. For India, Quad meetings
in the run-up to the Summit later this year become doubly important as New
Delhi has been somewhat marginalised in the recent SCO meet. I will juxtapose
Quad against other regional structures India is part of, namely BRICS and SCO.
This is to drive home the point that New Delhi has to make a choice in the
current chaotic geo-political situation.
The Foreign Ministers’
meeting at the behest of US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was the second this
year. Rubio had organised a smaller one, last January, on the fringe of Donald
Trump’s swearing-in ceremony. The meeting this week sounded more assertive and
definitive in its pronouncements. It excluded references to Israel-Iran war as
well as Russia-Ukraine war in order to sharpen its focus on India Pacific.
Although China was not mentioned by name, several statements called out Chinese
high-handedness in the region - aggressive moves in East and South China Sea,
needling India through Pakistan and even directly, crossing swords with
Australia on its defence budget and so on.
For the first time, Indian
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar led the charge by asking for greater
focus and cohesion in Quad. He said, “Quad will deliver better if it works in a
more focused manner”. The Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya was equally
forthright as he said, “Quad will shape the future of India Pacific region”.
Jaishankar was, however, platitudinous when he asked for a rule-based international
order. He could be more effective for India if he eschews to be esoteric. China
is a threat, an adversary, a manipulator which has to be recognised and
factored into India’s security strategy.
Quad, by far, is the best
strategic option for India. Quad was created in 2007 with a formal proposal by
then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Although it started as Tsunami Core
Group following the earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004, there
was little doubt about its real intention. That was to contain China. That is
why for about a decade, Quad remained dormant, largely due to Australian
concerns about potential negative impacts on its relationship with China.
Fast forward, Quad was
vigorously revived in 2017 in the face of growing assertiveness of China. Since
then, Quad has experienced increased engagement, greater institutionalisation,
and sharper focus. There have been regular foreign ministerial consultations,
sector-level meetings, and leader-level summits. The key objective of Quad has
been to ensure, “free, open, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region”. The
Quad countries also participate in joint military exercises like Malabar Naval
Exercise which have since expanded to include all the four countries.
Significantly, Quad is perceived as an Asian NATO.
Several experts have
construed Quad as a counter-weight to China. The American think tank, Centre
for a New American Security (CNAS) suggests that it is because of the rise of
Chinese power Quad should serve as a tool for American statecraft. Admittedly,
Quad has not yet achieved much in practice. It is because it has lacked a
common ground or a coherent strategic approach. New Delhi is partly guilty of
watering down Quad’s security structure by suggesting that it is a developmental
and a humanitarian outfit.
Quad provides a great
strategic opportunity for India as the interest of other three members converge
with India’s especially on a common Chinese threat. It beggars understanding of
why India is reluctant to project Quad as a security alliance. India is a
member of BRICS and SCO, initiated and largely controlled by China. BRICS has
expanded beyond five founder countries to ten in order to enlist allies for
China and Russia in an increasingly polarised world. For India, the recent SCO
meeting was an embarrassment caused by isolation on calling out terrorism. The
joint statement issued by SCO mentioned terrorism in Baluchistan but omitted to
do so in Pahalgam where innocent tourists were murdered in cold blood on
religious identities.
Contrast that with the Quad
Foreign Ministers condemning the Pahalgam terror attack in strong terms. It
said, “The Quad unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism and violent
extremism in all its forms and manifestations including cross-border
terrorism”. It added, “We call for the perpetrators, organisers and financiers
of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay in
accordance with their obligations under international law…. and to cooperate
actively with all relevant authorities in this regard”. The phrase ‘relevant
authorities’ here refers to Indian authorities.
Quad came down heavily on
China although it did not name the country by issuing unequivocal condemnation
of Chinese action in South-China Sea and by implication in other sovereign and
independent areas. It said, “We express our serious concerns regarding
dangerous and provocative actions …. repeated obstruction of the freedom of
navigation and overflight, and dangerous manoeuvers by military aircrafts and
maritime militia vessels”.
The Quad announced a few
other initiatives. They agreed on a ‘new agenda’ that focuses on four key
areas - maritime security, economic
prosperity, critical and emergent technologies and humanitarian assistance and
disaster response. They launched a Sea - Ship Observer Mission. This is
supposed to deepen cooperation in maritime field in the India Pacific. This should
reduce illicit maritime activity such as piracy, drug trafficking and illegal
fishing etc.
Second critical step taken
is the launch of ‘Quad Critical Minerals Initiative’. Quad members were
concerned about China’s domination in critical minerals meant for emerging and
new technologies. This initiative will aim at diversifying supply chains, minerals
recovery and reprocessing. Quad will focus on supply chain resilience for
critical minerals and will coordinate with private sector partners for
increased investment in this critical field.
All in all, Quad renewed
its focus which will result sharpening Quad’s ability to leverage resources in
order to face the most pressing challenges in the region. It also reiterated
its opposition to any ‘unilateral action that seeks to change the status quo by
force or coercion in the Indo Pacific’. This should be good news for India,
Australia as well as Japan. Depending on the depth of diplomacy of these three
countries, Quad should grow stronger nudging USA to take an active part in the
region. Washington should fall for it as it feeds the US objective of retaining
the numero uno position in the global power structure.
To be sure, the onus of
steering Quad rests largely on New Delhi as it faces the brunt of Beijing’s
belligerence. New Delhi must play it cards well at least until the Quad Summit
in November this year. This is important against the backdrop of Donald Trump’s
flip-flops in foreign policy and New Delhi’s situation of being an Alice in the
wonderland. Without doubt, New Delhi is more capable than it is perceived to be
given its philosophical depth, cultural heritage and policy scruples. New Delhi
will just have to recalibrate and reposition itself. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 1 - 9 of 6263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|