The National Education Policy looks promising but to achieve all that has been promised, we need a panel that includes professionals who understand schooling. Not bureaucrats
Overall, the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, is a good policy document as it promises a slew of changes that can lead to a major makeover of the education sector. It takes into account all sections of society which were hitherto left unattended. In the times to come, such groups of learners will be mainstreamed and will stand to benefit from the new education system. Some of the major aspects of the NEP, which I think can have a transformative impact, are as follows:
First, the age criteria for admission to the primary school was six years. By this time, children already lose more than a thousand days of learning. Early years are crucial for a child’s development and losing these phases has proved to be very damaging. Most children, who dropped out of school, were first-generation learners and had joined the school at the age of six. The Government’s decision to include Universalisation of Early Childhood Care Education (ECCE) into the NEP will do a lot of good to the children, especially those coming from humble backgrounds.
Second, it was inappropriate to put all the learners into one category as “school children.” Children change as they grow and so should the pedagogical structure. In the new NEP, it has been decided to include children aged three-eight years into one group. This group of children will also be put under a school curriculum, which has been recognised globally. Hopefully, teachers, too, will be made available soon. The next group will be those children aged eight to 11 years ie, those who attend classes III to V. The following group of learners will comprise children in classes VI to VIII ie, those in the age group of 11 to 14 years. Above the age of 14, children will belong to the secondary class and teacher competencies for this group of children will be different.
The new pattern of schooling will be 5+3+3+4, which should be relevant for the children and they should be able to enjoy each stage of their learning process. The challenge, however, will be to prepare teachers for each level and they need to be adequately remunerated, too. Teachers at the lower levels should be paid equally so that the less qualified do not come for teaching at lower levels. Considering the poor performance of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), preparation of teachers will be a challenge.
Third, education in the mother tongue up to at least class V is a welcome and landmark move. Most children used to drop out of schools because they were given instruction in a dominant language of the region. Take the example of Bihar, where the mode of learning was Hindi whereas most children speak local languages like Magahi, Maithili and Bhojpuri. The Government’s aim to provide education during the early years will make the children feel less displaced (from home to school) and retention will be easier. This will directly benefit the less privileged children. This move was a long time coming. The Kothari Commission Report of 1964 had recommended that the first language to be studied must be the mother tongue or the regional language. However, successive Governments did not pay heed to implement the three-language formula in schools.
Fourth, the system of bundling of courses like physics, chemistry with either mathematics or biology at the senior secondary level has been done away with. Children can now opt for any combination of subjects as per their choice. This will also dissuade a large number of children from dropping out of senior secondary because they could not cope with the mathematics syllabus.
The rigid formation of streams such as science, arts and commerce will wither now. Learners will be able to choose subjects from any discipline, including vocational subjects, to get certified. This will help learners, who wish to get into vocational areas after the completion of their school education. At present, the curricular and non-curricular areas cannot be combined. In future, this shall be possible. This will help reduce the drop-out rate and at the same time lead to the creation of self-employment opportunities.
Fifth, formative assessment has been a major stumbling block for school education. Children felt pressured as the emphasis was on rote learning. The new NEP has taken cognisance of the erroneous system of assessment and has decided to provide multiple chances to the learners to write and accumulate grades to finally get certified.
It appears that the final assessment will be done to test the actual competency, which children can undertake without pressure or the stigma of failing the examination.
Sixth, assessment has been under smoke all through. Now, a self-assessment will be done along with peer assessment of every child. The teacher will also be assessed unlike the present system where only the teacher evaluates the child and the child has no clue how he/she is judged. The child as well as the parents will trust the new system of assessment.
Seven, the less privileged and the specially-abled have received special focus in the NEP all through. For the first time, the latter will be put into a different track of schooling, which will help them use their potential and get recognised.
Eight, in a similar move, a large number of girls, who have traditionally been marginalised, will get due attention. The NEP 2020 established the “Gender Inclusion Fund” to help the less privileged girls. The policy also promises to upgrade the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBV) up to class XII. The KGBVs are fully residential schools for girls from humble backgrounds but who are very bright and deserving. This scheme has brought a difference to their lives. With this new initiative, girls will be able to directly enter college and reap the benefit of schemes in higher education, which at present go unused because they discontinue education after they come out of the KGBV.
In the true sense, the NEP 2020 is an Antodyay school policy. Every child, wherever he/she may belong to, will be catered to. However, to achieve all that has been promised in the NEP 2020, we will require a body of professionals who understand schooling. School education is at present managed by Government officials and school education department of the Central or the State Governments. The officials get transferred frequently. The school sector has been demanding a national body at par with the University Grants Commission or what has now been proposed as the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI). This time, too, their plea has unfortunately been ignored.
It can be confidently said that the new NEP scores on several counts — be it the universalisation of education, promoting regional languages or the introduction of a new circular. All such moves will help improve governance and improve the overall quality of education.
(The writer is a professor of education, IGNOU. Views expressed are personal)
NEP 2020 seeks to make India a knowledge hub but has a perfunctory approach to implementation and logistics
This is bound to be controversial, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, coming as it does in the middle of a pandemic, without being formally debated in Parliament or a thorough consultative process conducted with Opposition States. On the face of it, it looks to revamp the education system in India, contemporise it, make it inclusive and increase budgetary allocations to six per cent of GDP. So yes as a presentation of India as a knowledge hub, it sounds idealistic enough but in the absence of a roadmap for implementation and given the control mechanisms envisaged that imply more centralisation of powers, there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip. Also, many of the recommendations are in essence similar to those that have been made by several committees in the past and while the BJP may claim it has delivered another of its manifesto promises, it has not ironed out the logistics of how the overhaul will happen on the ground or the competencies required to do so. That’s the real test of political will. Of course, the high points are many, like expanding the scope of foundational education, increasing the school-going years from 3 to 18 instead of the prevalent 6 to 14. This will bring the hitherto ignored age group of 3-6 years under the school curriculum, globally considered a crucial stage of mental development. The pre-school system covers anganwadis, so the inclusive footprint of ensuring basic education has been drawn up at least. The policy also looks at 100 per cent enrolment up to secondary schools by 2030, a more holistic and graded assessment through the school years rather than pivoting everything on the make-or-break 10+2 Board exams, changing the marking system to ease pressure and allowing mother tongues as the medium of instruction to dilute language barriers. Significantly, it has also broken down the compartmentalised format of arts and science streams, allowing students to bundle subject combinations of their choice in senior school. At the higher education level, the policy has gone for a four-year undergraduate course, allowed greater flexibility of subject choices and created a Digi-locker, which would enable students to pile up credits and drop out to resume their programme without having to take fresh admissions. This format is already prevalent in many foreign universities and is more aligned to the US model, which allows multi-disciplinary majors and minors. Deriving inspiration, the Government has proposed, like the SAT, entrance examinations for admissions to universities by the National Testing Agency (NTA), though this will be optional. Foreign universities will be allowed, which means there will be a cross-flow of world-class faculty and student exchange. But a huge plus is a dedicated National Research Foundation to prioritise R&D, though funding for it has progressively been falling and it needs bigger allocation.
So what are the question marks? One is, of course, the informalisation of the education system as a whole. While internships for Class VI students and marking systems that encourage critical thinking and application-based tests sound all too good, everybody forgets that these have to be based on sound fundamentals. In this case, the quality of teaching and its uniformity across Government schools. So teachers’ re-training is as much important. Also, the very idea of peer reviews, where students get to evaluate each other, or a feedback system of assessment depends on how evolved your understanding is. A subjective approach may not always do justice to individual talent. There’s a risk of dumbing down protocols. The NEP focusses on creating at least one large multidisciplinary institution in or near every district by 2030 but this involves operational practicalities like the ability to attract skilled teachers and the local demand and quality of students. The latter would clearly have to be brought up to speed and that would mean strengthening school education at the local level. But the biggest problem lies with replacing the University Grants Commission (UGC) with a new regulatory board, ostensibly to streamline functioning and ensure meritocracy but definitely aimed at chipping into the autonomy of premier universities. The Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) has already protested against the NEP, saying it will “dismember” universities by transferring the power over to a board of governors and affect funding decisions, which will be made by the Ministry directly. As it is, the absolutism of the UGC has had many casualties. Vice-Chancellors have had to be at the beck and call of an official for routine fund clearances, leave aside seeking one for innovations or additions. A performance-linked funding pattern that would encourage competitive scholarship was never considered. And even if we do that now, how much of that would be free of bias is the question. Elite institutions need to be kept autonomous. Most important though is filling up teaching vacancies in Central universities, 50 per cent posts going empty in some. But the Government has managed to keep the RSS at bay, conceding only to renaming the HRD Ministry as Ministry of Education and incorporating Indic elements in courses, albeit with a caveat that they have to be “scientific and accurate.” And it has stayed away from imposing Hindi as a third language. It is more centralisation than saffronisation.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
How we support our educators will determine whether this pandemic will push India into a deeper learning crisis or sow seeds of resilience in our education system
The pandemic has disrupted education, primarily with school closures affecting more than 32 crore students in India. Whether children continue to learn, what they are learning and how so are questions that have answers in a wide range. However, a common factor across most schools, both private and Government, has been that teachers have stepped up to ensure that learning continues.
Whether it is by experimenting with various online platforms to see which one is most effective for their needs or spending hours preparing for online classes, uploading lessons on video-sharing platforms like YouTube or patiently guiding students (and sometimes parents) on how to use the interface, or by coming up with innovative solutions in resource-constrained areas. We know of teachers using loudspeakers to conduct classes in villages while practising social distancing where online learning is not viable.
Going by how the pandemic is unfolding, out of classroom teaching and learning is expected to continue at least for a while. And even once children go back to schools, blended learning methods seem likely. The recently-released guidelines for digital education, Pragyata, speak of “a healthy mix of schooling at home and schooling at school” to not let closures lead to loss of learning.
Pragyata outlines how various devices — computers, smartphones, television sets, radio sets or a basic mobile phone — should be used by educators to reach out to students and facilitate learning. However, the use of technology in education is not a fallout of the pandemic. Integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education was introduced in various forms in different school systems.
In fact, the use of technology in education in India was adopted as early as in 1972 under the Fourth Five-Year Plan with the allocation of a budget for radio/cassette players and colour television sets.
Subsequent schemes, including ICT@Schools at the national level, and various others in the States reimagined teaching and learning to integrate technology-enabled pedagogy. Audio-visual classes became useful reinforcement tools for concepts taught by teachers, apart from being an attraction for students.
However, there has been considerable heterogeneity even within Government and private schools, not just between them. The usage of technology in classes varied with infrastructure and resources available in the school and then the level of readiness and comfort of the teacher in using ICT in the classroom.
Teacher readiness and preparedness in integrating ICT in pedagogy require relevant training and constant aid. Just as there are specific skills and competencies needed to impart lessons in a classroom — including ensuring basic discipline, eliciting responsiveness from students, using the board to write, developing and using other teaching-learning materials (TLMs), facilitating student-to-student interaction, adopting relevant pedagogy as per the concept being discussed, number of students and resources available among many others — there are additional skills that teachers require in order to conduct classes on digital platforms. These range from being familiar with the features of the platform on which the class is to be conducted, choosing pedagogy that is effective through the platform, designing activities and assessment that can be administered digitally while ensuring that the learning objectives are met, finding ways to ensure that students engage with the teacher and with one another, while also figuring out how life skills can be imparted within the space and time constraint.
According to a recent UNESCO estimate, around 2.7 million teachers in India, who have been impacted by the crisis, are untrained to tackle the situation. Being a major cause of concern, there are multiple levels at which teachers need to be supported. The first level, which is a prerequisite to out-of-classroom teaching and learning, is that of providing them basic and adequate infrastructural support. This includes power supply, availability of a computer and an internet connection. The second level of support would be appropriate training in using digital platforms for teaching and technical support for students and parents. ICT training for students would be essential to ensure that teachers do not have to answer repeated questions about how to connect, troubleshoot errors and can focus on other aspects of conducting the class. The third level is remote training in digital and online pedagogy. This is particularly critical because online classes or radio lessons may not work with reliance on conventional, in-classroom teaching methods.
A common concern shared by teachers is, in the absence of eye contact, how do we assess whether each student is paying attention in class or identify those that may have a doubt and are hesitant to ask. To address concerns like these, methods on a digital platform would be different from those in a physical classroom. Training and knowledge-sharing for digital teaching would be helpful to answer such questions.
The fourth level is socio-emotional support. The pandemic has altered everybody’s life and we must not overlook its effects on the mental and emotional well-being of teachers. In addition to tackling the pressures of remote teaching along with household chores, teachers are dealing with anxious parents and students. Online teaching, for most teachers, has resulted in extended working hours. For many of them, it is like learning a new skill, applying it and doing it — all at the same time.
Another source of worry is the fear of pay cuts as also potential job losses. Real, concrete measures are needed to allay such fears and keep teachers motivated.
After all, it is how we support our educators that would determine whether this pandemic pushes our country into a deeper learning crisis or sows seeds of resilience in our education system.
(The writer is an independent researcher studying public education)
India has accepted a China-dictated disengagement model: The creation of buffer zones while withdrawing from its own territory and forfeiting legitimate rights of patrolling
Twelve weeks after the intrusions in Ladakh, Lt Gen YK Joshi, in charge of managing the Line of Control (LoC) and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, said, “We shall continue all efforts to restore the status quo ante along the LAC,” confirming the doubts expressed by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh about a positive outcome on disengagement. After three rounds of dialogue of the working mechanism (fourth round is due on Friday) and four rounds of talks between the military commanders (next round is expected this week), the disengagement and de-escalation process (DDP) remains stalled with a disadvantaged disengagement at Galwan — LAC shifted one km on the Indian side — and partial disengagement at Hotsprings, Gogra region and Finger 4. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is stubbornly resisting disengagement at Depsang, where it has intruded 18 km on the Indian side of the LAC.
At most places, the PLA has done a Doklam: Dug down and constructed fortifications. The Chinese have unilaterally altered status quo by shifting the LAC further west, attempting to surpass their 1960 claim line and cushioning the G-219 strategic highway from Kashgar to Lhasa through the Aksai Chin. The ball has been in India’s court since April 19, when intelligence reports about PLA intrusions were ignored. By default, India has accepted a China-dictated DDP model: The creation of buffer zones while India has been withdrawing from its own territory and forfeiting legitimate rights of patrolling. A July 22 Stratfor report by Sim Tack notes that 26 new Chinese encampments, 22 new support bases and two new helipads have mushroomed behind the intrusion points on the Chinese side of the LAC.
In its negotiating strategy, India has put the cart before the horse: Allowing military commanders to determine the DDP whereas a high-level political engagement should have established the parameters for withdrawal, factoring in lessons from earlier intrusions, especially front-loading restoration of status quo ante, followed by the Chinese golden rule of “those who advance first must withdraw first” and “mutual and equal security.” Instead, India accepted buffer zones and attendant restrictions, which could transform LAC into LoC, given in order to match the PLA’s deployment of four to five combined arms brigades, India had to post three additional divisions ahead of its main defences to block the intrusion points.
Interestingly, while India has stressed on complete disengagement along the LAC and full restoration of peace and tranquility for the smooth and overall development of bilateral relations, China has consistently avoided using the LAC (instead uses border areas) and is focussing on complete withdrawal from “friction points.” Restoration of status quo has been replaced with complete disengagement and full restoration of peace and tranquility. Even the blind should see this.
Till date, the Government has not clarified the actual ground situation, except Gen Joshi’s comforting but embarrassing statement about the reinstatement of status quo. Compounding the problem is the Government peddling a fake narrative that the PLA has not encroached across the LAC and during the Galwan clash. According to Lt Gen SL Narasimhan from the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), Indian soldiers may have crossed the Chinese side of the LAC in the melee.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rajnath Singh can keep delivering veiled threats of giving a befitting reply when the intention is clearly to de-escalate. Under the muscular Modi Government, two sets of responses have evolved against the adversary’s depredations — a Balakot airstrike against Pakistan and a banners-battle of containment against China.
Emboldened by India’s familiar weakness to meet coercion with counter-coercion, China has begun bullying Bhutan. Though Thimphu has maintained silence over Ladakh, it has rejected Chinese claims to territory in eastern Bhutan. Until now, Bhutan has been guided by India on its 24 rounds of border talks with China. But if India fails to vacate Chinese aggression, Bhutan may slip out of its control and treaty obligations in its own national interest. Popular sentiment in Bhutan is not to mess with China. K5 — King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, unlike K4 (Jigme Singye Wangchuck, his father) may not have put all his eggs in India’s basket.
India’s military options are circumscribed by the three Nos: No escalation, no shooting, no war despite threats of a befitting reply. As always, China is the satisfied power after having annexed approximately 60 sq km of the territory. It has already imposed heavy costs on India by sucking in three additional divisions towards the LAC. New Delhi must contain and push back intrusions through dialogue, secure the strategic highway to Daulat Beg Oldie, seize Galwan heights and defend airfield at DBO.
An infantry brigade backed by T90 tanks and light and heavy artillery has reportedly ring-fenced DBO. Indian forces are currently deployed 50 to 60 km ahead of its main defences in the high mountainous terrain defending Leh. Any future conflict will be in the 15,000 feet high plains area from Galwan to Depsang.
This is the first time that 30,000 troops might have to weather it out in a harsh winter, in hostile habitat. Previously, there were not more than 2,000-3,000 troops near the LAC, that, too, mainly ITBP. Further, there have been no joint exercises between the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Army along the LAC due to restrictions of border protocols.
India’s best bet is leveraging its partnership with the US against China — Washington is in an unprecedented Cold War with Beijing — both militarily and economically. Defence Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have supported India in its resistance to Chinese bullying and aggression. Maritime solidarity has been demonstrated through Malabar Naval exercises, feelers have been thrown about upgrading the QUAD in the Indo-Pacific region and the building of a coalition of democracies to contain China.
But India’s Foreign Minister, S Jaishankar, is loud-thinking: About incongruence of non-alignment, the need to make choices and taking risks. Still, a reset in India-China relations must wait till the outcome of DDP and restoration of status quo. Till then, India holding out the threats to decouple from China economically will neither be easy nor bereft of cost, so intricately entwined are the two economies and supply chains. Although New Delhi will wait for Beijing to undo the intrusions, some preliminary punitive steps have been taken and signals for more have been sent out.
Punditry about China’s motives in shedding fig leaf of “hide your strength; bide your time” abounds: Varying from aggression being the diversionary strategy for mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic to realising Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Chinese dream of reasserting suzerainty issues that are not India-specific but part of reclaiming the territory lost through historical injustices and unequal treaties. Putting the genie back into the bottle will not be easy for China. Equally, an altered status quo along the LAC will be unacceptable to India. As Rajnath Singh said in Leh on July 17: “India will respond with force to attempts to hurt India’s self-esteem.”
(The writer, a retired Major General, was Commander IPKF South, Sri Lanka and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the Integrated Defence Staff.)
The vibrancy, sleaze and palace intrigues of Indian democracy mirror its progenitor model in Great Britain but it still lacks the latter’s accountability, honesty and professionalism
As the intrigues, twists and moral dilemmas of Indian politics ensue, the brilliant but controversial enfant terrible of British politics, Winston Churchill’s truism about democracy rings true: “The Opposition occupies the benches in front of you but the enemy sits behind you.” Widely hailed as one of the “Greatest Britons”, Churchill had a deeply unsavoury side that manifested in his irrefutable role in the Bengal famine and his clearly racist opinions about Gandhi, Islam and the Jews among others. The quintessential politician had a penchant for party hopping, or “ratting” as it was called.
Never short of wit to describe his political fleet-footedness, Churchill justified jumping from the Conservatives to the Liberals to back the former by saying, “It is easy for an individual to move through those insensible gradations from the Left to the Right but the act of crossing the floor is one which requires serious consideration. I am well informed on this matter, for I have accomplished that difficult process not only once but twice.” However, it can be argued that Churchill’s political dalliances were principle-based and not just sheer opportunism, given the free trade absolutism professed by him — one which got compromised initially by the Conservatives (who developed protectionist instincts) and then by the Liberals.
The Indian democracy is based on the British Westminster style of parliamentary democracy and serendipitously, in the middle of the latest political revolt in Rajasthan, an Opposition leader alluded to Churchill’s predecessor and bete noire, Neville Chamberlain, as an analogy to questionable decision-making. To some extent, the vibrancy, sleaze and “palace intrigues” of Indian democracy mirror its progenitor model in Great Britain but Indian politics has not evolved on some more substantial aspects like accountability, honesty and professionalism that have a higher imprint in British politics currently.
Put simply, partisan moorings of the British politicians on either side of the fence are more ideological, pronounced and a matter of personal faith. Whereas, in the context of Indian politics, it is a matter of “ticket”, legacy, ambition or even hate of the proverbial “other,” all of which define partisan preferences. In British politics, the evolutionary process is breaking down and the blurring of stereotypes of certain socio-cultural gravitation towards partisan preferences, for example, Tony Blair’s New Labour movement, is on. But religion, race, ethnicity, background or region still drive overwhelming preferences in the Indian context.
A uniquely Indian phenomenon of playing down one’s personal ambition in favour of ascribing sharp political move to “what my supporters would advise” or conversely in “abiding by the party whip as a loyal soldier of the party” is hilariously untrue, cliched and convenient.
Another tired expression that barely masks the reality is the attribution of getting caught (prima facie) in a sticky situation to a rote and insipid, “it is a political conspiracy against me.” The largest democracy in the world has not evolved in matters of expression, honesty and justifications. Continuing double standards of morality have been thrown into the admixture to truly exemplify the saying, “Politics is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Not really so in British politics.
In Britain, there is a finely developed culture of “internal democracy” that frequently and openly facilitates cross-party voting on crucial matters. Brexit was a typical example of multiparty huddles that composed the Brexiteer camp or the Remainiacs. In Indian politics, to assume intellectual or ideologically contrarian positions from the party leadership stand (even neutrality, if not opposition) is the surest and fastest test of “disloyalty” that amounts to political suicide.
The dictatorial strain of an obsequious “high command” culture is celebrated and not frowned upon — literally from attributing divinity to professing blind faith. This is par for the course in Indian politics.
Another remarkable difference is the relative grace with which incumbents to the high offices bid farewell, often willingly. Four of the last seven Prime Ministers of the UK left 10 Downing Street not owing to electoral defeat by the Opposition party but due to leadership changes necessitated on account of their own diminishment within the ruling party.
More importantly, age is not the criterion to justify their over-staying at the political centre-stage. A 49-year-old David Cameron left active politics with his final farewell speech comment, “I was the future once.” Cameron had resigned after the Brexit referendum went against his stated position to “stay” and he assumed moral (not legal) responsibility for the result. His exit paved way for his colleague Theresa May. Later, May herself was unable to see through the Brexit task and was replaced by her party member Boris Johnson.
Importantly, May had no qualms about assuming the “back bench” and continues to serve her constituency as a regular Member of Parliament. May’s farewell speech as the Prime Minister concluded with, “I will shortly leave the job that has been the honour of my life to hold — the second female Prime Minister but certainly not the last. I do so with no ill-will but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.” Such graceful political exits are unthinkable in the Indian context.
Our politicians perpetuate the ostensibly selfless line of “serving the people” with much grandiosity and pomposity even as the uniquely Indian phenomenon of “resort quarantining”, “horse trading” and “accommodating rivals till recently with ministerships” continues. No political party in India can honestly claim to be cleaner than the other.
Candidates of dubious personal credentials win votes and seats for all parties — only the “monopoly on truth” changes hands with the dispensations in power, who dominate the airtime. While we have a lot to begrudge Winston Churchill for what he believed in and inflicted on India, his words were profound nonetheless, “In war, you can only be killed once but in politics, many times.” This moral or ideological death seems to be an insignificant price in our politics as we are able to adjust to any narrative, irrespective of the substance.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)
Tiger numbers are up but with one in three big cats living outside reserves, the man-animal conflict is a bigger threat
Such was the crisis of tigers in 2006, when their numbers fell to a paltry 1,411, that any increase since then has been a cause for celebration. So when we had a healthy count of 2,967 in 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took it upon himself to announce the census findings. The Environment Ministry’s latest report, Status of Tigers, Co-predators and Prey in India, confirms this steady trend, showing a six per cent rise in India’s tiger population from 2006 to 2018. From just nine tiger reserves when Project Tiger started in 1973, the country has 50 today. However, the devil is in the detail and while the overall numbers may be good, the uneven distribution pattern of the big cat is warning enough that there could be a future crisis if we don’t address gaps now. The report says that one in every three tigers lives outside reserves compared to one in every four in 2014, or 35 per cent live outside park limits. This means that the big cat’s territoriality and roaming range are being compromised because of shrinkage of habitat and if it is straying, it is exposing itself that much more to conflict with humans as well as members of its own species. The second problem is that of cramping and saturation at certain reserves that would need migratory conduits linking them to other habitats. Uttarakhand’s Corbett Tiger Reserve has reported the highest tiger density with 14 tigers per 100 sq km, followed by Kaziranga, Nagarhole and Orang parks. This means that even if forest limits cannot be extended or linked, some provision for open grasslands would have to be made around them so that they can support herbivores, which form the prey base of the tigers. Corbett now has the highest tiger numbers with 231 inside the reserve and 266 using it. It is followed by Nagarhole tiger reserve with 127 tigers, Bandipur with 126 tigers and Bandhavgarh and Kaziranga with 104 tigers each. These reserves are holding out because the prey base is still evenly distributed across ranges, allowing the species to thrive. At the same time, some tiger reserves like Buxa and Palamau have lost their felines simply because of human transit corridors, encroachment, proximity to development projects and insufficient prey base. Of course, one may argue that tigers can be re-introduced to the empty reserves from parks that have them in excess but as Sariska has shown, that takes time and immense patience. Besides, the tigers need to be sourced from the nearest forest simply because much of their survival depends on the genetic pool they come from and that increases the chance of their adaptability. Apart from peripheral villagers, a new tiger also has to deal with resident smaller cats or in the total absence of its kind, reconcile to being a lone ranger and adjust with other relocated companions. Most worryingly, the report lists poaching at an all-time high, India recording the highest number of cases in 15 years in the first quarter of 2016. Bones, claws, teeth and skin continue to be a draw in illegal markets.
While tiger numbers have increased, its habitats have been dwindling due to human encroachment, fast-track infrastructure projects and truncated wildlife corridors that restrict it from moving freely to other forests and exploring new ranges. This would automatically reduce cramping and help it spread out in a healthy manner. The report says tigers have lost 90 per cent of their natural habitat and the man-animal conflict has never been worse, therefore. Be it the killing of Avni last year, villagers beating up strayers or the confused tiger hitting back with a counter-charge, the headlines point to a dangerous trend of overpopulation not being commensurate with increase in prey-rich forest zones. The Wildlife Trust of India’s conflict database for Uttar Pradesh records 63 cases of attacks on humans by tigers from 2014 to February 2019, an average of 10.8 cases per year. This marks a dramatic increase from an average of 5.6 attacks on humans per year between 2000 and 2013. The tiger will stray into human settlements when its food chain is affected and villagers cannot be expected to prioritise the conservation economy when the lives of their own and the livestock are at stake. So awareness of tigers should now also include equal knowledge about its ecology and behaviour and the need to provide alternative ranges. Recent examples have shown how some railway underpasses to facilitate wildlife transit are working as both the elephant and tiger are adapting to changed migration routes. There are still viable tracts of pristine forests that were once contiguous and can be turned into reserves by relocating animals from overpopulated stretches. But forests are a State subject and an inter-state agreement on shared corridors needs to be worked out if translocation is to succeed. The tiger sits on top of the food chain in the forest and by saving it, we are saving our biosphere.
Victory in war requires not just sacrifice but also courage on our part and more importantly on the part of those occupying the highest levels of our political establishment
In the preface to his insightful work, Generalship: Its Disease and Cure, British military tactician Major-General JFC Fuller quotes an apocryphal tale told to him by a member of the French General Staff. “At the battle of Waterloo, Colonel Clement, an infantry commander, fought with bravery; but unfortunately, was shot through the head. Napoleon, hearing of his gallantry and misfortune, gave instructions for him to be carried into a farm where Larrey, the Surgeon-General, was operating. One glance convinced Larrey that his case was desperate, so taking up a saw he removed the top of Clement’s skull and placed his brains on the table. Just as he had finished, in rushed an Aide-de-Camp, shouting: ‘Is General Clement here?’ Clement, hearing him, sat up and exclaimed: ‘No! but Colonel Clement is. ‘Oh, General’, cried the Aide-de-Camp, ‘the Emperor was overwhelmed when he heard of your gallantry, and has promoted you on the field of battle to the rank of General.’ Clement rubbed his eyes, got off the table, clapped the top of his skull on his head and was about to leave the farm when Larrey shouted after him: ‘General. Your brains!’ To which the gallant Frenchman shouted back: Now that I am a General, I shall no longer require them!” Fuller went on to add that, “In this modest study, my object is to prove that though Clement was wrong about brains, without his courage there can be no true Generalship.”
One can go even further and suggest that the central premise of his argument is not just applicable to Generals, but just as much, if not more so, to politicians in power. While intellectual ability and competence are indeed vital, they amount to very little without courage. Of course, what is required of them is more in the realm of the mind than of the physical variety. Most crucially, however, we must not mistake a display of bravado for the genuine spirit. As the Cambridge Dictionary makes clear, bravado is only “a show of courage, especially when unnecessary and dangerous, to make people admire you.”
We recently witnessed an awesome display of sheer bravery and exemplary courage on the part of Colonel Babu and his gallant band during the Galwan confrontation. It was indeed no mean achievement at that altitude to not just counter the perfidious ambush that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had sprung on his unsuspecting team but to give back more than they got. That is self-evident from the lack of any formal acknowledgement of casualties by the PLA. One can be quite certain that if that had not been the case, the Chinese Communist mouthpiece, The Global Times, would have gone to town proclaiming victory.
However, this makes it essential for us to squarely confront the fact that while courage may win battles, the latter remain just small tactical victories. To emerge victorious in war requires not just enormous sacrifice, determination and decisiveness but also courage on our part and more importantly on the part of those occupying the highest levels of our military and political establishment. Sadly, all we have been witness to in all these days since the confrontation began has been a display of much bravado and bluster, especially on the part of our political leadership.
The problem of our inadequate quality of strategic communication is predicated by the fact that despite all its protestations, the Modi Government seems incapable of shedding its feudal mindset. Transparency would require it to admit that there has been gross negligence on its part in the manner that it has approached the issue of national security, which in turn, has resulted in the ongoing fiasco. Its shambolic attempts to gloss over the issue and change the narrative to avoid accountability have only added to its woes, as China was able to take advantage of its prevarications and embarrass it diplomatically.
While prudence dictates that much of what is happening on the ground, especially the actions initiated to resolve the issue to our advantage, need not be made public in the interest of security, it cannot be used as a licence to deny basic information that the citizens are entitled to. For that matter, it also needs to desist from its attempts to turn the spotlight away from the matter by resorting to creating turbulence within the Rajasthan Congress or by announcing a grand ceremony in Ayodhya on August 5.
Despite the Government’s best attempt to dissemble, it is now clear that the PLA is in possession of a fair amount of territory that we claim as our own though its actual or relative importance, either tactically or strategically, may be contested. For example, while its occupation of areas till Finger 4 in the Pangong Tso sector provides clear visual evidence of its aggressive intent, other than causing bruised egos and embarrassment, it is of little tactical or strategic value when compared to the ingress that has been effected in both the Depsang Plains and Hot Springs sectors.
Thus, while regaining every inch of territory that has been occupied may be tactically or strategically unwarranted or even unnecessary, how we handle the overall issue of Chinese aggression will be perceived to either signify appeasement and capitulation on our part or signal a firm determination and resolve that unprovoked aggression will be contested and will result in adverse consequences for the PLA. Clearly, we have seen that appeasement only results in further problems down the road, so that has to stop.
As is often the case in such circumstances, we are still neither very clear as to what led China to undertake such unprovoked aggressive action, nor what it hopes to accomplish. There have been suggestions that the Home Minister’s public call for liberating Aksai Chin and the construction of the road to Daulat Beg Oldi may have been the casus belli, as it may have felt we were keen to change the status quo or threaten the Tibet-Xinjiang Highway. Others have suggested that this action in Eastern Ladakh is just a feint to test our resolve and that the main offensive is likely to be directed towards seizing areas that it claims in Arunachal Pradesh.
While none of these possibilities can be ruled out, the existing force levels that China has committed within the Tibetan Autonomous Region do not suggest that a major offensive is on the cards. It is possible that the actions against India were just a diversionary tactic to keep us occupied, while Beijing’s true intention was to capture Taiwan before the Chinese Communist Party kicks of its centenary celebrations next year. This would, in fact, explain the move of two Pakistani divisions into the Gilgit-Baltistan Region, which could then operate in collusion with the PLA in the event of any escalation.
The recent deployment by the US Navy of two Carrier Strike Groups into the South China Sea (SCS) for “exercises”, with a third backing up, suggests that this speculation may well not have been too far off the mark. Not surprisingly the deployment of these Carrier Groups has forced the Chinese to reverse course, as can be deduced from the public statements calling for a reduction of tension in that region, despite increasing US belligerence. In the normal course then, they would look to cool tension along our borders as well.
However, that may not happen as President Xi Jinping needs some substantial success to save face domestically, which he can only achieve against us in these circumstances. It will not be easy for the PLA to shift the requisite force levels required for conducting a major offensive against us. Moreover, even if Xi can induct these forces speedily, he will continue to remain at a distinct disadvantage given his long lines of communication and terrain configuration.
In addition, China also faces a disadvantageous force ratio vis-à-vis the air forces and navy in this region. Xi would have by now got fresh insight into the fighting capabilities of our Army, which is experienced in high-altitude warfare.
Clearly all of this implies that even with the rather neglected state of our military, given the situation on the ground, we do have the option of responding with force. Such an option would have a reasonable chance of success and would indeed bluntly convey to the Chinese and the international community that such unprovoked aggressive actions have consequences. Obviously, such a response on our part would be the correct one, though we would have to factor in the possibility of conflict escalation, maybe even a two-front war. The question really is, do Modi and his top military leadership either have the appetite or the courage to embark on such a course?
(The writer, a military veteran, is a Consultant with the Observer Research Foundation)
Without traditional politicians, the Govt is finding it extremely difficult to re-engage with people and reintegrate Kashmir
If the Government’s charges for booking him after the abrogation of Article 370 — that his messages are divisive, could incite people and youngsters, that he was as much a separatist — were meant to demonise him, then former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister and National Conference (NC) leader Omar Abdullah has shown why he is still the voice of reason. And how the Government underestimated his net worth that could have been used to push its claimed objective of developing and mainstreaming the State. Soon after his release, he asked people to follow COVID-19 protocols as it was no time for politics. Now that he has started to speak, he has the pulse again as he says he won’t take his protests to the streets but fight it out democratically and legally. Nor will he condone violence of any sort to reclaim people’s rights. He also said he wouldn’t be contesting elections till Kashmir continued to be a Union Territory but was ready to prove his worth if the Government re-converted it into a State. Of course, he regretted that for all his party’s participation in national politics and even campaigns for federal parties and Opposition unity, he didn’t get much political support from them on his incarceration as they wilted under the majoritarian force of the Modi Government. But he was anyway ready to focus on his land and people. Clearly, without traditional politicians like Omar, whom the BJP thought would stand in the way of reintegration, the Government is finding it extremely difficult to re-engage with people. And as the anniversary of the scrapping of Article 370 is just days away, it has not much of a transformation to show without the mediatory presence of local parties. Politically, it could not even conduct the panchayat and local-level polls successfully although it has been hoping to build a new narrative ground up with candidates friendly to it. Over 12,000 panchayat seats continue to be vacant. The BJP has not been able to raise an alternative political front or a political climate. It may have encouraged the formation of the Jammu and Kashmir Apni Party (JKAP) drawing rejects from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and NC, but it could not generate reassurance, least of all credibility, as it is purely transactional. The first stage for creating normalcy is restoring basic rights of people. While we are stressing under COVID-induced lockdowns, Kashmir has been writhing under perennial lockdown with a ban on 4G and an extremely limited mobility. While the rest of India is hooked on to digital classrooms, students in Kashmir are missing out on classes and are being denied online services like submission of forms, be it for job enrolment, registering a thesis or signing up for courses. Some students are coming down to Punjab or Jammu to access online study material or asking their kin and friends in other States to help. One would hate to hazard a guess on the adverse impact of wilfully denying education to the young people, some of whom are already voicing a conspiracy theory to keep Kashmiris out of competitive tests in India and abroad. With simmering discontent, the Government would be unwise to claim that the Valley is silent post the merger. It is just protest fatigue but that doesn’t mean the young won’t be drawn to violence or militancy. And while the rest of India is experiencing a booming digital economy post-lockdown, online portals and aggregators are hardly working in Kashmir. With no perceptible stability and peace, businesses had anyway stayed away from the Valley and the pandemic has further aggravated the sectors that were at least surviving. And even if some entrepreneurs are keen to be self-starters, militant threats keep them away. The core sectors of Kashmir’s economy, particularly agriculture driven by the apple trade, are on a downward spiral ever since the abrogation of Article 370. The sectors that were constant despite the turbulence, like tourism and handicrafts, have stalled and joblessness is at an all-time high. The domicile rights, by which the Government had hoped non-Kashmiris would settle in the Valley, have also backfired with the Dogras of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh now wary of outsiders, too. And for all the Centralisation of powers for greater efficiency, the local administration has become more corrupt.
In effect, even the most apolitical of Kashmiris are wondering why they have been subjugated so under a blanket assumption that they are all hostile. Why, despite being a populous territory, statehood cannot be restored now as Union Territories with lesser populations are now independent States? The rigidity of the Government is only proving to be counter-productive as just like in 1987, Pakistan is waiting to feed off this discontent and foment fresh trouble, having accelerated infiltration. The Government immediately needs to get some credible interlocutors to convey that it means business and does not want to be isolationist, that mutual negotiations with people’s representatives are possible without them harking back to Pakistan. Here it could have used Omar as an asset but has listed his ability “to convince his electorate to come out and vote in huge numbers even during the peak of militancy and poll boycotts” as a crime. If this “influencer” ability, something that the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime prized to build a bridge over the conflict, is not investment-worthy, then the transition to a new narrative in Kashmir could be a colossal waste. Omar has been lionised by his captivity. His quiet resistance now could be a disabler than an enabler.
As young people around the globe get restless about lockdowns, they are contracting the virus
Undoubtedly, in the world’s battle against the novel virus, the risk takers, or those who have little respect for preventive protocols as needless excesses, have run down the risk-averse, or those who follow social distancing norms to quash the pandemic. With the result that COVID-19 is increasingly turning out to be a disease of the young with the tried and tested “stay at home” formula wearing off among millennials. Despite the re-imposition of lockdown restrictions, nations such as the US, Spain and Japan, to name a few, have seen a new wave of the virus, thanks to the fearless attitude of their youth, who feel their age is insurance enough against the pandemic. In Arizona, for example, half of all positive cases were among people aged between 20 and 44. In Texas’s Hays County, people in their 20s made up for 50 per cent of the victims. In Germany, college students were seen soaking in the sun in groups. As a result, Governments, which remain heavily dependent on public compliance to fight the pandemic in the absence of an effective vaccine, are left to confront a new set of problems. Rule-breaking is becoming the new normal as Generation Z is finding it difficult to maintain social distancing norms and faces psychological fatigue. For youngsters, the brazen re-opening of markets has meant exploitation of personal liberty. Bored of staying at home, feeling frustrated due to the lack of options to socialise and robbed of job opportunities, they have endless reasons to venture out — some have been commuting for work or care-giving, others can’t stay at home and have been visiting bars, beaches and nightclubs.
What has emboldened them all the more is reportage that younger people are less at risk of a severe COVID-19 infection/death. However, they cannot forget that even if they don’t suffer extremes and are asymptomatic, they are vectors and could endanger the susceptible lot. More than putting themselves at risk, they must think about the safety of others, be a bit more selfless than selfish. Examples from the ebola pandemic offer hope that the young could contain the present crisis by being mindful.
The National Employment Policy has to formulate a link between policy options, budgetary allocations and/or financial mechanisms, considering the convergence among sectors
Soon after the 2008 global financial crisis, 63 countries prepared a National Development Framework or National Employment Policy (NEP) to create a road map for employment generation, says the International Labour Organisation (ILO). There is evidence that other nations, too, are moving away from tackling employment issues solely through the use of active labour market policies. They are moving towards development and are adopting comprehensive NEPs, bringing together various sectoral measures, programmes and institutions that influence the dynamic demand and supply of labour and the functioning of the labour market, responding to the short, medium and long-term prospects and priorities.
The proposal to bring the NEP in India was introduced in 2008 during the first tenure of the UPA. An inter-ministerial group had examined the proposal but nothing concrete had emerged from it. In UPA-II, the then Minister of Labour and Employment Mallikarjun Kharge had said in the Rajya Sabha in 2010 that the NEP was under consideration. In 2016, the idea of the NEP took shape at the first meeting of the BRICS employment working group, after which the NDA Government started to work on it. Since then, the Government, policy makers, industry bodies, media and other stakeholders are continuously debating and rooting for a comprehensive NEP policy document.
The country needs one more than ever now as it is facing the dual challenge of the highest unemployment rate in the last 45 years and the onerous task of generating jobs for around 10 million entrants in the labour force every year. Other important issues are jobless growth, structural transformation, underemployment, informal employment, skilled workforce, high levels of educational enrolment and aspiration of the youth, sectoral issues, decent jobs and so on. In addition, the participation of women in the workforce is not only low but also declining since the 2000s. In this context, a NEP with a practical vision and a comprehensive macro-economic and sectoral policy roadmap for achieving the country’s employment goal is urgently required.
COVID-19, employment and livelihood: The Indian economy had slowed down before the outbreak but the ongoing pandemic has pushed it further into a recession. As per the data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), the employment rate skyrocketed to 23.5 per cent in the months of April and May, owing to the hard lockdown. Apart from this, the CMIE has also estimated that 27 million youths in the age bracket of 20-30 years lost their jobs in April because of the lockdown. This will have a greater impact on livelihoods in the future.
Further, these problems differ across regions and sectors of employment. Therefore, recognising these challenges and putting in place appropriate policy responses to tackle them are a priority. As multiple forces ranging from technological advances, climate change to demographic changes transform the world of work, the absence of a decisive policy action will further disrupt livelihoods and exacerbate inequalities. The Government needs to take appropriate steps urgently to assess the current employment situation in the country, including the macroeconomic environment, demographic context and sectoral challenges in employment generation, following which it will set targets and monitor them.
NEP amid the pandemic: Given the huge job losses due to the contagion’s socio-economic impact, assisting the labour force is important during this crisis. Since numerous social protection programmes are already in place for workers, a NEP would be important for understanding the dynamics of benefits for workers, employers and the Union and State Governments.
The recent push for a NEP on a fast track basis by the Minister of Labour and Employment is a welcome move. The Labour Minister has asked officials to look at the employment policy while keeping in mind the challenges and disruptions that have occurred because of COVID-19. India has ample intellectual and practical knowledge to formulate a policy that takes into consideration gender, caste and ecological concerns. The lack of such a policy could result in a warped economic transformation, resulting in avoidable stress on employment, social and gender harmony.
Labour empowerment: It is very important to have an inclusive policy, which caters to the challenges and needs of the marginalised, women, divyangs (physically challenged) and so on. The aspirational districts and the priority sectors needing more attention must be identified. This will go a long way in achieving the principles of ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikaas, Sabka Vishwas (together with all, for the development of all and with the trust of all)’. The NEP will have an immense advisory role and create road maps for clarity. Moral persuasion and appropriate signalling are important to ensure consistency, predictability, stability and a strong future outlook for ensuring confidence at par with India competitors. This would detail the direction of the economy in a holistic manner.
New investment areas, entrepreneurship, innovative initiatives, start-up ecosystems, gig economy, conventional sectors, studies and projects would identify the new and emerging focus areas for continuous feedback into the system.
Research and development is the core of the NEP. The policies and schemes of relevant Ministries and committees need to be streamlined and studied to collect evidence and provide essential inputs for policy-making since it is an ongoing process.
The NEP will also be crucial for implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This is important for Digital India’s objectives and outcome-based decision- making as per the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and NITI Aayog’s recent efforts for data and planning. For this, the maintenance of a real-time database and repository and monitoring of the employment status of the labour force is important. It would require enormous efforts in the beginning but would yield more than proportionate results in the immediate future.
In times of disasters and State and national emergencies, the NEP would provide a backbone and architecture to complement the efforts of the Government and maximise relief to the affected families and enterprises. This would minimise economic losses and optimise the use of limited resources. This would complement the Prime Minister’s vision of a New India and help in achieving the $5 trillion economy with special emphasis on “labour respect and empowerment.”
Atma Nirbhar Bharat and New India: The NEP can provide a comprehensive framework, with inclusive and sustainable planning, an enabling environment and a holistic, impactful approach towards decent employment and the vision of a New India. The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) eight focusses on promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. The consultation paper for the draft National Urban Policy Framework, 2018 is an important document template for the NEP to start taking shape. In the past, most policy documents pertaining to the NEP, by and large, have been suggestive in nature.
There is an urgent need for a comprehensive NEP, based on responsive real-time data analysis, integrating sectors that will help emerging sectoral employment policies and programmes amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The preparation of the NEP warrants a broad-based national consensus among various stakeholders. This can be ensured through a consultative process by taking various stakeholders’ views and the constituents’ demands into consideration during the policy formulation process.
The most important part of the NEP is to formulate a link between policy options, budgetary allocations and/or financial mechanisms, considering the convergence among various departments or sectors. Further, an institutional framework detailing roles and responsibilities for the implementation and monitoring of progress should also be part of the policy document.
Such a policy document will effectively help in formulating appropriate employment strategies which ensure decent work, empowerment and sustainability towards an ‘Atma Nirbhar Bharat’ and contribute significantly towards achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
(Mehta is Research Director and Kumar is Director, IMPRI)
The new Cold War between the US and China will not be anything like the old one
During the Korean War in the early 1950s, the US came extremely close to dropping a nuclear weapon on China. In fact, had the then American President, Harry Truman, not fired General Douglas MacArthur, the maverick would have left north-east Asia in a decade-long nuclear winter. But America did not nuke China. Instead, ever since the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1960s, the US has worked towards economically empowering the Middle Kingdom in an attempt to weaken the hold of communism. As such, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is “communist” in name only, overseeing a capitalist empire, thanks to the US and its preferential trade agreements, all of which helped it nurture ambitions of a global conquest. With China now challenging the US, it appears that much like the Taliban, the US has nurtured another monster, the CPC.
However, unlike the Taliban, this monster is one that America will have to fight sooner or later. The CPC might be antagonising all its neighbours, particularly with its latest scrap with India, but the US knows that it will have to tame the dragon. America’s move to shut down the Chinese consulate in Houston, alleging that it is a spying centre, is drastic and will escalate the already deteriorating ties between the two. Houston is the nerve centre of the US’ space programme and with America making its intentions clear about returning to the Moon and going to Mars, China is keen to keep a hawk’s eye. Of course, China ordered the closure of the US consulate in the south-western city of Chengdu as a result but the US’ crackdown on China — not only on the trade front but particularly on spying as well as militarily — is almost certain to pass on to the next administration even if Democrat Joe Biden wins the November 2020 presidential race. Much of this is China’s own doing. Its President Xi Jinping’s supreme arrogance has led to previously neutral nations like India moving into the US sphere. There is no doubt that Xi wants to make China a global power but the world today is much clearer about his country’s intentions. India cannot cop out of this fight. It has to stand up for itself and readily back the US.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month