Rashtra Stri Shakti

One never knows when a Butterfly Effect is set in motion. Can a few powerful women in India cause a global shift in politics and economy? If Europe continues reel in financial troubles, and if the latest alphabet to parade the economic woes street is 'L' (ever heard about the L-shaped recovery? ), Japan continues to face its economic, political, cultural problems (ever heard about the Herbivore Man? ), Australia continues to look up at China, China continues to face its own problems, then it is quite possible that India will play a significant role in the years to come. What with Italy's GDP starting to decline, who knows.

The above women, whose name you should know, and their parties will influence in the upcoming State elections and Indian General Elections in 2014. Supporters call them powerful, influential, charismatic, welfare-oriented, progressive women. Detractors call them all sorts of names. These women are here to stay till the next set of elections. In India, skeletons in the cupboards seldom matter when it comes to politics based on identities.

They are all fiery and can bring masses to clap with glee. Will they cause the World to notice them too? Why, you ask? Some of them are Prime Minister material. All of them have rich experience in organizing and mobilizing crowds, they have survived the coalition era politics, they have been party presidents, crowd pullers, Chief Ministers. Some of them even have been accused over scams, improper accumulation of personal wealth etc. They are not squeaky clean. But Stri Shakti has always worked its way into aam admi's mind in India.

These are just the tip of the iceberg and the prominent ones that can decisively impact the party that stakes power at the Center. There are scores of other women in Indian politics. You say, these women politicians really don't matter, and that I am smoking something to day dream. Hold on. This MIT Study should make you pause and ponder.

Voters often regard politicians with derision — so often, in fact, they may lose sight of the extent to which elected officials are role models for younger people. Indeed, new evidence suggests that when those politicians are female, they play a highly influential and positive role in the lives of young women.

In all seriousness, these women can be the game changers for India....(and the World he he he).

Republic Day Diplomacy

The choice of chief guest in the Republic Day celebrations is dictated by a number of reasons — strategic and diplomatic, business interest and international geo-politics. There is an interesting sub-text for the visit of every head of state who is invited as the chief guest. Though the reasons differ from year to year, the choice — either for Republic Day chief guests or for recipients of prestigious awards — is based on some general principles. Most often, the choice is dictated by the usefulness of the person to India, either in the past or in future. (Linky)

2012: Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra of Thailand — The invitation to Yingluck is part of New Delhi's effort to boost its' 'look East' policy. Yingluck is expected to hold talks on ways to increase trade and investment opportunities between the two countries, particularly in energy, petroleum and food industries. From the Thai perspective, "... once the Asean economic community takes affect in 2015, Thailand could become a trade and investment gateway to the community for India, while India would be a distribution centre of Thai products to countries in the South Asia region."

2011: President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia — From Linky

From an Indian perspective, there were two objectives underlying President Yudhoyono’s selection as chief guest for this year’s Republic Day celebrations. First, closer alignment with Indonesia is expected to strengthen India’s hand in the East Asian Summit, an ASEAN-led grouping of 17 countries that also includes Russia, China, Japan, Australia, and the US trade is an important component of the summit process, along with strategic issues ranging from energy security to climate change. India has been a part of the summit since its first meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 2005. Among other advantages, strengthening India’s relationship with Indonesia, which currently chairs ASEAN, is seen as a way of counterbalancing Chinese influence in the summit.

Second, the trip was about business, pure and simple. Like British Prime Minister David Cameron last July, U.S. President Barack Obama in November, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in December, President Yudhoyono arrived in New Delhi accompanied by a planeload of business leaders. Economic engagement between India and Indonesia is growing fast, bolstered by the signing of the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement last year under which India committed to reduce import tariffs on goods from ASEAN countries. Bilateral trade between India and Indonesia topped $12 billion in 2010. Among other goods, India sells military hardware to Indonesia under a defense cooperation agreement signed in 2001.

President Yudhoyono and his delegation met with around 500 business leaders at a forum hosted by national business associations where they signed billions of dollars worth of cooperative agreements for ventures ranging from infrastructure to mining and manufacturing. The Steel Authority of India (SAIL) signed an agreement to set up a $3.3 billion steal plant in Indonesia’s Central Kalimantan. Hyderabad-based GVK Power and Infrastructure Ltd. signed memoranda to build airports in North Bali and Yogyakarta. In addition to trade agreements, the two countries signed an extradition treaty and a ‘mutual legal assistance’ treaty.

President Yudhoyono’s visit has been viewed within Delhi’s policy and business communities as having been very successful. The visit highlighted the importance that India attaches to its ‘Look East’ policy of increased engagement and economic integration with Southeast Asia. It also showcased India and Indonesia’s growing profile on the world stage as part of a strong and resurgent Asia.

More from: Linky

Apart from signing trade deals/MoUs worth US$15 billion with his Indonesian counterpart (and thus making India one of Indonesia’s top investors), the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, also announced the commencement of negotiations for an India-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA). The trade agreements signed will give India access to key Indonesian resources including coal. Indian companies, like GVK Power, have also inked deals to build infrastructure, like airports, in Indonesia. These deals aim to double bilateral trade by 2015. Indeed, bilateral trade has already been growing steadily, from US$5 billion in 2005 to US$11 billion in 2010. Additionally, India and Indonesia signed a mutual legal assistance treaty and an extradition treaty. These treaties signal a mutual interest in countering terrorism and ensuring the security of key sea lanes of communication, like the Straits of Malacca. The increased cooperation also reflects a mutual concern vis-à-vis a rising and increasingly active China, which has territorial disputes with both countries. Yudhoyono had earlier visited India in November 2005 when India and Indonesia had signed the India-Indonesia strategic partnership agreement.

2010: President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea — South Korea is an influential player in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum where India has a growing stake, because of which New Delhi feels the need for a greater engagement with APEC member countries. India also signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with South Korea recently to bolster economic ties. CEPA is much more than just a free trade agreement as it includes services in its scope as well. The visit by President Myung-bak came in the wake of the final environmental clearance to Posco which was to set up a $12-billion steel plant in Orissa — the single biggest foreign investment in India.

2010: President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan — Kazakhstan is one of the largest producers of uranium which India was seeking desperately to secure fuel supplies for its nuclear reactors. India signed a civil nuclear deal with Kazakhstan during Nazarbayev’s visit and the first uranium consignment was delivered soon after.

2008: President Nicolas Sarkozy of France — The two countries finalized their bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement even as India awaited the conclusion of the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA.

2007: President Vladimir Putin of Russia — During this visit, Russia formally acknowledged India as a nuclear weapons power and offered to set up four more nuclear reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu and additional ones elsewhere. Russia also promised support for special waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.

2006: King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud — At a time when engaging with the Muslim world was being seen as necessary from a strategic angle, India chose Saudi Arabia to begin the process of strengthening its presence in that region. Aware that hardly any Arab money was being invested in its markets, New Delhi wanted to correct that.

2005: King Jingme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan — Bhutan had cracked down on ULFA militants in December 2003, becoming the only country to have demonstrated by action that it would not tolerate any anti-India activity on its soil. This was a thank-you invitation by India.

2004: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil — This visit was indicative of the growing ties between the major emerging economies of the world. The IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) grouping had already taken off and trade with Brazil had crossed $1 billion for the first time. The two countries have been coordinating even more closely ever since, the most recent example of which was on display at the Copenhagen climate change summit.

2003: President Mohammad Khatami of Iran: India and Iran, at that time, were working on the common objective of bringing stability in Afghanistan. Both countries were supporting groups that were fighting the Taliban. India was helping the Northern Alliance led by Ahmad Shah Masood while Iran had been backing the Hazaras. Iran was the one that had offered India access to Afghanistan after Pakistan refused to let Indian foodgrains and other materials to be taken through its territory.

2002: President Cassam Uteem of Mauritius — This was in line with New Delhi’s plans to reach out to the African countries. Mauritius has a large number of people of Indian origin, including Cassam Uteem himself. Uteem had been President of the island nation for the previous ten years and India wanted to honour his achievement.

2001: President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria — This visit had more to do with NAM legacy. Bouteflika was a friendly face for India in Africa and the NDA government under Vajpayee also wanted to use him to convey that it did not discriminate against Muslims.

2000: President Olusengun Obasanjo of Nigeria — As a young military officer, Obasanjo had come, rather reluctantly, to India for training. Once here, he fell in love with India. He became a military dictator in 1976 but just three years later transferred power to an elected President. He was imprisoned in the early nineties by another military dictatorship. During this time, India honoured him with the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize which his wife received on his behalf. Obasanjo was released only in 1998 and went on to win the Presidency in elections a year later. India wasted no time in inviting him for the Republic Day the following year.

1999: King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev of Nepal — This was in line with New Delhi’s policy of a continued engagement with its neighbours. The Gujral doctrine of promoting friendly relations with neighbouring countries was very much still in practice even though the government had changed.

1998: President Jacques Chirac of France — This was a period when India was wooing Western powers for technological and military supplies in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union. The US was not warming up enough and the UK was seen to be toeing the Washington line on major issues. France had a more independent thought process and was more willing to do business quietly. France was the only major power not to have criticised the Indian nuclear tests carried out less than six months later.

1997: Prime Minister Basdeo Panday of Trinidad and Tobago — A PIO, Panday was the Foreign Minister when India’s then External Affairs Minister N D Tiwari made a trip to Trinidad and Tobago. They decided to open an Indian cultural centre in Trinidad. But it did not go down well with the local population which accused Panday of letting India colonise their country. The cultural centre was put on hold. Panday himself lost the ministership because of other reasons. But when he returned as Prime Minister in 1995, one of the first things that Panday did was to open the Indian cultural centre.

1996: President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil — This was when the idea of closer cooperation between the emerging economies was still taking shape. Till then India had negligible trade with Latin America. Cardoso was also in favour of greater economic cooperation between the two countries. Trade picked up and India also opened a consul in Sao Paulo.

1995: President Nelson Mandela of South Africa — After 27 years in prison, Mandela had just been elected President of South Africa in its first ever multi-racial elections in 1994. And it was only fitting that India invited him to grace the Republic Day next January.

1994: Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore — India had recently become a dialogue partner of ASEAN. So important was Singapore’s role in India’s engagement with ASEAN that Manmohan Singh, then the Finance Minister, used to often say that New Delhi must never forget the contribution of Singapore which had held India’s hand when no one else did.

1993: Prime Minister John Major of United Kingdom — In the wake of the break-up of Soviet Union, India was trying to warm up to the Western powers for its military and technology supplies and Britain was one of the first ones New Delhi had reached out to.

1992: President Mario Soares of Portugal — In 1992, Portugal was celebrating the 500 years of Vasco da Gama’s victory over French pirate ships near its coasts and had invited India to become a part of it. New Delhi had initially agreed but later realised that it could be seen as eulogizing the man who laid the ground for Portuguese rule in India. New Delhi, therefore, politely declined and instead invited the Portuguese President as chief guest.

1991: President Moumoon Abdul Gayoom of Maldives — This invite was to honour a long-time friend of the country in a neighbouring country which is strategically extremely important for India.

1990: Prime Minister Anerood Jugnauth of Mauritius — Jugnauth was a PIO, originally from Bihar and spoke fluent Bhojpuri. The invitation was a reflection of changing politics.

A complete list of the invitees during the Republic Day celebrations is available at: Linky.
Some more understanding of this diplomacy is at: Linky

Is India anti-science?

A few weeks back, the Prime Minister had made this remark on R&D in India: (Linky)

As publicly funded R&D was now “skewed” in favour of fundamental research, it would be easier to attract industrial funds to applied research. “A set of principles should be formulated to push such funding and to drive PPPs in R&D,” Dr. Singh said inaugurating the 99th annual session of the Indian Science Congress here.

“We must aim to increase the total R&D spending as a percentage of GDP to 2 per cent by the end of XII Plan [period] from the current level of 0.9 per cent. This can be achieved only if industry, which contributes about one-third of the total R&D expenditure today, increases its contribution significantly. I believe that public sector undertakings, especially in the energy sector, should play a major role in this expansion."

Independent of how much funding the GoI/MHRD/DST or any other funding agency in India puts in for fundamental or applied research, much of this funding will go through a leaky bucket unless there are enough people downstream to catch this source of money. That is, we need more people doing fundamental as well as applied research in India today. This is done in the US by the world's biggest employer, the U.S. Department of Defense (LInky) which intentionally employs more people in researchy/semi-researchy/contractual job profiles for many years -- an example that we can dearly ape in major part with minimal effort.

For that, we need role models to mould people into science and technology related areas instead of making the coming generations flock to art-sy arenas with more interest than to do the hard grind of research. On this topic, a recent report by a Professor at IISc (Linky) asks the rhetorical question: Is there nothing in this country of substance beyond Bollywood, cricket and politicians? The author further makes the remark that:

But more seriously, if young minds do not opt for science, where are the role models? Several scientists quietly work day and night, unseen and unsung. The Nobel Prize will not descend from the heaven, unless an appropriate environment is created and the role of scientists is appreciated. No technology comes without a risk and any one technology will not solve all our problems. But unbridled activism against science and scientists will only lead us to miss out on technology options. We need to give S&T a chance to deliver.

If the recent edition of the Padma awards (Linky) is any standard to go by in terms of creating role models in STEM fields, we have a scary battle on our hands to meet the PM's clamor call for more fundamental and applied research in India. For those who are impatient to click the link, here is the verdict (Science and Engineering, Literature and Education, Trade and Industry, Medicine, Arts, Total Awards):

Padma Vibhushan: 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 3 - 5
Padma Bhushan: 2 - 5 - 2 - 3 - 9 - 27
Padma Shri: 8 - 9 - 5 - 9 - 22 - 77

If the awards list are an indication, we are a nation of artists, theatrics, dramatists, playwrights, and litterateurs. So one should expect India to be anti-science too.

Demographic changes in North East

I am reading a very interesting book "Understanding India Relevance of Hinduism". Edited by Subhash C Kashyap and Abhaya Kashyap. B.B. Dutta in his paper 'Religious Demography: Quest for a New Indian Perspective" provides the following numbers from the Indian census. While I have not cross-checked with the Indian Census website, because the information is not really easy to collect.

Percentage to the North East India population

	1971	1981	1991	2001
Indian Religions	67.48%	62.59%	56.35%	49.39%
Christianity	28.34%	32.97%	38.96%	45.43%
Islam	4.18%	4.45%	4.69%	5.18%

However the following paragraph appearing at this location Census: Religion and You seems to lend credence to B.B.Dutta's data summary:

Christianity has emerged as the major religion in three North-eastern states, namely, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya. Among other states/Uts, Manipur (34.0%), Goa (26.7%), Andaman & Nicobar Islands (21.7%), Kerala (19.0%), and Arunachal Pradesh (18.7%) have considerable percentage of Christian population to the total population of the State/UT.

Looking at the population of Muslims as a percentage to the total, it is quite stable almost to the point of being stagnant. So are the illegal immigrants not counted ?