Defence Notes

New Delhi, 27 July 2009

Defence Production

EXPANDING  INDIAN FOOTPRINTS

By Radhakrishna Rao

 India’s down-to-earth Defence Minister, A.K. Antony, has consistently been advocating the need for India to achieve self reliance in all aspects of defence technology and production to reduce dependence on imported hardware. Expressing his concern over the imported equipment and systems making up for 70% of Indian defence procurement, Antony has described the trend as both “shameful and dangerous”. Without mincing words, Antony has characterized Indian dependence on imported defence systems as an “undesirable situation” .Says Antony: “We had set the target for self reliance 50 years ago by our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Unfortunately we are still importing 70% of the equipment .A country like India cannot allow this situation to continue”.

As part of its strategy to boost indigenous defence production capability, the Defence Ministry has decided to encourage the participation of India’s private sector in the defence production scenario. Observe Antony: “Now we have taken a decision that in all procurements, priority, wherever possible, if any equipment can be produced in India either by the public sector or the private sector, should be given to India. If that is not possible, only then we will buy from abroad”.

Giving details of the new move to involve Indian industries in the defence production at an accelerated pace, Antony noted that the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) which was earlier amended every two years, would now be amended every year. “The main idea is to give more teeth so that we can on the one hand assure more transparency and on the other, give more space to the Indian industries, both public and private.” He also revealed that of 55 items provided to the soldiers deployed in the Siachen glaciers and other high altitude areas, only 19 items are being imported. “We are gradually trying to produce these 19 items also indigenously,” states Antony.

 In what has been perceived to be a marked shift in defence procurement strategy, Indian Defence Ministry has decided to let Indian private firms bid for a US$1-billion project aimed at modernizing army’s tactical communications systems .If the proposal is carried through, it would be the biggest military project to date that would be thrown open to domestic private sector companies. Sometime back, India’s defence acquisition council, the high powered body that approves military projects involving huge outlays, had cleared the proposal for allowing local companies to enter the race along with state owned entities for the tactical communications system.

This system is aimed at equipping the defence forces for network centric warfare in which ground troops are connected to air force and navy through a satellite supported secure and integrated voice, data and video communications device. As pointed out by Frost and Sullivan of the total capital outlay of 54,824 crore for the defence sector in 2008-09 budget, the army has been sanctioned Rs.11,212-crore for its ongoing modernization programs including  tactical communications and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Along with many big, established players like Tata Advanced Systems (TAS), Larsen and Toubro (L&T) and Mahindra Defence Systems, many small and medium industrial outfits in India are showing an increasing interest in meeting the fast growing requirements of the Indian defence sector. “The private sector has graduated from being tradesmen to engineering companies. They are now synergistically using the technology and the skill set available to make, market and sustain world class products” says Dr.Prahlada, Chief Controller (Research and Development), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).Meanwhile, DRDO has revealed that it is willing to transfer the technology related to nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare to small and medium scale companies and in the process opening up business potentials worth Rs.2,000-crore.

‘We will spend Rs.300-crore on NBC sector. Around 60% of our work will be outsourced to SMEs (small and medium enterprises)”states W.Selvamurthy, Chief Controller Research and development (Life Sciences and Human resources), DRDO. DRDO is now working on developing new techniques to defend the country against a range of potentially lethal agents. These projects include nano technology based bio sensors, unmanned robot operated aerial and ground vehicles attached with NBC detector sensors, devices for detection of chemical clouds and self contained NBC shelters and hospitals to handle NBC victims.

All said done, the share of the Indian private sector in so far as capital spending on defence is concerned is just around 9%.As things stand now, Indian private sector appears to be a peripheral player in country’s defence sector dominated as it is by state owned giants and global aerospace and defence vendors. Meanwhile, the heavy engineering and infrastructure development company L&T  which is contributing to the missile launch systems including ones for Brahmos and Dhanush ,has announced a joint venture with European aerospace and defence consortium EADS to manufacture high end defence electronics products. The defence division of L&T which makes ancillary equipment for ships such as propulsion steering gears and shafts, is now planning to build ships for the Indian navy.

 Along with Godrej and Boyce as well as TAS,L&T is in the race for  bagging the contract for developing and building an unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV).This medium altitude, long endurance UAV christened Rustom will be designed to fly at an altitude of 250-km.”Only defence manufacturing coupled with economic might can make India a super power” quips A.M. Naik CEO of L&T.

 Tata Group companies have floated a number of joint ventures with foreign entities with a view to sharpen the edge of the defence production. TAS has a joint venture with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for building unmanned aerial vehicles, missiles and radar systems. Tata Group has also a tie up with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp of USA to manufacture S-92 helicopter cabin in India. The cabin for this four bladed chopper, meant for both the civilian and military uses, is expected t roll out of the Greenfield facility near Hyderabad international airport by late 2010.

Observers of the Indian  defence sector  feel that the defence offset clause forming part of the defence procurement will help Indian private sector not only get business from foreign vendors implementing high ticket projects but also help it sharpen its technological skill and manufacturing base. The defence procurement policy stipulates that for import order in excess of Rs.300-crore, the suppliers must outsource around 30% with the Indian companies. Experts are of view that Indian companies can rake in US$10-billion in the next four to five years through the offset program.  In the ultimate analysis, it would be reasonable to assume that if Indian companies graduate to the position of delivering high quality products at low cost, foreign defence vendors will be tempted to set up manufacturing facilities in India to tap the skill base available with the Indian companies.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 25 July 2009

Indo-Pak Ties

PEACE ROAD TO NOWHERE

By Poonam I Kaushish

The monsoon has brought relief to the Delhiwalas from the prolonged searing heat. But real politik and diplomacy have heated up the Union Capital. It is a moot point if the temperatures will ever come down in Indo-Pak relations. The neighbours have been in a “love-me-love-me not” syndrome for more than six decades. Swinging from one extreme to another. Guns followed by roses and back to the guns!

Importantly, Indo-Pak relations are now hostage to two references in the infamous Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement following a meeting between  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the NAM Summit in Egypt mid-July. One, the de-linking of dialogue with acts of terrorism and the out-of-the-blue reference to Balochistan.

Clearly, Manmohan Singh has walked more than an extra mile to for Gilani and ceded ground to Pakistan. The formulation in the joint statement that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed” appear to be a climb-down. Post the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks, New Delhi has consistently maintained that no talks would take place till the culprits were brought to book.

Predictably, all hell broke lose. How could the PM agree for talks? Was he swayed by Gilani’s assurances that Islamabad would do “everything in its part and bring the 26/11 culprits to book irrespective of whether the dialogue was de-linked to terror? How could he fall for Islamabad’s promise which was nothing but a puerile statement and needed to be discounted totally? That he had washed away any gains achieved by New Delhi in the war against terrorism. Turned India’s foreign policy on its head? Was he coerced by the Americans in doing so?

Making matter worse, Islamabad read it differently. Said Gilani: “All core issues that were pending under composite dialogue should be discussed …. these should not be bracketed with the Mumbai incident.” Of import in this context, the statement was silent on Pakistan’s 2004 commitment that it would not allow its territory to be used for terrorism against India. Thus, Gilani had shrewdly freed Islamabad from that promise.

Resulting in the Prime Minister and Government trying to retrieve lost ground by claiming that the composite dialogue would not resume unless and until terrorist attacks were properly accounted for and the culprits brought to book. Adding, that Islamabad could not ask for resumption of dialogue without showing “action on terror”. Besides, by taking Kashmir off the agenda, and making it only one of several "outstanding issues," the “core issue” had been diluted.

However, instead of bridging the widening divide between the two neighbours it has led to more mistrust. Needless to say, the Prime Minister has taken a big risk. Everything could backfire in the event of another big terror strike on India. True, the delinking of talks with action on terror does reverse India’s policy of the last six decades, but it also allows for a new atmosphere of talks. The continuing stalemate was getting us nowhere.

At one level, the joint statement signifies a way forward. A country can never afford to take a position where it refuses to talk to a nation. By snubbing Islamabad, New Delhi was diminishing its influence over Pakistan’s ongoing cross-border terrorism. After all, even when joint statements carried bland sentences of “constructive and cordial dialogue”, it didn’t co-respond to a decline in Islamabad’s proxy war.

Aversely, by not talking New Delhi was only strengthening and emboldening the jehadis to continue fomenting trouble. Why should statements become barometers of success of every Indo-Pak summit? Further, the statement was not a binding legal document but merely a diplomatic testimonial. Notwithstanding, that generally joint testaments form the basis of a dialogue process. Remember, the Shimla pact post the 1972 Indo-Pak war which became the bedrock of future ties, 1999 Lahore declaration and the 2004 Vajpayee-Musharraf statement of holding a composite dialogue.

However, it is the inclusion of the word Baluchistan which has ignited indignation all-round. How did the innocuous line in Para 6: "Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas" creep in?

Time and again, Islamabad has privately accused New Delhi of inciting terror in Baluchistan. Whether the allegations are true or false is not the point. So far, it has been just conjectures. However, by including the word Baluchistan for the first time New Delhi has obliquely acknowledged its hand in fomenting trouble there. Significantly, we have given Pakistan a handle to equate Baluchistan with Kashmir. A tit for tat policy --- we do it in Kashmir, you do it in Balochistan. Wherein Balochistan would now serve as the model for all future discourse between India and Pakistan.

Compounding the issue, was Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon’s appalling confession that that the statement was “badly drafted” and “these things happen.” Really? According to foreign policy mandarins, Balochistan was a small price to pay for the exclusion of Kashmir. That New Delhi had no option given that the ISI had briefed the Indian High Commission in Islamabad of India hand in fomenting trouble. As also, Manmohan Singh’s insipid assertion, “we have nothing to hide”.

According to highly placed sources, the Prime Minister decision was based on the fast changing developments within Pakistan, the increasing strife, trouble in SWAT, rise of Taliban and its impact on India. Even as there would be no let-up on Islamabad to bring the 26/11 culprits to book. Confided a senior official, “the last thing India wants is instability and chaos in Pakistan. It is in New Delhi’s interest to ensure Pakistan remains stable and democratic. Be that it may, skepticism continues to abound.

Where does all this lead to? True, South Block has no illusions about any dramatic transformation in Islamabad’s policy. Given that post Sharm-el-Sheikh the Pak Army and ISI wants to be included in all future dialogue as they are part of policy formation. Dialogue can only take place once Islamabad shows its serious intent in handing over the 26/11 culprits. It has to put more efforts to put Hafeez Sayeed back in jail. The taste of the pudding is in the eating.

As matter stands today, both sides continue to be wary of each other. Deep mistrust and lack of confidence is apparent. Islamabad needs to do a lot more than just generating artificial illusions. There is little scope for talking peace and friendship with a neighbour who is busy throwing stones at you and even sniping. So far Islamabad’s track record has been woeful. It wrecked the Lahore pact by scripting the Kargil inclusion. Agra was stillborn. It has to match its words with deeds. Or else, the long thorny road to peace will end up as a peace road to nowhere. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 22 July 2009  

Hillary Visit

HISTORIC, OVER-ARCHING DIPLOMACY

By Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra, JNU

After months of near marginalization, the Obama Administration sprang a pleasant surprise by sending Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to India on a five-day visit. This trip is as important as the five-day path breaking visit paid by her husband President Bill Clinton in March 2000 to India.

The significance of this visit is clearly reflected in the fact that never before in history has a US Secretary of State come to India for such a long duration of time; met with such a vast cross-section of people, come with such wide-ranging agenda items and signed three significant agreements. Never before a top US administration official was so warmly greeted by the business community, academia and political leaders and threw so much positive energy into the bilateral relations, as Hillary Clinton did.

During her visit, Hillary announced a firm date, 24 November, for the first State invitation to a head of government to visit the White House. Although many commentators alluded to her skipping India during her maiden visit to Asia as Secretary of State and complained that she put only China and Indonesia on her itinerary, this July visit here more than compensates what she would have missed.

One of the newest initiatives of Secretary Clinton during her visit was to go beyond traditional meetings with the Government officials and engage in over-arching public diplomacy.  Significantly, she chose to land first in the nation’s finance capital, Mumbai, and interacted with business tycoons, such as Mukesh Ambani and Ratan Tata.

It signified the need for an Indo-US economic cooperation at a time of global recession and unprecedented US economic crisis. Apparently, India’s economic success stories in recent years and a positive growth rate amidst the recession has drawn the US’ attention to the need for a more robust engagement with India in trade and investment cooperation.

More importantly, India has of late become one of the largest arms bazaars in the world. Its intention to buy 126 fighter aircraft is a business involving billions of dollars. The American companies, particularly Lockheed Martin and Boeing have shown much interest to sell their aircraft but they of course would have to compete with Russia and a few European countries.

However, the Obama Administration views the ‘126 deal’ as a timely effort that could partly assist meeting the current crisis in its national economy. But this would not be possible, unless the two countries sign an “end-use-monitoring” agreement that would ensure that the US equipment and technology would not be diverted to unintended sectors or destinations abroad. Indeed, Secretary Clinton was able to persuade New Delhi to sign such an agreement.

Like the 126 deal, implementation of the 123 Agreement, relating to the civilian nuclear cooperation too has the potential to uplift the US economy. It so happens that while the American nuclear industry has been in doldrums, India’s nuclear energy market is worth over $30 billion. Moreover, successful US-Indian nuclear energy cooperation has the potential of creating about 20,000 jobs in the US. 

There were, however, anxious moments in certain quarters in New Delhi that the Obama Administration could soft-pedal the 123 Agreement and some even went to the extent of reading the G-8 summit statement on non-proliferation as an additional pressure on India to sign the NPT and CTBT. But Secretary Clinton made it amply clear on Indian soil that the US is very much interested in timely implementation of the 123 agreement. India, on its part, announced two places —Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat—as nuclear energy parks earmarked for the US companies to set up power generating nuclear reactors.

Two other important highlights of the Clinton initiatives to make US-Indian relations broader and deeper were in the field of educational and agricultural cooperation. Her interactions with college students both in Mumbai and Delhi were unprecedented efforts by the US State Department to engage directly with the Indian public.

These steps were intended to generate goodwill for the US among our masses. The UPA Government’s pro-farmer policies are by now well-known and by proposing agricultural cooperation between the two countries, Clinton sought to touch an issue which would relate directly with the Indian masses.

This apart, an international issue that bitterly divides the two nations, is that of climate change. India along with other developing countries opposes an effort by the US and other advanced countries to put a compulsory cap on carbon emission. Hillary Clinton has sought to convince New Delhi the need for a compromise solution before the Copenhagen Summit of this December. While no concession appears to have been made so far, this being a multilateral issue, the two countries need not lock horns beyond a certain point.

Yet another major issue that was addressed by Secretary Clinton was Indo-Pakistan relations and terrorism. Clinton urged India to assist Islamabad in combating terrorism. While New Delhi has been in the forefront of fighting terrorism in the region, it is concerned about official Pakistani connection with Pakistan-based anti-Indian terrorist networks. And as such, the UPA Government had announced that it was unwilling to restart the composite dialogue process with Pakistan, unless the perpetrators of Mumbai 26/11 were brought to justice.

Significantly, a few noteworthy developments took place a little before Clinton arrived and during her stay. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart in Egypt and a joint statement was issued. Islamabad showed some evidence that it was taking appropriate steps to apprehend the alleged culprits of 26/11. It then admitted that the LeT was involved in 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai. In addition, Kasaab, the lone surviving and captured terrorist suddenly confessed that he was part of the whole conspiracy to strike Mumbai on 26 November 2008.

Importantly, all these developments must have pleased the US Secretary of State. Overall, it turned out that the visit resolved many doubts about the Obama administration’s approach towards India. The apprehensions that this administration would not walk the extra mile to further elevate the relationship with India, from where his predecessor had left, proved to be misplaced.

While Condoleezza Rice characterized India as an emerging global power, Hillary Clinton engaged India as one of the major global powers. This recognition and the intention to engage India in a strategic dialogue make it evident that the bilateral relationship is on the right track. --INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Sunday Reading

New Delhi, 21 July 2009

Ayurveda Goes Digital

SAFEGUARDING PIRACY BY WEST

By Suraj Saraf

Two important developments have recently taken place for streamlining practice of the Indian System of Medicine (Ayurveda, Siddha, and Unani) and to curb massive copying of its long practiced formulations by the West. Indeed, it comes as disturbing and shocking news that till now this piracy has resulted in 15,000 patents of medical plants by the westerners. There would be a threat of losing 2000 more every year.

However, in order to safeguard and curb this huge loss of traditional medicinal knowledge of the country, a massive exercise has been undertaken by the Union health department of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) and the Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to document 2,33,000 formulations belonging to ISM viz 81000 Ayurvedic, 1.4 lakh Unani and 13,000 Siddha formulations.

It has taken eight years of hard and dedicated work. Two hundred scientists and researchers from the CSIR and the department of AYUSH had scientifically converted information of traditional Indian medicine from Hindi, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Tamil to five international languages i.e. English, French, Spanish, German and Japanese. The CSIR has thus created TKDL (Traditional Knowledge Digital Library), without which India would lose 1000 new patents every year.  

In the past, patents have been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) on the use of 385 Indian medicinal plants such as papaya, Indian long pepper, Kali Tulsi, Pudina, ginger, potato, isabgol, aaenla, jira, soyabean, tomato, almond, walnut and methi. Thus, New Delhi decided to ink a landmark agreement with the EPO, so that TKDL’s database would be available to the patent examinees at the EPO “for establishing prior art”, in case of patent applications based on ISM.

However, the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library’s information would be restricted only for patent research and examination purposes. The EPO will not be able to disclose it to a third party. While New Delhi will help EPO with search assistance, the latter will, once every three months, inform India about what information was used as citation from the Traditional library.  

The patent battle however, is a long-drawn procedure. According to CSIR’s Director-General Prof Samir Brahamchari, on an average, it takes five to seven years to oppose a granted patent internationally and cost anything from a whopping Rs one and three crore. Therefore, cost of protecting all ISM formulations in the absence of TKDL, would be staggering and completely unaffordable.

Thanks to the digital library, people will now think twice before even applying for dubious patents. The library will ensure that traditional Indian knowhow is safe, used by Indian companies for the benefit of Indians. Till now AYUSH has documented 8,1000 Ayurveda, 1.4 lakh Unani and 13,000 Siddha formulations. Encouragingly, the TKDL has also become a model for other countries wanting to defend their traditional knowledge from misappropriation. South Africa, African Regional Property Organisation, Mangolia, Nigeria, Malaysia and Thailand have already asked India to help them replicate TKDL.

The decision to create the library was taken in 2001 in the aftermath of wrong patents granted by the US Patent and Trade Mark Office on wound-healing properties of Turmeric and an antifungal property of Neem granted by the European Patent Office, even though the plants were being used for centuries under ISM for such benefits. Well, if TKDL had existed earlier, then the country would have been spared the international disputes regarding patenting of Neem, Turmeric and Basmati.  

In a study conducted in 2004, the Americans had granted 4896 patents on medicinal plants, 80 per cent of which were of Indian origin. In a study of 760 such plants, it was found that 850 patents never have been granted. Over 300 to 500 such patents are granted every year, mainly due to lack of access to documented knowledge in India.

In another important development, Ayurvedic doctors who do not possess requisite qualifications prescribed under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (IMCCA) can not practice anywhere in India as they like, as per a Supreme Court ruling in the first quarter of the year. The judgement came in a case wherein Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctors’ Association had challenged the Maharashtra Government’s decision to prosecute those practicing Ayurveda without being registered with the IMCCA.

The plea of the appellants in the case was that they were registered as practitioners under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine Act and argued that though they did not hold any degree or diploma or certificate of any recognized institution, they possessed sufficient knowledge and skills requisite for educational practice of medicines and surgery.

However, according to the Supreme Court if the Ayurvedic practitioners are registered in a particular State they could not automatically practice in other parts of the country too. Such doctors can only practice in other parts of the country provided their qualification is recognized under the IMPCO, said a supreme court Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Mukundakam Sharma.

Under section 15 of IMPCCA the right to practice anywhere in the country is restricted and permissible only if the name of the practitioners finds places in the central register as per the qualifications prescribed under section 2(1)(h) of IMPCCA. Section 8(1) (h) prescribes the qualifications and institutions recognized by the Council for the purpose of imparting training in Ayurveda.

The Apex Court rejected the argument that such restriction violates the Fundamental Right under Article 14 of the Constitution i.e. no discrimination between citizens. The appellants had argued that they fulfilled the conditions imposed by the regulations of Bihar State and their names were entered in the Bihar State Council’s register. As such Maharashtra government could not ban their practice on the ground that their names were not registered in the IMPCCA, as such a restriction violated Article 14 of the Constitution. But the Apex court rejected the plea saying that under article 19 (6) of the Constitution, the government can always put “reasonable restrictions” on a citizen’s fundamental right.

With the Ayurvedic practitioners getting a legal dose, there is a growing confidence that the 5,000-year-old Indian traditional system of medicine is getting the attention it deserves. After all Ayurveda is gaining the reputation of being one of the most important systems of mind-body medicine and natural healing.—INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)