|
|
|
|
|
|
Is Humanity under attack from AI?, By Rajiv Gupta, 26 November 2023 |
|
|
Spotlight
New Delhi, 26 November 2023
Is Humanity under attack from
AI?
By Rajiv Gupta
If you are not inundated with articles on Artificial
Intelligence (AI), you have probably been living under a rock. Several of these
articles raise images of a dystopian future based on machines taking over
mankind. If you are sufficiently apprehensive about the future awaiting
mankind, let me try to offer my analysis of what AI is and is not, and how it
might shape our world in the foreseeable future.
AI is not a recent phenomenon, although it has assumed
greater currency of late in terms of specific hardware and software such as
ChatGPT. The term was first coined in 1956 by John McCarthy, a computer
scientist at Stanford University. He defined it as “the science and engineering
of making intelligent machines.” Since then, several scientists and engineers
have worked in this area and we have seen many periods of hectic activity as
well as dry spells due to lack of funding for research.
The other term I wish to briefly
introduce is the Turing test, named after Alan Turing, who postulated that if a
machine can engage in a conversation with a human without being detected as a
machine, it has demonstrated human intelligence. The development of devices like
Alexa and software such as ChatGPT are probably a result of researchers trying
to meet the criteria for the Turing test.
First, a little understanding of AI is in order. AI,
in its current avatar, is nothing more than sophisticated pattern recognition. The
programs look for patterns in consumer behaviour, in speech, in text, in
photographs, in medical diagnostic scans, etc. The software is “trained” to
recognise patterns using a very large database of words, pictures, numbers, and
scans. For example, if a customer tends to purchase certain products from a
retail outlet on a regular basis, AI will be able to detect this purchasing
pattern and the customer can be sent customize mailings/ads that match his/her
preferences. When it comes to facial recognition, the picture is divided into a
number of dots or pixels. The software analyses the pixels to determine patterns
which give information about facial features. Then the software would compare
the pattern it has been trained on with the pattern on a photograph to
determine if the two photographs are of the same individual.
The accuracy, or correctness of the answers developed
by AI is dependent on the data used to train it. Training is done by feeding a
large amount of data into the software, then letting the software answer the
question that is being asked. By providing human feedback regarding the accuracy
of the answer, the software gets “trained” so that it can improve its ability
to decipher the pattern on its next attempt. There is ample evidence of AI
making mistakes due to gaps and shortcomings in the data used in the training.
These mistakes have occurred in facial recognition in the US where the program
has incorrectly identified an individual as a suspect in a crime not committed
by him/her. There are several examples of AI programs showing clear bias based
on race, gender, age, etc. when the database used to train the software has
been deficient or biased.
Irrespective of the sophistication of the software,
none of them are 100 % reliable. Some people may say that neither are humans. There
are two major dangers in letting a software make decisions. First, most AI
software is like a black box. It is not possible to question the logic used by
the program. This does not allow us to have an audit trail. Second, people
place very great faith in output from software and do not question it, assuming
that computers cannot make mistakes like humans. But as I have mentioned, there
have been several instances where AI has made an error. It would be incorrect
to completely hand over the responsibility of an entire human task to a
computer program, especially when we are not sure of the reliability of the
program. If the error results in a wrong conviction of a person, the
consequences are huge from a human perspective.
What we can, and probably should do, is to automate
the repetitive component of the human task. This would free the human to add
greater value by providing inputs that computers cannot. A good example of this
is the use of auto pilot in airplanes. The longest, and the most boring part of
flying an aircraft is when it is flying at its cruising altitude. It is the
take-off and landing that requires the expertise of a human pilot. Therefore, a
plane can be put on auto pilot at cruising altitude as constant attention by
the pilot is not needed. But we do not eliminate the pilot. We let the auto
pilot relieve the stress in a long-haul flight. The pilot can override the auto
pilot if the situation demands it.
Any technological development has led
to reduction in human labour. Whether it was the steam engine, the tractor, the
automobile, or even the computer. Each innovation has resulted in the
elimination of the drudgery of repetitive human tasks, whether physical, or
mental. In 1870, agricultural workers comprised half of all workers in the US; in
1900, about one-third of all workers; and in 1950, less than a fifth of all workers.
Today the number of agricultural workers is around one percent of all workers.
The reason for this reduction is an increase in mechanisation and farm sizes
over this period.
The question that ought to be asked is
not whether technology displaced people; it certainly did. Rather we should be
asking whether people would like to do the work being done by machines today
for what consumers would be willing to pay for it. The answer, arguably, would
be a no.Similar scenarios have been observed in non-physical work situations
such as calculating, accounting, etc. where computers have effectively replaced
humans, and rightly so. How many people today would enjoy adding numbers all
day long?
There are several human jobs that are ripe for
automation. One of the most denigrating and dangerous jobs in India is that of
manual scavenging. Would an AI powered solution not be a great way to eliminate
the risk of death that manual scavengers face today. There can be many other
such jobs which should not be done by humans. The rule that Japanese companies,
such as Toyota, use is if a task is dirty, difficult, or dangerous, it is a
good candidate for automation. To this list we can also add boring and
repetitive, with no value added.
In conclusion, I feel that both the hype and the fear
attributed to AI is overdone. If the test of AI is that it should be able to
mimic a human, we need to remember that humans can make mistakes and computers
cannot. At the same time humans can find an opportunity in failure or mistake,
such as the discovery of penicillin. A computer cannot do that because it has
to be told what to look for. Ultimately, humans decide what AI should be used
for, not the other way around. Let us do this judiciously.---INFA
(Copyright, India News &
Feature Alliance)
|
|
Rajasthan Polling: END TO BITTER CAMPIAGNING, By Insaf, 25 November 2023 |
|
|
Round The States
New Delhi, 25 November
2023
Rajasthan Polling
END TO BITTER CAMPIAGNING
By Insaf
Rajasthan goes to the polls today.
The campaigning has been rough and tough and while pollsters would give thumbs
up to ruling Congress, the State appears to be in a neck-to-neck contest
between grand old party and BJP. Gehlot government has gone all to woo the
voters with welfare schemes and the party’s 7 guarantees, including Rs 10,000
per year to female head of family, cow dung at Rs 2 kg, free laptops and
tablets to first-year government college students, et al. The BJP too follows
in similar footsteps but its guarantees centre around Prime Minister Modi.
Besides, its Hindutva strategy is given sharp focus, as its star campaigner
started his campaign from a Hanuman temple. The bitter campaigning has got the
Election Commission stepping in. On Thursday last, it issued a show-cause
notice to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his panauti, ‘pickpocket’ and ‘loan
waiver for the super-rich’ jibes at Modi, saying the MCC prohibits leaders from
making ‘unverified allegations against political rivals.’ Additionally, its
issued two show-cause notices to Congress over two advertisements -- one
claiming a wave in its favour and another asking people to give missed calls to
avail benefits of its poll promises. These ‘fail to adhere to the standards
expected from a national party’, is the BJP’s complaint. The Congress may cry
hoarse or see it as its rival truly worried, but the results will show which
guarantees eventually worked.
* * * *
Governors ‘Playing With Fire’
Governors need to tread cautiously; they are only titular
heads and real power rests with people’s representatives. The firm message
comes from the country’s top court. In a 27-page judgement uploaded on Thursday
last, the Supreme Court asked Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit to ‘now
proceed to take a decision on the Bills’ submitted for assent during Assembly’s
sittings on 19, 20 June 2023 and 20 October 2023, as these were
‘constitutionally valid’. Earlier, during course of hearing, the court had said
the governor was “playing with fire” as it held that being the titular head of
the state the Governor can’t cast doubt on the validity of an assembly session
or withhold his decision indefinitely on bills passed by the House. Any such
attempt, it said ‘would be replete with grave perils to democracy.’ In a
Parliamentary form of democracy, the real power vests with MLAs and MPs and
“Members of government are accountable to and subject to scrutiny by the
legislature. The Governor as President’s appointee is the titular head of
State.” Importantly, the Speaker is recognised to be a guardian of the House
privileges and constitutionally recognised authority who represents the House;
the Governor, as an unelected Head of State, is entrusted with certain
constitutional powers. “However, this power can’t be used to thwart the normal
course of lawmaking by state legislatures.” Big not just for AAP government,
but other State governments which have been in a running battle with their
respective Raj Bhavan. Remember the idiom-- discretion is the better part of valour.
* * * *
Set Up Delimitation Commission
Disproportionate representation of tribal communities in
Sikkim and West Bengal assemblies should go a long way to get sections of SCs
and STs justice across the country. Hearing a petition of NGO, Public Interest
Committee for Scheduling Specific Areas, contending the Limbu and Tamang
communities (STs), were denied a proportionate representation in these States,
the Supreme Court on Thursday last, directed Centre to set up a fresh
delimitation commission for ensuring a proportional representation of the
communities specified as SCs and STs, as mandated under Constitution. However,
it clarified it can’t direct Parliament to amend or make laws for giving proper
representation to other communities that form part of the STs as this would
amount to “venturing into legislative domain”. Additional seats, it said must
be made available in Bengal for the STs to accommodate ‘principle of
proportional representation.” The plea claimed Limbu and Tamang communities’
population in Sikkim had risen to 33.8% in 2011 from 20.6% in 2001 and in
Darjeeling, West Bengal, ST population rose to 21.5% in 2011 from 12.69% in
2001. Importantly, the court was clear its verdict ‘shall not be read to
interfere’ with Parliament or assemblies’ polls ‘since elections are an
overarching mandate and these have to be carried out on time’. All that can be
said is that once the process starts, ‘benefit (of reservation) has to be given
across the country,’ as demands from various states pending. So, while the
exercise must be on the agenda, a deadline is missing!
* * * *
Adamant Bihar
Bihar is pulling out all the stops to get what has been
demanding. On Wednesday last, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar upped the ante on the
long-standing demand for grant of special status to the state by getting the
Cabinet to pass such a resolution. In a post he said the Centre has been
requested for the same as it ‘was necessitated by findings of the caste survey
his government carried out.’ Importantly, while the rise in percentage of
population of the deprived castes has led to increase in the quotas for SCs,
STs and OBCs from 50 to 65%, he said his government planned to undertake
several welfare measures for the benefit of “94 lakh families”, which lived in
abject poverty. Recall, the demand for
special status has been pending “since 2010”.
At same time, he has urged the Centre to incorporate the hiked
reservation for deprived castes from 50 to 65% in state government jobs and
educational institutions in Constitution’s 9th Schedule, so it’s guaranteed
immunity from legal scrutiny. Nitish has also been saying that if INDIA bloc
forms the next government at the Centre, he would press for “special status to
all backward states”. Clearly, there’s more than meets the eye.
* * * *
Support For Palestine
God’s own country may bring some cheer to the war-ravaged
Palestinians. A mass solidarity rally was organised by the Congress PCC in
Kozhikode on Thursday last, to clear the air: “Palestine solidarity is not a
new thing for the Congress Party. It has been continuing without any change
since Gandhiji and Nehru’s time.” Both AICC General Secretary KC Venugopal and
CWC member Shashi Tharoor were at pains to counter accusations that the grand
old party was silent on the issue due to ongoing Assembly polls and asserted it
condemned Israel’s war on Gaza, its attacks against hospitals and refugee
camps; and hit out at Modi government’s foreign policy, saying India’s
abstention from voting in UNGA against the war, ‘brought disgrace to the entire
nation’. Venugopal even described Modi and his Israel counterpart Netanyahu as
‘the same type’ and accused the Centre of using foreign policy as ‘a PR
exercise to ensure its victory in polls.’ Sadly, the humanitarian side of the
war has got lost in vote bank politics. Domestic issues are being seen to
influence South Block’s pro-Israel shift as it gives a shot in the arm to the
Hindu nationalists. People taking out pro-Palestine rallies in some State have
been briefly detained by the police; the Indian media too has titled reportage.
Guess, Kerala gives some solace.
* * * *
Farewell ‘Judged’
A farewell speech in Allahabad High Court has not just
raised many an eyebrow but could ruffle feathers. On Tuesday last, its retiring
Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker in his farewell speech alleged his transfer in
2018 from Chhattisgarh HC when the collegium was headed by then CJI Dipak Misra
was done to ‘have been issued with an ill intention to harass me’! He said when
he was elevated to the bench on March 31, 2009, he discharged his duties till
October 2018 “to the satisfaction of one and all, and particularly to my own
inner being.” But “now, a sudden turn of events descended upon me when then CJI
Deepak Misra showered on me some extra affection for reasons still not known to
me which entailed my transfer to Allahabad HC, on October 3, 2018.” However,
‘as fortune would have it,’ he said ‘the bane turned into a boon…’ Besides, he
thanked present CJI Chandrachud, ‘who rectified the injustice done to me,’ and
for being appointed as Acting CJ of Allahabad HC and eventually CJ on March 26,
2023. Interestingly, his remarks come on the heels of a farewell speech by
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, recently transferred from Calcutta HC to Patna HC. He
said: “I must say that in 1975 during Emergency, 16 judges of different HCs
were transferred by an executive decision in one go. After almost 48 years, 24
judges have been transferred from one High Court to another by the Collegium of
the Honourable Supreme Court in one go.” The big question being whether these
churnings or targeting with the judiciary should be welcomed or not?----INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
India-Australia Ties: THE 2+2 DIALOGUE, By Dr. D.K. Giri, 27 November 2023 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 24 November 2023
India-Australia Ties
THE 2+2 DIALOGUE
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for
Democratic Socialism)
India and Australia are rivals in cricket as two top teams
in the world. They have clashed many times including in World Cup finals. After
winning all the ten league matches, India unexpectedly, disappointingly lost to
Australia in Sunday’s World Cup final. Even Prime Minister Modi was actively
involved in the match, first as a spectator, then after the match, to
commiserate the Indian team. However, that is cricket. Although, Indians are
passionate about cricket, and a vast number tend to be emotional, each game
should be taken sportingly, displaying magnanimity in victory and equanimity in
defeat.
On the other hand, the India-Australia bilateral engagement
is currently at an all-time high encompassing defence, security, trade and
cultural partnerships, technology and education as the key areas of
collaboration. The Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the Deputy Prime
Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles arrived in India early last week
for the second 2+2 ministerial dialogue. As usual, the dialogues covered a wide
range of issues including India-Canada relations which are undergoing some
stress due to the rise of radicalism in Canada that is directed against India,
and the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.
The close proximity between Australia and Canada
necessitated a discussion on India-Canada relations and possibility of defusing
the tension. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar underlined the need for such a
discussion on Canada, “Australia has a good and strong relationship with both
India and Canada. Hence it was important that Australia get our perspective on
the issue”. He further pointed out that, “From our point of view, the key issue
is really the space which is being given to extremism and radicalism in
Canada.”
Let us recall that the tensions between New Delhi and Canberra
became worse with the controversial killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Canadian
Prime Minister accused the Indian intelligence agencies of being behind the
killing. Diplomatic staff from either side was repatriated. Australia was
reportedly upset with New Delhi sending back 41 Canadian diplomats. However,
sadly another terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in a video appearance, has
given a call to Sikhs to boycott Air India and has threatened the disruption of
Air India flying across the world. Government of India has booked Pannun under
several Acts of intimidation, prevention of unlawful acts etc. Presumably, the
air was cleared between India and Australian leadership.
From the available reports and the press briefings, it
appeared that Australians have been sensitised on issues of terrorism which are
of central concern to New Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs said in a
press brief, “We had extensive discussion on security issues. We spoke about
terrorism, radicalism and extremism. At the heart of it, is really a shared commitment
to a free, open, inclusive, prosperous, and rule-based Indo-Pacific region.”
The similar Indian approach echoed in their response to
Israel-Hamas war. The Indian position consisted of her response to three issues
in the present war – one is terrorism, second, the hostage issue and the third,
humanitarian crisis in Palestine. Both countries agreed that it is a very
complex and challenging situation which cannot be addressed by a single issue
response like condemning Israel or calling for unilateral ceasefire.
It is pertinent to note the driving factors that bring
Australia and India closer. India’s strong ties with the US since the Indo-US
Civil Agreement signed in 2008 helped Australia, as an ally of United States to
embrace India. Second, China’s border clashes with India and trade disputes
with Australia bring them together. China, in fact, as a common threat to both
India and Australia works as a catalyst in their bilateralism. The Australian
Deputy Prime Minister in the 2+2 dialogue confirmed that, “China is the biggest
security anxiety for India and Australia”. His counterpart, the Indian Defence
Minister, Rajnath Singh, endorsed it, “Strong India-Australia ties are crucial
for peace, security and prosperity of the India Pacific”. Indeed, India-Australia bilateralism is
sustained by a mutual interest in containing China and ensuring a stable order
in India Pacific region.
Third, the domestic constituents in both countries like
civil society actors, think tanks and research organisations have advocated a
closer relationship between the two countries. Fourth, the mutual economic and
trade interests have also driven the partnership. Australia hopes to enhance
its partnership with India in order to cut down on its reliance on China. The
Australian Prime Minister Antony Albanese came with 25 Australian business
leaders to expand trade when he came for attending the G-20 meeting last
September. Likewise, New Delhi wants to tap into Australia’s rich mineral
resources and investment potentials.
The bilateralism is conducted through several agreements,
membership of multilateral coalitions and bilateral visits by top leadership.
Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Australia in September 2014 was the first by any
Indian Prime Minister in 28 years. Following this visit, a Framework of
Security Cooperation paved the way for future engagements. In 2020, India and
Australia announced a comprehensive strategic partnership that includes an
agreement on maritime and cyber technology cooperation and Mutual Logistics
Support Agreement to increase military inter-operability through defence
exercises and further cooperation on defence, science and technology.
In November 2022, both countries signed the Economic
Cooperation and Trade Agreement (ECTA) in an effort to strengthen trade ties.
Beyond bilateralism, Australia and India are involved in a range of
multilateral mechanisms and regional groupings that include G-20, the Indian
Ocean Rim Association, the ASEAN Regional Forum and Quadrilateral Security
Dialogue (QUAD). Such agreements and cooperation have led to joint defence
drills which are the main pillar of India-Australia bilateralism.
Australia invited India to participate in Talisman Sabre,
the most important military exercise between the US and Australia. Similar
exercises between Australia and India include AusIndex, Kakadu, Pitch Black,
and Milan. The Malabar Naval exercises where Australia has recently joined, is
another frontline Naval exercise. In 2022, the joint army exercise Austra-Hind
took place.
To sum up, despite growing proximity between India and
Australia, there are a few challenges to reckon with. Obviously, the
bilateralism is shaped by their ‘shared interest’ and ‘shared values’. The
shared interest is apparent, which is balancing China, the common threat. Second
is the mutual benefit accruing from growing trade and economic partnership.
There are concerns, however, on shared values. For instance, India’s refusal to
condemn Russian aggression of Ukraine caused unease in Australia.
Both countries got their independence from Britain. India
chose to be non-aligned whereas Australia became an ally of the United States. While
both have close defence partnership and are members of Quad, other members
including Australia accommodate India’s strategic autonomy. Observers of
India-Australia relations wonder what would be India’s position on Taiwan, if
ever it was invaded by China. Any military confrontation like the one on Taiwan
could have disastrous consequences in terms of security and economy in India-Pacific.
Will India’s strategic autonomy sit well with such a destabilising possibility?
For now, Australia seems to go along well with the Indian
approach to multilateral partnerships. Also, the multi-stake holder approach
favoured by both sides in building their bilateralism gives a cause for
optimism. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|
|
Poll Has Thrown Up Basic Issues, by Inder Jit, 23 November 2023 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 23
November 2023
Poll Has
Thrown Up Basic Issues
By Inder Jit
(Released on 5 March
1985)
Several issues of basic importance to the future of our
polity have come up in the course of the poll battle for the State Assemblies.
What kind of a Union is India -- federal or unitary? Opinion over the past two
decades and more has been divided. There are many who feel that India, which is
a Union of States, essentially a federal polity. However, there are others who
feel that India is not quite a federation of states in the true or classical
sense of the term. Instead, it is a mixture of both and is some kind of a
federal-cum-unitary state. The confusion, perhaps, arises because of the
background and circumstances in which the Union of India came into being. In
the case of the United States of America, for instance, independent states
decided to come together even as they retained a measure of their independence
or autonomy. In sharp contrast, India at the time of independence was ruled by
the British from New Delhi as a unitary state. And, Princely India was under
its paramountcy.
True, British India was divided into provinces. Each
province had its own Government headed by a Prime Minister, as the heads of provincial
governments were then called. But the arrangement was for administrative
convenience. Absolute power vested in the Raj at New Delhi. Following
independence, the unitary polity was divided into States. The Centre retained
many of the powers of the Raj and gave the States a measure of genuine
autonomy. In other words, the unitary Centre voluntarily shed some of its
powers and shared these with the States and not vice versa as in the case of
the United States of America. Consequently, the past two decades have seen
stresses and strains grow and develop between the Centre and the States. As a
student of history, Nehru strongly believed that India’s real strength lay in
its rich diversity and, therefore, worked for a healthy federal polity. This,
he believed, would ensure for India richness which could not possibly come from
uniformity imposed from New Delhi.
Nehru was also clear that a federal, decentralised
polity with a strong Centre would ensure speedy and balanced growth. In fact,
he set up the Planning Commission to provide not only planned development for
the nation as a whole but also for planned development at the State level
through a federal de centralised set up on the economic plane. The Planning
Commission was made autonomous and virtually independent so that it could plan
for India’s development uninfluenced and unencumbered by the Government at the
Centre and its political complexion. Sir V.T. Krishnamachari was named the
Commission’s Deputy Chairman and Nehru as Prime Minister its first Chairman. De
facto, however, 'VT’ headed the Commission and Nehru was Chairman only to
provide a link between the planning body and the Government -- and to answer
questions on planning in the two Houses of Parliament. But the situation
changed following elevation of Indira Gandhi to Prime Ministership.
Slowly but surely, the autonomy of the Planning
Commission was eroded bit by bit and the country, in effect, sought to be run
as a unitary state through both constitutional and extra-constitutional
devices. (Remember, the role which Governors are now expected to play!) The
final denouement came when the Commission, originally conceived as a body of
independent experts, was virtually reduced to the position of a Government
department and the Planning Minister appointed its de facto head and named its
Vice Chairman. Simultaneously, the National Development Council, headed by the
Prime Minister, came to be transformed into a brazen instrument of the Centre
from its original concept of a body designed to fashion a national view on
planning and economic development at the political level and ensure unity in
diversity. Fortunately, Mr Rajiv Gandhi has sought to restore to the Planning
Commission its original autonomy. Dr Manmohan Singh, one of India’s eminent
economists, has been appointed its Vice Chairman and the States assured a fair
deal. But other issues have arisen in the meantime.
The Prime Minister has now taken the stand that the
same party should be in power at the Centre and in the States in the interest
of speedy and coordinated development. Initially, Mr Gandhi denied Press
reports that he had advocated one-party rule at the Centre and in the States.
However, the Congress-I manifesto for the Assembly poll
has taken the same stand. It reminds the voters that Parliament and the State
legislatures are creatures of the same Constitution and adds: “There is a clear
linkage between the Central and State Governments in the formulation and
implementation of development plans and programmes.”Undoubtedly, there is a
linkage between the Centre and the States. Equally, development is likely to be
more coordinated and smoother if the same party is in power at New Delhi and in
the States. But the stand taken by the Prime Minister and his party goes
against the letter and spirit of the Constitution -- as also the background.
There was nothing wrong in Mr Gandhi appealing to the
voters to elect Congress-I to power in each State that he visited in the course
of his poll campaign. But to many veteran observers of the national scene he
appears to have slipped up in linking the Centre and the States as a whole and
pleading for one-party rule in the country. What he has stated amounts to
holding the voters for the Assembly poll to ransom with the virtual threat:
“Vote for a Congress-I Government in your State or else...” Shorn of polite
verbiage, this amounts to giving notice that the States which vote for the
Congress-I are likely to get better or more favoured treatment than the others.
No wonder, therefore, that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the leader
of the Telugu Desam Party, Mr N.T. Rama Rao, reacted sharply and not only
demanded “legitimate allotment” of funds to the State from the Centre towards
welfare programmes but also gave a counter-threat. He said at one poll meeting
that there would be “bloodshed and great revolution” if due share of funds was
not allotted to the State. He further added: “We are not beggars to ask for
charity or alms. We are entitled to legitimate and due shares from the Centre.”
Centre-State relations have burst into
the open once again, as they did last July. Four Chief Ministers then walked
out of the meeting of the National Development Council in an unprecedented
protest. They were: Mr N.T. Rama Rao of Andhra
Pradesh, Mr R.K, Hegde, Karnataka, Mr Jyoti Basu, West Bengal and Mr Nripen
Chakraborty of Tripura. They left the NDC meeting to protest against Dr Farooq
Abdullah’s “anti-democratic and authoritarian dismissal”. Opinion was then
sharply divided on what came to pass. Mrs Gandhi and her Congress-I colleagues
were strongly of the view that it was wholly improper for the Chief Ministers
to have made “a political statement” at the NDC forum. The four Chief Ministers
were equally clear that the statement was perfectly in order. As Mr Hegde later
pointed out: The Chief Ministers are political beings. What is more, Chief
Ministers beginning with EMS of Kerala from Nehru’s time have made political
statements at the NDC meetings. There has been never any bar against making
them.
Impartially and candidly, both sides had a point. Mrs
Gandhi was partly correct when she said that the National Development Council
was only a forum for planning and national development and was not concerned
with politics. However, Mr Rama Rao, Mr Hegde, Mr Basu and Mr Chakraborty had
greater force --- and justice --- on their side. First, politics cannot be
separated from planning in any federal polity as Mrs Gandhi knew only too well.
Times out of number, she herself stated that national development was dependent
upon close co-operation between the Centre and the States. This had inevitably
led the NDC to a discussion on Centre-State relations and in the last case on
the question of New Delhi’s virtual coup in Srinagar --- and the credentials
and legitimacy of the successor State Government. Second, where else could the
Chief Ministers have raised the Kashmir question in the absence of political
forum? Nehru recognized this fact of life and did not, therefore, object when
EMS first and Annadurai subsequently made political speeches at the NDC.
Significantly, the founding fathers of the Constitution
recognised the need for a national political forum and wisely provided for one
in the shape of an Inter-State Council. Alas, few remember that the
establishment of an Inter-State Council was recommended in 1967 by a top-level
Study Team headed by Mr M.C. Setalvad, one of free India’s top constitutional
experts. The team, which submitted its report to the Administrative Reforms
Commission, included among its members Mr M. Bhaktavatsalam, Chief Minister of
Tamil Nadu and Mr Hitendra Desai, Chief Minister of Gujarat, was clear that the
Inter-State Council should take care of all issues of national importance in
which the States were interested. Indeed, Mr Setalvad, who as India’s first
Attorney General was invited by Nehru to address Parliament on certain crucial
matters, went one step further. He wanted the Inter-State Council to replace
the National Development Council, the Chief Ministers’ Conference, the Finance
Ministers’ Conference, the Food Ministers’ Conference and the National
Integration Council.
The Sarkaria Commission is, no doubt, going into
Centre-State relations. However, certain things need to be done without delay.
One such thing is the need to ensure genuine functional autonomy of the
Planning Commission. The appointment of Dr Manmohan Singh as its Vice Chairman
is to be welcomed. But this by itself is not enough. Much more needs to be done
to make the Planning Commission a truly autonomous body functioning as experts
in the best national interest. Unknown to most people, the Planning Commission
has no statutory base or authority. It was created through a Government
resolution and its Vice Chairman and Members hold office at the pleasure of the
Government. Originally, the term of the Vice Chairman and members was five
years. Today, however, their position is as insecure as that of the Governors.
The Planning Commission should be made a statutory body. What is more, it is
time for the President to set up an Inter-State Council which could perhaps be
given a better all-embracing name such as: National Affairs Council. Every
effort must be made to find a solution to the basic issues raised by the poll.
No scope should be left for any tension if India is to function as a happy and
healthy Union of States. --- INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Raising Work Productivity: MORE HOURS NOT AN ANSWER, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 22 November 2023 |
|
|
Open
Forum
New
Delhi, 22 November 2023
Raising Work Productivity
MORE HOURS NOT AN ANSWER
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Increasing
workers’ productivity is an issue which has come into sharp focus following a
recent podcast of legendary co-founder of tech giant Infosys NR Narayana Murthy,
wherein he requested youngsters to work for ‘70 hours a week’. India’s work
productivity, he said “is one of the lowest in the world. Unless we improve our
work productivity... we will not be able to compete with those countries that
have made tremendous progress.” So, he added the “youngsters must say ‘This is
my country. I’d like to work 70 hours a week”.
Undeniably,
labour productivity in India is quite low compared to many countries, even in
the emerging economies. Thus, there is need to raise productivity, as efficiency
increase is the order of the day, and must be ensured to make India competitive
in the global market.
However,
the question arises whether this would be possible through more efficiency,
which could be brought about by use of technology and/or better planning etc.
or through extending a longer work week. The latter option is not evident in
most other countries and therefore may not be acceptable. Moreover, working
more hours per week does not necessarily improve work culture and standards.
While
urging the need for increasing productivity, the prevailing situation in the
country, not just in the modern industrial sector but also in the traditional
industrial sector in both big and medium industries needs to be considered. A
section of analysts has been harping more on the induction of technology than
in longer working hours. However, it may be mentioned here that in the
unregulated informal sector, the working hours are around 70 hours a week.
Some
feel that Murthy’s thesis is not quite correct as productivity is not necessarily
linked to how many hours people work. Indians already work longer hours than
most. The Indian government’s time-use survey in 2019 found that men
between the ages of 15 and 59 in urban India spent an average of 521 minutes a
day in paid employment. That translates to over 60 hours a week. The number is
even higher if you exclude those with only primary education. Indians,
according to an ILO report, already work long hours ‘worked an average of more
than 2,000 hours every year before the pandemic, much higher than the US,
Brazil and Germany.’
Murthy
pinpointed India’s underwhelming work productivity, ranking among the lowest in
the world, which is possibly not the fact. The case of China, which is
well known for high levels of efficiency and skill, needs to be studied. The
China Labour-Force Dynamics Survey in 2017 revealed that the average employee
in the People’s Republic spent just under 45 hours at work, though more than 40
percent reported that they were working over 50 hours a week.
There
are, however, some sectors in that country where the working hours are around 60-62
hours a week. But China’s progress and prosperity has been not because of long
hours of work but due to high technological prowess. During the pandemic, work
was being done from home but at least one survey found that Indians – may be
also the Chinese -- had to put in more unpaid overtime.
Murthy’s
comparison with Germany also does not appear convincing. Though Germany’s
workers in the 1950s certainly worked longer hours than, say, the British, the
total was still probably between 45 and 50 hours a week though presently it’s not
more than 50 hours a week. However, presently South Koreans have longer
working hours, which may be around 60 hours a week.
These
comparisons are aimed at highlighting the fact that working longer hours need
not necessarily boost productivity. Though Murthy has not referred to the
government sector, where it is generally believed that productivity is low, the
main reason that can be attributed for this is the lack of proper advance
planning. But even then, one can say that even without corporate level
efficiency, government hospitals have the best doctors and best
treatment is received in these places. Obviously, this is because of high
levels of skill and efficiency.
Recall
that more than a decade ago, Ratan Tata had complained to The Times,
London that the management of the British steel company (Corus) and
automaker (Jaguar Land Rover) he had taken over didn’t work hard enough. They
wouldn’t stay for meetings that lasted past 5 p.m.; offices emptied early on
Friday. Tata Steel’s hard-edged management, he implied, would soon set that
right. India Inc.’s luminaries lined up to drape themselves in the flag and
endorse their fellow billionaire.
The
five-day week culture may not be ideal for a developing nation like India, but
factories operate for six days a week and most private sector companies
also follow the same principle. It is necessary to mention here that if
corporate India wants workers to work longer hours, it will need to create high
productivity jobs for them. It is here that there is need to understand
the nature of employment of India’s workforce and whether such jobs can be
created for them.
With
more than 45 percent of India’s workers engaged in agriculture and another 40 percent
in enterprises employing nine or fewer workers, high productivity jobs are
scarce in the country. The reason is quite obvious -- we are yet to establish
an efficient and technologically developed structure. The huge labour force
does not find adequate employment and even those who find employment are
without jobs for around six months a year. Whether it be agriculture or
agro-based industries or even the informal sector, modernisation has not taken
place yet.
With
little capital and land to work on, the marginal product of labour is too small
to convince workers to work harder. Moreover, the situation is such that harder
work does not reach the employee in most cases but are taken away by the
employer in connivance with corrupt political leaders. All the talk of
increasing working hours is limited to the top corporate sectors which have
unfortunately got all the attention of the government and the country. In fact,
all the capital has been invested in these few sectors, which employs around
8-9 percent of the total workforce.
It is
now necessary that a change be brought about in the informal sector of the
country where pay structure, working hours, overtime allowance is fixed, and
workers are not allowed to be exploited. Entrepreneurs like Murthy can talk
about more working hours and can examine the labour put in by those who work in
the informal sector and devise ways and means and then advise the government to
conduct a comprehensive study towards reforming this sector and improving the
working conditions of the workers.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>
| Results 136 - 144 of 5987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|