Government is working to bring FDI in power sector

Indian government is working to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in the power sector which is critical for the country's economic growth. Earlier, despite making provisions for 100%

FDI in the power sector under the Electricity Act, 2003, not much response was there since menerly 2-3 foreign investors came forward but now, government is working to help instil confidence in foreign investors and see the sector grow.

The government has already paid Rs.10,000 crore to Enron though the commitment was made by the previous National Democratic Alliance government. To fulfil the commitment, Prime

Minister Manmohan Singh is taking different steps as he doesn't want India's image to suffer. The ministry is on course to achieve the 78,700 MW target for the 12th plan and listed steps like enhancing the capacity of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).

Currently, India needs bigger generation capacity as it is aiming to achieve 1,000 units per capita consumption by 2012. At present, the country's per capita power consumption is 700-800 units.

Andhra Pradesh government has urged the union minister to speed up the clearances for the power projects in the state as the state is uniquely positioned to emerge as a power hub as it has abundant coal and natural gas reserves and also has Uranium reserves and the Uranium Corporation of India Limited has selected Thummallapalli in Kadapa district and Lampapur-Peddagattu in Nalgonda district for mining uranium.

Boeing is facing the problem of brain drain

These days, Boeing is facing the problem of Brain drain of its employees making the executives worried. Over the next decade, Boeing needs 21,000 aerospace workers to replace the tide of Baby Boomers getting ready to retire of whom, 22% of workers can retire at any moment because of their age have been reached 55. But the shortage of skilled aerospace are spread across all the aerospace companies which lost about 129,350 workers over five years. Only Lockheed Martin is running short of 140,000 workers because of this problem of brain drain.

According to Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, the wave of retirements is “the intellectual disarmament” for the organisation since it doesn't have enough young people getting interested in math and science.

Young people around the world are either not interested in aerospace careers or don’t have the math and science skills for it. The problem doesn’t just start in college. Only about 8% of students in USA are interest in engineering as a career. There is no visionary statement to get younger generation interested in engineering and science.

The lack of interest also could be tied to a bad image of the aerospace industry, according to the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force. Layoffs, labor strife and outsourcing have tarnished aerospace’s reputation over the years. Eighty percent of aerospace workers who responded to a 2002 study said they wouldn’t encourage their children to pursue careers in the industry. On the outsourcing subject, the company says, once a core competency is outsourced to someone else, he decides that’s something he isn't going to compete on.

Despite the efforts made by Boeing to encourage people to get into aerospace careers, finding enough aerospace engineers and Machinists is a major part of this job for years to come as it’s only going to get more challenging.

Is India-Pakistan meetings important for bilateral ties?

According to an UAE newspaper, the meeting between the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers, fixed for July 15, would signify an important step towards resumption of bilateral ties between the two neighbours. It says, that with the shadow of the Mumbai terror attacks last year and the spectre of terrorism threatening to destroy whatever little trust exists between India and Pakistan, it is time for the respective parties to draw up a comprehensive agenda for dialogue and the speedy implementation of confidence-building measures.



The process of conversation which will, in all probability, be set on important and multiple agendas, should be cloaked in optimism and realism. Confidence-building measures are the need of the hour and the brittle nature of the current relationship should be fashioned by solidity. The international community should "step back" and allow the two "mature nations" to chalk out the dialogue process without any interference.

India and China togetherly are planning to protect tigers

In a recent news, India and China said they together want to work in order to protect their remaining tiger population from extinction.

“I would like to work very closely with the Chinese on tiger conservation. China is one of the reasons our tiger population is being decimated,” Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister told the Financial Times. According to estimates, there are between 800 to 1,300 tigers left in the wild in India.

He added that the tiger conservation was part of a proposed bilateral agenda on environment and natural resources that included sharing information and expertise on Himalayan glaciers and regional water resources.

Tiger trade has been a contested issue for both India and China. Tigers are illegally hunted for their parts to be sold and used in traditional Chinese medicine. This factor plus the rapid loss of original habitat have led tiger populations to rapidly decline.

So far, 15 tigers have been illegally killed this year based on a Wildlife Protection Society of India report. In 2009, 32 tigers were killed through poaching and seizures.

Related Reading

“Less Than 800 Tigers Left in India”
China Has 6,000 Captive Tigers, ‘Can Breed 1,000 Each Year’

The Indo - US Nuclear Civilian Deal: Dictate Or Deal?

The United States of America hailed the Nuclear Civilian Deal Agreement terming it historic. President Bush said "I am pleased that our two countries will soon have increased opportunities to work together to meet our energy needs in a manner that does not increase air-pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, promotes clean development, supports non-proliferation, and advances our trade interests."

The Indian Prime Minister said in parliament on similar lines on march 7th 2006, "The resumption of civilian nuclear energy cooperation would demonstrate that we have entered a new and more positive phase of our ties, so that we can finally put behind us years of troubled relations in the nuclear field".

The country's top nuclear scientists have expressed concern over the passing of the recent Indo-US nuclear civilian deal by the American Congress .The concerns are quite legitimate. The scientists have pointed out the provision of the deal seeks to cap India's right to conduct atomic tests. The former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman M R Srinivasan now a Member of the AEC, expressed concern over the provision in the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 which states that the US would terminate civilian nuclear cooperation if India were to conduct a nuclear test". This is something which no government of a sovereign nation can take as it clearly dictates in which a country's foreign policy should move.

"It is impossible to have a minimum credible deterrent without conducting nuclear tests. But the bill indicates that the cooperation will be terminated if this is done," former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman P K Iyengar said. For the Indian nuclear program to continue in a peaceful manner future test for having a minimum deterrent would be required. On top of that United States should not dictate us as to what we should do with our peaceful nuclear program.

The Indian External Affairs minister says, "India need not worry about the legislation passed by the US Congress as it is meant for the US lawmakers. India is obliged only to the bilateral agreement (123 Agreement),"He further stated in the parliament, "I would like to inform the House that the US Administration has categorically assured us that this legislation enables the United States to fulfill all of the commitments it made to India in the July 18 and March 2 Joint Statements and that this legislation explicitly authorises civil nuclear cooperation with India in a manner fully consistent with those two Statements. We fully expect the July 18 Statement and the March 2 Separation Plan to be reflected in the text of the 123 Agreement".

However question arises which both the CPI (M) and the BJP has pointed out rightly that there cannot be sea changes in the 123 agreement from what has been passed by the American Congress.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has demanded that the Government reject the "Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006," passed by the U.S. Congress instead of "accepting the humiliating conditionalities contained in it." The former Union Minister, Yashwant Sinha said, "final product is now before us and it does not look good. The Act passed by the U.S. legislature leaves us in no doubt that the purpose of the deal is to bilaterally impose on India conditionalities which are worse than those in the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] and the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]. This is why a slim four-page bill is now a 41-page document,"

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has said that the United States' legislation on the nuclear deal was "not acceptable," and asked the Manmohan Singh Government to discontinue talks with the George Bush administration, as the law contradicted most significant assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament. The statement of the Polit Bureau said, "Obviously, the U.S. administration is bound by the provisions of its Act while negotiating this agreement. This cannot be accepted by India, as it negates the most significant, if not all, assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament. Thus, further negotiations on this score must not proceed.''

The agreement will place a cap on India's nuclear program and will compromise not just India's weapons program but also the country's foreign policy. The goalposts which the Indian Prime Minister had spoken off in the Indian Parliament have shifted and the nuclear bill barters away India's right to explode a nuclear bomb. Another major concern which the Indian scientists have is that inspectors from the US will have access to India's nuclear facilities. This could be very dangerous for your strategic concerns as there is every chance of our nuclear secrets getting out and falling into the hands of the American establishment and this can be very dangerous for us in the long run. The very existence of our independent nuclear program would come under question. India cannot afford to have its nuclear program controlled by the Americans like that of Pakistan's

Another major concern is the fear that highly radioactive spent fuel will pile up if India is not allowed to recycle. On this issue the CPI (M) had to say this. "A major issue is that the civilian nuclear cooperation entails the right of India to sale of enriched fuel and reprocessing technique. The law provides for imposing restrictions and trade regimes, barring access to dual use nuclear technology. Thus India will be denied its full nuclear cycle." The BJP held the opinion that "the Act militated against full civil nuclear cooperation with India, the certification and reporting requirements continued to be rigorous and there was no assurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. In fact, India could not reprocess the used fuel nor could it ship it back to the U.S. unless its Congress approved the reshipment".

This clause of the act is a major irritant for total cooperation in the nuclear field between the two countries as it negates the issue of equal parity. If accepted by India our nuclear program would get dependant of the supply of nuclear fuel by the United States .As the supply of nuclear fuel would depend on the whims and fancies of the US administration. The CPI (M) pointed this out in very clear terms when it said, "on the annual good conduct certification by the U.S. President the agreement would be in perpetuity, there was a possibility of the screws being tightened, if a Democrat, having different views on nuclear non-proliferation, came to power"

On a similar note the BJP pointed out "the certification and reporting requirements continued to be rigorous and there was no assurance of uninterrupted fuel supplies for the civilian reactors. India was forbidden from nuclear testing, even of the kind permitted by the CTBT, and the weapons program would be subjected to intrusive U.S. scrutiny. "The deal is more unequal than ever before. The principle of parity, on which the Prime Minister had placed so much emphasis, stands abandoned". The nuclear scientists of India have also pointed out that in this Indo- US deal, India will only get a limited supply of nuclear fuel and not a lifetime supply.

With objections being raised from all quarters the government of India should do a serious rethink on the whole deal itself. It should make the stand of India very clear to President Bush. The government of India argues that the agreement between India and the USA would be based on the "123 agreement" as such we should not be bothered about their internal legislation. The other four more agreements to follow were the Indian Safeguard Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the "123 Agreement" for bilateral cooperation with the U.S., the new guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Additional Protocol, also with the IAEA. As the BJP and the CPI (M) have rightly pointed out the other four agreements will flow from this Act.

The clause in relation to Iran is also a direct interference in our foreign policy. The CPI (M) has rightly pointed out "The agreement is between India and the United States and not for Iran. Even the preamble goes beyond nuclear cooperation and there is an attempt to bind India to U.S. strategic interests in the name of partnership."

The looking into the overall pact as of now it seems to be highly insulting for India to accept it in its present form. It would be prudent enough for the Indian Government to tell the Bush administration a point or two. To accept the deal in its present form would be suicidal for India She cannot afford to do this, as this would be at the expense of our age-old independent foreign policy. We cannot accept such dictation from Uncle Sam and company .Let us be clear on this once for all.

War Between Two Democracies

Soon after India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947 from the British regime, the most violent outbreak of the sour relationship between the two countries came in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999.

War of 1947

The first war arose over Kashmir, in the year 1947. The ruling family of Kashmir were Hindus and most of its residents were Muslims, but what made the situation complicated was that Kashmir was also bordering on Pakistan. Both, India and Pakistan, wanted to include Kashmir to their countries while the ruler wanted to have an independent Kashmir. The majority of the Kashmiris were Muslims and therefore Pakistanis had their claim over Kashmir.

While the Indians claimed that since Kashmir's ruler was a Hindu and they also had support from the leader of Kashmir who were muslims they had their rights on Kashmir. The Pakistanis, to invade Kashmir sent army and mercenaries into Kashmir. The Hindu ruler appealed to India for aid, and he agreed in exchange to become a part of India under some specific terms which would give Kashmir more autonomy than the other Indian states.. India moved quickly to consolidate its position in Kashmir, and pushed out Pakistan's "volunteers" back.

The United Nations intervened and a cease fire was declared, with parts of Kashmir which Pakistan invaded remaining in their hands. India was able to hold a bigger part of the beautiful state which it annexed in 1957. India continues to claim its rights over Kashmir, while the Pakistan believes Kashmir to be its part. The Kashmir problem is still an unsolved issue and the official map of India shows the entire Kashmir to be its integral part including even the part which is in the control of Pakistan.

War of 1965

Since Partition of India in 1947, relations between Pakistan and India remained soured over several issues. Although the Kashmir conflict was the predominant one, other border disputes also existed, the most notable being the Rann of Kutch, a barren region in the western part of India in the state of Gujarat.

On March 20, 1965, and then again in April 1965, fight broke out between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch. Initially it involved only the border police from both nations, but the disputed area soon witnessed intermittent skirmishes between the armed forces of the two countries. In June 1965, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson successfully persuaded both countries to end up the hostilities and a tribunal was set up to resolve the dispute. The verdict, saw Pakistan being awarded 350 square miles of the Rann of Kutch, as against its original claim of 3500 square miles. This was a big success for Pakistan.

After its success in the Rann of Kutch, Pakistan started believing that the Indian Army would be unable to defend itself against a quick military offensive in the disputed region of Kashmir. India had suffered a heavy loss in its battle against China in the year 1962 which incited the Pakistanis to launch the offensive. Pakistan believed that the population of Kashmir was unhappy with Indian regime and that a resistance movement could be ignited by a few infiltrating saboteurs. Pakistan wanted to ignite a resistance movement by means of a covert infiltration which was codenamed ¨Operation Gibraltar¨. The Pakistani infiltrators were soon discovered by the locals and their presence was reported. The operation ended in a complete failure.

After the fighting spread to Kashmir and to the Punjab, in September Pakistani and Indian troops started crossing the partition line between the two countries and launched air assaults on each other. Pakistan and India, after heavy losses on both sides but India coming out as a winner with large parts of Pakistan land annexed, agreed to a UN-sponsored cease-fire and withdrew to the pre-August lines. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and President Ayub Khan of Pakistan met in Tashkent, USSR (now in Uzbekistan), in January, 1966, and signed an agreement with an oath to continue negotiations and respect for the cease-fire conditions.

War of 1971 (Creation of Bangladesh)

Relations between India and Pakistan deteriorated when a civil war erupted in Pakistan, pitting the West Pakistan army against the East Pakistanis demanding greater autonomy. The fighting forced huge number of (approximately 10 million) East Pakistani Bengalis to flee to India. When Pakistan attacked Indian airfields in Kashmir, it faced and attack both on East and West Pakistan. India occupied the eastern half of Pakistan, which later declared its independence as Bangladesh on Dec. 6th 1971. After Pakistan´s defeat a UN cease-fire was arranged in mid of December. Pakistan lost its eastern half known as East Pakistan, an army of 100,000 soldiers, and was thrown into political turmoil. Mujibur Rahman in East Pakistan emerged as the prime minister of Bangladesh. Tensions were alleviated by the Shimla accord in 1972 and by Pakistan´s recognition of Bangladesh in 1974.

The Kargil War

The 1999 war also known as the Kargil conflict, was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place between May and July 1999 in the district of Kargil in Kashmir. The cause of the war was infiltration of the Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri militants into regions on the Indian side of the Line of Control, which served as the de facto border between the two states. During the war and even after, Pakistan blamed the fighting entirely to the independent insurgents of Kashmir, but documents left behind by casualties and some statements made by Pakistan's Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff showed a complete involvement of Pakistani paramilitary forces. The Indian Army, supported by the Indian Air Force, attacked the Pakistani positions and, with international diplomatic support and eventually forced withdrawal of the Pakistani forces across the Line of Control.

The war is one of the most recent examples of a high altitude warfare which took place on the Great Himalayas. It posed significant logistical problems for both the combating sides. This was the first direct ground war between any two countries after both the nations had developed nuclear weapons. (India and Pakistan both test-detonated nuclear bombs in May 1998. The first Indian nuclear test was conducted in 1974.) The war led to heightened tension between the two countries and increased defense spending by India. The aftermath caused instability of the government and the economy in Pakistan and on October 12, 1999, a military coup d'etat by the military placed army chief Pervez Musharraf in power.

India China Border Dispute - A Perspective

China and India have been neighbours for as long as history. The two nations were separated by the Himalayas which was a barrier between the two nations. Though some Chinese travellers did came to India, yet because of this massive Mountain range the people to people contact was minimal.

Over the centuries the Hindus lost power and were successively governed by Muslim and British rulers. The Chinese did have a massive expansion but soon became insular and fell back economically and allowed themselves to be exploited by the Japanese and the Western powers. Thus both nations were not masters of their own destiny. In 1947 India won freedom with a non- violent movement led by Gandhi and Mao led a resurgent Red Army to complete domination by the communists and centralised power. Comparisons are odious-but the dawn of a new beginning for both was ominous. China started a campaign of consolidation and rectification of 'historical wrongs'. Tibet was the central piece with China invading and occupying the mountain region with the Indian leadership steeped in Gandhian philosophy of non violence unable to help the Tibetans. The Dalai Lama had to flee Tibet and was given asylum in India. This angered the Chinese who started a policy of oppression against the Tibetan people and more important against their culture.

The occupation of Tibet brought the Chinese power on to India's door step. India started a democratic process copied from Westminster and the leadership showed naivety by not laying stress on the northern borders with China and also allowed Tibet to be engulfed by China. Thus Tibet as a buffer was lost for ever.

Sensing that India could challenge China's supremacy the Chinese occupied vast tracts (30,000 sq miles) in Ladakh and did not accept the McMahan line as a frontier in the East. The Shimla pact of 1914 earlier attended by the representatives of Tibet, China and British on which India relied for an interpretation of the border with Tibet was ignored by the Chinese. Lack of clear strategic insight on the part of India cost India heavily and it was forgotten that even at that conference the Chinese did not sign on the dotted line.

Power rivalry led to the 1962 India China war and established China as the dominant power in Asia. The trend of keeping the fire burning and also as a reminder of China's great power status has led to the present Chinese incursions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. India has not understood the game of power politics. The Chinese will not settle the border issue and at any time can stoke up the flames, as the Chinese have made assiduous plans and in contrast India appears as a weakling. A complete change in the Indian thinking and the further development of the Indian armed might can only deter China. Historical blunders and lack of a strategic concept to be a world power has cost India dear.

Impact of FDI in Retail in India

The opening up of retail trade for foreign direct investment (FDI) promises to usher in revolutionary changes to the Indian consumer market in the days to come.

Recently, in a significant step towards liberalising India's retail trade, the government had decided to partially open the retail sector by announcing 51 percent FDI in India in single brand retailing - a move that should pave way for big names like Nike, Versace, Addidas, Marks & Spencer to set up their own stores in India.

This means that foreign companies willing to enter the Indian market will now be able to invest up to 51 percent in setting up production facilities, distribution network and retail shops and the rest will come from Indian investors. But at the moment, the entry of retail giants of multiple brands like Wal-Mart is not allowed. The government is yet to announce the guidelines that will make the picture more clear.

However, experts are still divided on the problems and prospects of this move. Some say it will shrink employment opportunities, completely alter the retail distributional structure and deal a death blow to the corner shop structure.

The optimists, on the other hand, see a whole range of opportunities -- from improved collection, processing and better distribution of farm products to generation of more opportunities for the rural and urban unemployed.

Until now, global retailers were required to sell their products through franchises or wholesale trading. This move will help them setting their own base in India and will attract foreign capital along with better quality products and services for the consumers.

The Indian retail market currently estimated to be worth $250 billion is presently dominated by millions of mom-and-pop stores that cater to 97 percent of the total market.

According to a recent study, the Indian retail Industry is expected to grow at about 36 percent by 2008 and with the increase in foreign investment the industry is expected to do a business of Rs. 1.60 trillion by the year 2008.

With the new regulations in place, the debate is that what will happen to these stores? Will the entry of global retailers wipe out these local stores or will it make no impact? If we take China's example, the FDI in India in retail has little or no impact on the local retailers and they still dominate the retail sector.

Secondly, the decision may not trigger the FDI flow as such as single brand retailers who wanted to be in India like Nike and Reebok are already here through franchise and may find it tough to find local partners willing to invest in the business.

Indian retail sector is the second largest employer after agriculture in the country and the entry of foreign companies will not only increase the number of employment opportunities but also exports.

With foreign companies setting up their own stores in India, the consumer will get access to some of the major global brands. Entry of foreign brands would also improve the quality and variety of products, increase competition and expand manufacturing.

Organised retailing holds the promise of lowering the prices of foreign goods sold through these large stores. This also means that some of these retail chains will eventually have to start manufacturing locally or outsource from domestic manufacturers in order to be in the competition.

This is more so considering the fact super and corner markets are very likely to co-exist in the Indian market and it would make the latter more competitive and skilled in terms of operations.

Also, several Indian corporates such as the Tatas, ITC, the RPG Group and the Rahejas have already established their outlet chains. Others such as Viveks in Chennai have established multi-brand stores. Mukesh Ambani's Reliance, too, is reported to be planning a major foray into retail business.

All this promises to make the Indian retail market a real happening place in the days ahead while at the same time offering immense business opportunities to the domestic entrepreneurs. In fact, this is likely to transform the whole contours of the India market, making it a part of the overall global market.

Brain Drain in India

Indian education system is counted amongst the best in the world. The land of Aryabhatta has given many intelligent minds to the world.

The Indian system of education follows a smooth hierarchy from basics to perfection. The school drop outs in India are very less as compared to other parts of the world. But still there remains a huge uneducated population that sometimes nullifies the effect of the good things that the intelligent minds of India do!

After completing their education in India, people often leave for foreign countries in search of better working environment and pay package on account of unemployment. This concept of taking education in a country but earning for another is known as brain drain. Asian countries have been a victim of such concept since the west opened up job opportunities s for eastern countries. They get cheap and hardworking labor in this manner!!

Unemployment in India has been an overused excuse by the one's who are responsible for such brain drain and also by the ones who are desperately trying to contribute to the same. The opportunities inside the country suddenly seem small and worthless in front of the starry image of the west. More than anything else, better lifestyle and a developed country name to flaunt, has lead people into migrating their working areas from their native place to a western country. But the question remains is it really so starry as it seems? Are there seriously no "good" job opportunities in India? Well, had this question come a decade earlier the answer would have been a tragic yes, but today when many multi national companies are desperately trying to establish a branch in India, the verity differs!

Going to foreign countries to earn can be beneficial for your native land only in case you are sending back money in foreign currency and adding to the countries funds and also going with an intention of returning.

The patriotism should not be lost to personal fervor.

Be an Indian, support India!