17-09-2020 (Important News Clippings)
To Download Click Here.
Date:17-09-20
Be Vaccine Ready
India should be prepared to manufacture it amply and distribute it methodically
TOI Editorials
As Bill Gates points out, this is why there must be more widespread participation in the multilateral platform Covax, which is working to deliver vaccines equitably to all countries. Being the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, India plays a key role in all this. The Serum Institute of India alone will be manufacturing billions of doses for Covax, Oxford-AstraZeneca and Novavax. But the company’s chief executive Adar Poonawalla has flagged two important issues that need addressing domestically. One, the world will need 15 billion doses in case of a two-dose vaccine, and unless manufacturing capacity is expanded it will be 2024 end before every human being can be vaccinated. Two, in the absence of a sophisticated cold chain India could see a situation where “you have capacity for your country but you can’t consume it.”
The National Expert Group on Vaccine Administration for Covid-19 is working on these myriad issues of manufacturing capacity, delivery mechanisms, digital inventories and the strategic order in which the population will be vaccinated. It’s important to put a plan in place early, to enable good preparations and public communication, and maximise the vaccine’s blessings when it gets here rather than meet it with chaos and social strife.
It’s equally important not to waste the lessons of the past six months, such as how a jumbled slew of pricing interventions shrank testing capacity instead of raising it. A free market approach to vaccine pricing combined with DBTs and other provisions for the needy, would work best for universal access to vaccines. With smart planning and investments India can stand out as a pharma hub, producing Covid vaccines to meet both the world’s and its own needs, while blazing a trail for Indian pharma exports to grow. It can thus turn today’s grim story around.
Date:17-09-20
All is not quiet in the Western Ghats – despite massive ecological disturbances governments carry on business as usual
Viju B, an Metro Editor with The Times of India, Kochi, writes on a range of issues, including environment, civic infrastructure, insurance and right to information.
As the southwest monsoon reaches its fag end, it has left a trail of fury and destruction in many states of India for the third consecutive year. Beginning from the southern region of the country, a massive landslide occurred on August 6 in Rajamala in Idukki district, situated in Kerala’s Western Ghats region, claiming the lives of 70 people.
This tragedy was preceded by a massive landslide at Talacauvery temple at Brahmagiri hills in Kodagu district in Karnataka that killed five people, including the chief priest of the temple who got buried in the rubble. Godavari, the second longest river in the country that originates from the Western Ghats, got flooded on August 16, drowning many towns and villages in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Mumbai witnessed one of its worst floods after 2005, with many areas in south Mumbai getting submerged under water.
The six states that run along the western coastline of India – Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat – are facing massive ecological disturbances like never before and the impacts are felt not only in the coastal cities and towns, but even in the hill ranges of Western Ghats. This year it began with the Nisarga cyclone that lashed across the Konkan coast, ravaging coastal regions in Raigad and Ratnagiri districts.
The symptoms have been manifesting over the past five years in coastal states like Kerala, where the southwest monsoon arrives with a splash in the first week of June every year. The landslide in Idukki is a classic example. Rajamala, where the landslide occurred, received 955 mm of rainfall in a week’s time between August 1-7. This is a clear indication that the uniform rainfall pattern in the Western Ghats region has disappeared.
A detailed study of rainfall data for 28 years in Wayanad by researchers Danish Kumar and Pavan Srinath found that the number of days receiving moderate amounts of rainfall was decreasing, but the number of days receiving low or very high rainfall was on the rise. But though Western Ghats region today is facing the brunt of climate change induced disasters no measures have been undertaken to mitigate the impact of these disasters. In Idukki, for instance, unscientific expansion of a hill road, on the gap road stretch of Kochi-Dhanushkodi national highway, was the main reason for landslides this year.
Similarly, post 2018 floods, the Karnataka government assigned the Geological Survey of India to find out the reasons for the 105 landslides that occurred in Coorg and the findings showed that majority of the landslides occurred due to unscientific human interventions in the natural landscape. In Goa alone, according to the Shah Commission report, Rs 35,000 crore worth of illegal mining occurred in the period between 2006-11, destroying thousands of hectares of forests.
Deforestation, mining, unscientific sloping of hills for construction of multi-storied buildings and mono-crop cultivation have aggravated the occurrence of landslides. An analysis by the Indian Space Research Organisation’s remote sensing centre showed that an appalling 35% of the original Western Ghats has been destroyed in a 93-year period between 1920-2013. The business as usual approach by the government may aggravate the ecological devastation in the Western Ghats region where water scarcity, droughts and loss of agricultural productivity are going to be the immediate fallouts of climate change and erratic southwest monsoon.
No longer can we see this crisis as a region specific problem as this is a question of survival for one-fourth of the population in India, which depends on drinking water supply from the 58 rivers that flows down from the Western Ghats. Unfortunately, all these rivers are today facing the brunt of pollution and water mismanagement, with rivers like Kaveri five times more polluted than Ganga. It is high time that an alternative and sustainable development model be envisaged for the entire Western Ghats region, especially as studies have shown that zoonotic diseases like Covid-19 and SARS are more likely to spread in areas where natural habitats have been destroyed.
Government should initiate landslide audits in the entire region, prepare micro maps in order to rehabilitate people from landslide prone areas, conduct river audits in all the rivers flowing from Western Ghats and mark the flood plains, undertake scientific reservoir management with the help of modern rainfall warning systems, stop mining in ecologically sensitive zones, provide incentives to farmers and tribal communities who undertake sustainable farming, and review proposed hydel projects which are set to get de facto clearances after the calamitous draft EIA Notification 2020 comes into effect.
Policy makers and state governments from all the six states along the Western Ghats region should join hands and take these urgent measures to protect one of the oldest ecosystems that is fast disappearing from the face of earth today.
Falling Biodiversity Corrodes Welfare
ET Editorials
Human beings are exploiting and destroying nature at an unprecedented rate and efforts by governments to halt the destruction have been are woefully inadequate. Two reports — the UN’s Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 and the WWF’s Living Planet Report 2020 — in a week provide a clear picture of the damage wrought by overconsumption, population growth and intensive agriculture, and what it means for human well-being. Unchecked, it would undermine the systems that sustain life, and for countries such as India, derail efforts to improve living standards.
The WWF’s biennial report finds a 68% decline in animal population between 1970 and 2016. The 2018 edition reported a 60% decline between 1970 and 2014. The UN report finds that countries will fail to meet a single of the 20 targets they collectively set in Japan in 2010 to slow down the destruction of wildlife and ecosystems. Be it tackling pollution or protecting coral reefs, not one of the 20 goals known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets will be fully met by 2020. This will be the second consecutive decade when the world will fail to meet its targets. Countries need to step up, individually and collectively, and transition to development pathways that take into account the critical role of nature. Failure to do so could undermine efforts to meet the Paris climate goals and the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals.
All countries, but more so developing countries such as India that have considerable development deficits and need to augment economic growth to bridge the gap, must mainstream nature in its development plans. From reduced pollination that lowers crop yields and wildfires that ravage communities to the extinction of creatures of rare beauty, loss of biodiversity produces much harm.
Stop press
Courts must avoid omnibus orders against publication without actual risk of prejudice
Injunctions against publication can either be an order to prevent possible defamation or invasion of privacy, or one aimed at protecting the fairness of a trial or investigation. The Supreme Court did hold in Sahara vs. SEBI (2012) that the Court can grant preventive relief on a balancing of the right to free trial and a free press. However, it favoured such temporary restraint on publication “only in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice” to the administration of justice or a fair trial. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, on the same day, passed a more important interim order stopping the telecast of the remaining episodes of a series on Sudarshan News on entirely different grounds. Holding that the programme — four episodes were aired — was nothing but vilification of Muslims, the Court found it necessary to interdict the telecast of more episodes. The Court seems to have made a distinction between freedom of expression and propagation of hate. In recent years, there have been quite a few instances, especially in Karnataka, of omnibus interim injunctions against all media houses obtained by some people solely to prevent any news reporting about themselves. While claiming to be defamed by one publication, they sue all media outlets and obtain open-ended stay on publications, including those that are hardly interested in writing about them. As a matter of principle, courts ought to avoid omnibus orders against publication. Such orders are often to the detriment of the right to know.
Date:17-09-20
New order in West Asia
Accords between Arab States and Israel can’t bring peace without solving the Palestine issue
EDITORIAL
The so-called Abraham Accords, signed in the White House on Tuesday by the UAE, Bahrain and Israel, under U.S. President Donald Trump’s mediation, clearly mark a new beginning in the relations between the Sunni-ruled Gulf kingdoms and the Jewish state. Under the agreement, the UAE and Bahrain would normalise ties with Israel, heralding better economic, political and security engagement. More Arab countries are expected to follow suit, say U.S. and Israeli officials. The agreements have the backing of Saudi Arabia, arguably the most influential Arab power and a close ally of the UAE and Bahrain. The ailing, octogenarian ruler of the Kingdom, Salman bin Abdulaziz, is treading cautiously for now, but Riyadh has opened its airspace for commercial flights between the UAE and Israel. The accords, the first between Israel and Arab countries since the 1994 Jordan-Israel peace treaty, also offer a rare diplomatic win to Mr. Trump, whose other foreign policy bets, be it Iran or North Korea, were either disastrous or stagnant. With less than 50 days to go before his re-election bid, he has called the agreements “the new dawn of a new Middle East”.
Though of historical and geopolitical significance, it is too early to say whether the accords will have any meaningful impact on West Asia’s myriad conflicts. Unlike Egypt and Jordan, which signed peace treaties with Israel in 1979 and 1994, respectively, the Gulf countries are not frontline states in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They had established backroom contacts with Israel years ago; what is happening now is their normalisation. Second, the agreements leave the Palestinian question largely unaddressed. With Arab countries signing diplomatic agreements with Israel bilaterally, the Arab collective support for the Palestinian movement for nationhood, which has been the basis of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, is crumbling. But it does not mean that the Palestinian question would fade away. The vacuum left by the retreat of the Arab powers from the Israel-Palestine conflict is being filled by the non-Arab Muslim powers — Iran, Turkey and their allies. The geopolitical sands may be shifting but the core issue concerning Israel is unresolved. Three, the UAE-Bahrain agreements are in fact endorsing the region’s emerging order. With the U.S. in retreat and Turkey and Iran pursuing more aggressive foreign policies, there is a three-way contest taking shape, in which Sunni-ruled Arab kingdoms, all American allies, are realigning their geopolitical interests with Israel. The Abraham Accords are likely to sharpen this contest. If Mr. Trump and the signatories to the accords want to bring peace here as they have claimed, they should address the more structural issues, which include the unresolved question of Palestine.
Date:17-09-20
Nationalism and the crisis of federalism
Unless the attack on coalescent, democratic nationalism is curbed, cracks might appear in a distinctive Indian project
Rajeev Bhargava, is Professor, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi
Several Chief Ministers have recently complained about the growing crisis of Indian federalism. The central government backing out of its legal commitment to compensate for Goods and Services Tax (GST) shortfall is one ground for this complaint and just the tip of a dangerous iceberg. A deeper problem lies in a flawed understanding of nationalism and the government’s disregard for democratic principles. Federalism can function only in the hands of those with a grasp of India’s democratic nationalism. Both are indispensable and neither works properly without the other.
Three nationalisms
Two broad conceptions of nationalism developed in the subcontinent before India achieved Independence. The first, the idea that a community with a strongly unified culture must have a single state of its own, bifurcated into two nationalisms. One defined culture in ethno-religious terms and was articulated by the curiously similar Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League. Hindus and Muslims were separate nations and needed states of their own. For the Hindu Mahasabha, Indian nationalism simply had to be Hindu nationalism. This primacy of Hindu identity potentially had adverse consequences not only for religious but also linguistic minorities, including those Hindus who viewed their mother tongue as important as their religion. For Hindu nationalists, Hindu identity permanently outweighed being Tamil or Punjabi.
The second manifestation of the same conception was articulated by sections of the Congress party which too saw the nation as defined by a common culture whose adherents must have a state of their own. But this common culture was not ethno-religious. It was defined instead by shared historical experience, the struggle against British colonial rule, and developed through an interpenetration of ideas emanating from different cultural sources. For want of a better term, call this second nationalism, civic. More inclusive than any ethno-religious nationalism, its secular, composite content is qualitatively different from Hindu or Muslim nationalisms.
However, surprisingly, its basic form is not unlike Hindu nationalism. It too conceives common culture in terms of a strong idea of unity that marginalises or excludes other particular identities. A civic Indian identity, shaped at best by a thin composite culture, trumps other public identities, including linguistic ones.
A third nationalism accepts that communities nourished by distinct, territorially concentrated regional cultures have the capacity to design states of their own as also educational, legal, economic, and other institutions. They possess self-governing rights. Yet, they eschew independent national aspirations, seeing themselves as constituents of a larger, equally significant common culture with another state that belongs to everyone. Indeed, they build on this shared culture and come together to consolidate the nation. Occasional conflicts between the common culture of the central state and distinct cultures of constituent states are admitted but mechanisms to prevent them are also created. This may be called a coalescent nationalism consistent with a fairly strong linguistic federalism; The central state associated with it is not multi-national. At best, it is a multi-national state without labels, one that does not call itself so; a self-effacing multi-national state.
Being linguistically federal
In the 1930s, all three conceptions circulated among political elites in India. By the 1940s, however, coalescent nationalism was submerged by the other two. After Partition, India rejected ethno-religious nationalism but its ruling elites, obsessed about the dangers of further fragmentation, began to view with suspicion the political expression of even linguistic identities. No one was more uneasy with this than Jawaharlal Nehru himself who wondered if a federation structured along ethno-linguistic lines might tempt politicians to mobilise permanently on the basis of language and divert attention from issues of material well-being. Second, like religious identities, it might ‘freeze’ linguistic identities and increase the likelihood of inter-ethnic violence, encourage separatism and eventually lead to India’s break up.
Thus, when the Constitution came into force in 1950, India adopted unitary, civic nationalism as its official ideology. Though a federal arrangement was accepted, the second tier of government was justified in functional terms not on ethical grounds of the recognition of group cultures. The security and unity of India were cited as the primary reason. A unitary mindset shaped by the experience of a centralised colonial state was resurrected and it seemed that the idea of a coalescent nationalism with multi-cultural federation was lost forever. A special commission to examine this issue concluded that language-based provinces were ‘not in the larger interests of the Indian nation’. Yet, another committee, that included Nehru considered the recommendations of the commission and felt that while ‘the present is not an opportune moment for the formation of new provinces, if public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming, we, as democrats must submit to it’.
Before long the unitary arrangement and the conception that underpinned it proved inadequate. The third nationalism on the backburner came right back into the game as India shifted its allegiance slowly to a system of states that rejected the wholesale absorption of ethnic identities into a larger civic identity. This happened when the fledgling Indian democratic state was forced to encounter mass politics. Demands for autonomy, for sharing political power were immediately made by regional leaders. The issue of linguistic States became the focus of popular agitation forcing the creation, in 1953, of the State of Andhra for Telugu-speaking people. Soon after, a commission to reorganise States on a linguistic basis was set up.
The committee argued that justice requires the creation of partially self-governing States that recognise all major linguistic groups. Besides, their creation improves administrative efficiency, deepens democracy, and alleviates anxieties of regional minorities induced by fear of linguistic domination. Since domination eventually invites resistance and conflict which undermines the nation-state, only federalism can block language-based majoritarianism, contain conflicts and strengthen Indian nationalism. Only coalescent nationalism creatively combines claims of unity with claims of recognition of diverse cultures. A robust democratic arena allows the play of complementary multiple identities, and through dialogue, discussion and negotiation, helps to resolve disputes.
Following the Committee’s recommendations, States were reorganised in 1956. Soon mass agitation forced the division of the province of Bombay into Maharashtra and Gujarat. In 1966, Haryana was separated from Punjab to become an independent state. Much later, States such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand were carved out. India slowly became a coalescent nation-state, moving from the ‘holding together’ variety to what is called the ‘coming together’ form of (linguistic) federalism. This meant that regional parties were stronger than earlier in their own regions and at the centre. This sowed seeds of a more durable centre because it was grounded more on the consent and participation of regional groups that, at another level, were also self-governing. Indian federalism also attempted to remove its rigidities by incorporating asymmetries in the relation between the Centre and different States; treating all States as equals required the acknowledgement of their specific needs and according them differential treatment.
States as equals
This coalescent nationalism has served India well, benefiting several groups in India. True, it has not worked as well in India’s border areas such as the North-east and Kashmir. But their problems can only be resolved by deepening not abandoning coalescent nationalism. Indeed, the Indian experience shows that whenever the Centre has been non-manipulative, treated politicians and people of regional States with respect, the entire polity works smoothly. On the other hand, whenever regions are treated disrespectfully, and norms of democratic functioning abandoned, then powerful, even violent, forces have been unleashed leading to grave instability.
The contemporary crisis of federalism is due to the attack on coalescent, democratic Indian nationalism by a conceptually limited and morally weak idea of Hindu nationalism. Unless this offensive is curbed, and these trends reversed, I fear we might begin to see major cracks in our distinctive nationalist project. That would be nothing short of disastrous for the Indian republic.
सरकार का बदलता पैमाना
संपादकीय
सुप्रीम कोर्ट का तजा आदेश,जिसमे एक टीवी चैनल के कई किस्तों के कार्यक्रम पर रोक लगाई, भविष्य में भटकती इलेक्ट्रॉनिक मीडिया को शायद कोई नई दिशा दे, बशर्ते सत्ता-पक्ष इस प्रयास को दोबारा राजनीतिक लाभ/हानि के चश्मे से ना देखे। चैनल का कार्यक्रम न केवल एक समुदाय-विशेष को ‘यूपीएससी जेहादी’ बताने वाला था बल्कि उस समुदाय के सिविल सेवा में उत्तीण होकर आए सभी अफसरों को भी इसी ब्रश से रंगने वाला था। कार्यक्रम को चलाए जाने के सरकार के आदेश पर सरकारी वकील (एसजी) का तर्क हास्यास्पद था। उनका कहना था ‘यह एक खोजी पत्रकारिका है। और पत्रकारो की आजादी सर्वोपरि है’।सरकार शायद भूल गई की जब उत्तर प्रदेश के मिर्जापुर जिले में एक ने बच्चो को मध्याह्र भोजन के नाम पर रोटी नमक खिलाए जाने की खबर दी तो उस पर जिले के अधिकारियो ने मुकदमा कर दिया। दिल्ली दरबार की नाक के नीचे नोएडा में कोरोना काल में जिन पत्रकारों ने क्वारंटाइन में भोजन न मिलने और अन्य सुविधाओं के आभाव की खबर दिखाई तो उसे प्रशासन ने जेल भेजने की धमकी दी। इस कार्यक्रम में कहा गया था कि सिविल सेवा में मुसलमानों को 35 साल की आयु और छय प्रयास की छूट है जबकि हिन्दुओं को 32 साल और चार प्रयास ही मिलते है। यह एकदम गलत तथ्य है जिस पर कोर्ट ने नाराजगी जाहिर की। शीर्ष कोर्ट का अपनी टिपण्णी में कहना था ‘यह कार्यकर्म खतरनाक, किसी समुदया को कलंकित करने वाला,कपटतापूर्ण और धार्मिक-कट्टरता से ओतप्रोत है और राष्ट्र का अहित करने वाला है। ‘वो-बनाम-हम’ का इतना भद्दा प्रयास किसी भी सभ्य समाज में स्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता और इस बट का कोर्ट ने पूरी पुरजोर से संज्ञान लिया। तीसरा असत्य देखे। यूपीएससी के ताजा रिकार्ड के अनुसार केवल 4.2 % मुसलमान ही इस सेवा में पास हुए जबकि आबादी में उनकी हिस्सेदारी 14.2% है। फिर अगर किसी समुदाय के लोग अपने बच्चो को देश की सबसे कठीन परीक्षा में उत्तीर्ण करा लेते हैं तो यह एक अच्छा उदाहरण है। बहरहाल शीर्ष कोर्ट की यह तीन-सदस्यीय बेंच इस केस की सुनवाई अभी जारी रखेगी और संभव है की बेलगाम होते न्यूज़ चैनलों के एक बड़े वर्ग पर भावी फैसला लगाम कस सके।
Date:17-09-20
विपणन सुधारों का प्रचार
संपादकीय
किसान संगठनों ने केंद्र सरकार के कृषि विपणन सुधारों के विरोध का जो आह्वान किया था, उसे मिला सीमित प्रतिसाद इस बात का स्पष्ट संकेत है कि अधिकांश किसानों को ये सुधार रास आए हैं। बल्कि जून में मंडी के बाहर माल बेचने की इजाजत मिलने के बाद से अब तक मंडियों में कारोबार 40 फीसदी तक कम हो चुका है। इन सुधारों का विरोध मोटे तौर पर इसलिए हो रहा है क्योंकि राजनीतिक संबद्धता वाले किसान संगठनों की ओर से किसानों पर इनके प्रभाव के बारे में गलत जानकारी प्रसारित की जा रही है। उनकी ओर से यह गलत जानकारी दी जा रही है कि सरकार का यह कदम न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य व्यवस्था समाप्त करने की दिशा में उठाया गया है और यह देश में कृषि कार्यों के कॉर्पोरेटीकरण की राह खोलने का प्रयास है। आश्चर्य नहीं कि यह विरोध पंजाब, हरियाणा तथा कुछ अन्य राज्यों में सीमित रहा है जहां गेहूं और चावल जैसी ज्यादातर उपज सरकारी एजेंसियों द्वारा पहले से तय कीमत पर खरीदी जाती है।
ये सुधार काफी समय से लंबित थे और इन्हें गत 5 जून को तीन अध्यादेशों के माध्यम से पेश किया गया था। अब इन्हें कानूनी स्वरूप देने के लिए संसद में पेश किया गया है। इन सुधारों का लक्ष्य किसानों को उनकी उपज का बेहतर मूल्य दिलाना है और वे जहां और जिसे चाहें बेहतर दाम पर उपज बेच सकते हैं।
कृषि जिंस को मंडी के बाहर बेचने की इजाजत देकर कृषि उपज विपणन समितियों (एपीएमसी) के एकाधिकार को समाप्त कर दिया गया है। एपीएमसी मंडियों की प्रतिस्पर्धा के लिए निजी मंडियों की भी इजाजत दी गई है। इसके अतिरिक्त केंद्र और राज्य सरकारों की कृषि जिंसों के स्टॉक भंडारित करने और उनके आवागमन को प्रतिबंधित करने के अधिकार को भी कम किया गया है। ऐसा अनिवार्य जिंस अधिनियम 1955 में संशोधन करके किया गया है। इसके अलावा उत्पादकों और अंतिम उपभोक्ता के बीच बेहतर लिंक कायम करने वाली अनुबंधित कृषि को भी कानूनी स्वरूप दिया गया है ताकि किसानों के हितों की रक्षा हो सके।
बहरहाल, इन सुधारों को लेकर फैलाई जा रही भ्रांति दूर करना केंद्र सरकार का काम है। इन सुधारों के बारे में किसानों तक सही जानकारी पहुंचाने के लिए ज्यादा कुछ नहीं किया गया है। न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य के भविष्य को लेकर जो असहजता है वह कृषि मूल्य एवं लागत आयोग की एक रिपोर्ट से उपजी है जिसमें कहा गया है कि इसे चरणबद्ध तरीके से समाप्त किया जाना चाहिए। हालांकि सरकार ने तत्काल यह नहीं कहा कि वह ऐसा नहीं कर रही लेकिन सच यही है कि सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली चलाने और खाद्य संरक्षा कानून के तहत अपने दायित्त्व पूरे करने के लिए सरकार को अनाज खरीदना ही होगा। इसी तरह अनुबंधित कृषि, कॉर्पाेरेट कृषि से किस प्रकार अलग है यह भी स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया। नया कानून केवल साझा सहमति वाले अनुबंधों को इजाजत देता है।
बहरहाल तथ्य यह है कि ये सुधार फसल कटाई के समय कीमतों में आने वाली अचानक गिरावट को स्वत: रोक नहीं सकते जबकि किसानों की दिक्कतों में यह अहम है। सरकार की प्रमुख मूल्य और आय समर्थन योजना प्रधानमंत्री अन्नदाता आय संरक्षण अभियान (पीएम-आशा) जिसकी घोषणा 2018 के बजट में की गई थी, उसमें भी कुछ खास प्रगति नहीं हुई है। इस योजना के तहत तीन मूल्य समर्थन प्रणालियों को आगे बढ़ाया गया-सीधी खरीद के माध्यम से मूल्य समर्थन, मूल्य अंतर की क्षतिपूर्ति और निजी पक्षों द्वारा खरीद और भंडारण। ये व्यवस्थाएं भी देश के अधिकांश हिस्सों में कागज पर रह गई हैं। संसद पर इन सुधारों पर होने वाली बहस सही मौका है कि इन्हें स्पष्ट किया जाए। परंतु स्पष्टीकरण और जागरूकता अभियान सदन के बाहर भी चलाना होगा।
आर्थिक संकट ने और बढ़ाई नवाचार की अहमियत
जयंतीलाल भंडारी , अर्थशास्त्री
विश्व बौद्धिक संपदा संगठन (डब्ल्यूआईपीओ) द्वारा जारी वैश्विक नवाचार सूचकांक (ग्लोबल इनोवेशन इंडेक्स जीआईआई) 2020 में भारत चार पायदान ऊपर चढ़कर 48वें स्थान पर पहुंच गया है और उसने शीर्ष 50 में अपनी जगह बना ली है। भारत पिछले वर्ष 2019 में इस इंडेक्स में 52वें पायदान पर था और 2015 में 81वें स्थान पर था। जीआईआई इंडेक्स में स्विट्जरलैंड, स्वीडन, अमेरिका, ब्रिटेन और नीदरलैंड शीर्ष क्रम वाले देश हैं। गौरतलब है कि लगातार 10 सालों से भारत वैश्विक नवाचार के क्षेत्र में उपलब्धि हासिल करने वाला देश बना हुआ है। नए वैश्विक ग्लोबल इंडेक्स के तहत इसने कारोबारी विशेषज्ञता, रचनात्मकता, सियासी स्थिरता, सरकार की प्रभावशीलता व दिवालियापन की समस्या को सुलझाने में आसानी जैसे संकेतकों में अच्छे सुधार किए हैं। भारत में डिजिटल अर्थव्यवस्था, घरेलू कारोबार में सरलता, स्टार्टअप, विदेशी निवेश जैसे मानकों में भी बड़ा सुधार दिखाई दिया है।
कोविड-19 ने सामाजिक व आर्थिक प्रगति के लिए शोध एवं तकनीकी विकास के महत्व को बहुत तेजी से आगे बढ़ाया है। दुनिया भर में उद्योग-कारोबार, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य टेली मेडिसिन व मनोरंजन के मामलों में डिजिटलीकरण तेजी से आगे बढ़ा है। तकनीक के जुड़े नए-नए कारोबारी मॉडल आगे बढे़ हैं। एक ऐसे समय में, जब कोरोना महामारी के कारण दुनिया भर में शोध व नवाचार गतिविधियों को मजबूती मिली है, नवाचार में भारत का आगे बढ़ना सुकून भरा परिदृश्य है।
वस्तुत: जीआईआई ऐसा वैश्विक सूचकांक है, जिस पर पूरी दुनिया के उद्योग-कारोबार की निगाहें लगी होती हैं। जीआईआई के कारण विभिन्न देशों को सार्वजनिक नीति बनाने से लेकर उत्पादकता में सुधार व नौकरियों में वृद्धि में सहायता मिलती है। भारत में लगातार नवाचार बढ़ने से अमेरिका, यूरोप और एशियाई देशों की बड़ी-बड़ी कंपनियां नई प्रौद्योगिकी के क्षेत्र में भारतीय आईटी प्रतिभाओं के जरिए नवाचार को बढ़ावा देने के लिए भारत में अपने ग्लोबल इन हाउस सेंटर (जीआईसी) तेजी से बढ़ाती जा रही हैं। यदि हम चाहते हैं कि भारत कोविड-19 की चुनौतियों के बीच नवाचार की अपनी बढ़ती हुई शक्ति से देश और दुनिया में उभरते आर्थिक मौकों को अपनी मुट्ठी में करे, तो हमें कई बातों पर ध्यान देना होगा। नवाचार में आगे बढ़ने के लिए हमें रिसर्च ऐंड डेवलपमेंट यानी आरऐंडडी पर खर्च बढ़ाना होगा। भारत में आरऐंडडी पर खर्च की राशि जीडीपी की एक फीसदी से भी कम, करीब 0.7 फीसदी के लगभग ही है। अमेरिका, इजरायल, दक्षिण कोरिया, चीन और जापान जैसे देश इसमें हमसे बहुत आगे हैं।
भारत में आरऐंडडी पर जितनी राशि खर्च होती है, उसमें इंडस्ट्री का योगदान काफी कम है, जबकि अमेरिका, इजरायल, चीन सहित विभिन्न देशों में यह काफी अधिक है। आरऐंडडी पर पर्याप्त निवेश के अभाव के चलते भारतीय प्रोडक्ट्स ग्लोबल ट्रेड में तेजी से आगे नहीं बढ़ पा रहे। चूंकि सरकार के पास शोध-व्यय बढ़ाने के लिए संसाधन नहीं हैं, ऐसे में भारतीय कंपनियों को आगे आना होगा। हमें इस बात पर ध्यान देना होगा कि हमारे देश की प्रतिभाओं के साथ-साथ कोविड-19 के कारण घर लौटती प्रतिभाओं की मदद शोध व नवाचार में ली जाए। चीन ने बीते तीन-चार दशकों में विदेश से चीन लौटे अपने छात्रों की मदद से नवाचार को मजबूत किया है। हमें भारतीय उत्पादों को प्रतिस्पद्र्धी बनाने वाले आर्थिक सुधारों को गतिशील करना होगा।
भारतीय उद्योगों को वैश्विक स्तर पर ऊंचाई देने के लिए उद्योगों को नए अविष्कारों, खोज से परिचित कराने के मद्देनजर सीएसआईआर, डीआरडीओ और इसरो जैसे शीर्ष संस्थानों की भूमिका को महत्वपूर्ण बनाना होगा। निस्संदेह, अभी हमें जीआईआई में 48वें पायदान पर पहुंच जाने के वर्तमान स्तर से संतुष्ट नहीं होना चाहिए। हमें शोध और नवाचार में अपनी स्थिति अधिक मजबूत करनी होगी। ऐसा करने पर ही वर्ष 2021 में जीआईआई की नई नवाचार सूची में भारत की रैंकिंग और ऊपर पहुंचेगी। जीआईआई रैंकिंग में भारत के ऊंचाई पर पहुंचने से देश में विदेशी निवेश बढ़ेगा, वैश्विक कंपनियों का प्रवाह बढ़ेगा तथा भारतीय उद्योग कारोबार सहित पूरी अर्थव्यवस्था लाभान्वित होगी।