To Download Click Here.

Date:23-10-20

US vs Google

Monopolistic gatekeeping of the internet hurts startups and democracy alike

TOI Editorials

The US Department of Justice filing an antitrust case against Google feels like a long time coming. Over 92% of the worldwide search traffic is captured by Google. The lock it has on search and search advertising industries, on the very flow of information, is almost unassailably fortified by the company’s own operating system, apps and app distribution. This enables it to grow dominance in various business verticals while starving rivals of oxygen. The suit thus has “monumental” implications and it has received bipartisan support. As attorney-general William Barr suggested, America and the world may never get to benefit from the “next Google” if we let Google continue its anticompetitive ways.

The lawsuit has put a spotlight on the anticompetitive behaviour of Big Tech at large, especially as it was closely preceded by the House antitrust subcommittee reporting that today Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook all enjoy the kinds of monopolies last seen in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Microsoft included, and helped along by Covid, these five have a combined market valuation exceeding the economies of all countries but the US and China. This is on top of different countries’ worries that the US government would be hostile to their regulation of US tech companies.

But if the script of regulation is written in the US itself, it will encourage pushback in other jurisdictions. It may not be easy to wrap one’s head around the great concentration of the world’s wealth and power in a handful of companies – with all its economic, political and social implications downstream. In the newspaper industry the tech giants that hoover up the ad revenues don’t generate content themselves. They profit from the resulting decline of facts and the rational ecosystem itself. But what about the rest of us? Populist tides rising and democratic vitality fading mean a real decline in the quality of life.

And to underline, the monopoly gatekeeper will constantly deny fairplay to the “scrappy, underdog” startup that it once was. It is true that Big Tech has also enabled countless advances in modern society. But a rebalancing is needed precisely so that new innovations and enterprises are not stifled at birth. For Indian startups Google’s dominance is stark through the entire tech stack down to its Play Store. So beyond what happens in the US, Indian regulators must also act on curbing monopoly and fostering competition.

Date:23-10-20

For The Farmers

Punjab government’s claims of protecting farmers are belied by the bills passed

TOI Editorials

If the farm reforms enacted by the Centre were a step forward, then the bills passed in the Punjab assembly this week to negate them amount to taking two steps backwards. They allow the state government to levy a fee on corporate traders and electronic trading/ transaction platforms which operate outside state regulated APMC mandis. If these levies are significantly high, it could force out not just future traders but even existing private ones. This would end up hurting farmers who have diversified out of paddy and wheat into other crops for reasons like higher returns, lower input costs or reduced water consumption.

In short, Punjab’s loss in crop diversity and agri trade could spell gains for other states. Pressing hard on all populist buttons, the legislation also mandates that the proceeds from the fee go towards a fund for the welfare of small and marginal farmers. The burden of such fees will in all likelihood be borne by the farmer and consumer while there is no certainty of such funds reaching small farmers after accounting for governmental expenditure and wastage. Instead of this circuitous route, Punjab would be better off not levying the fee in the first place.

A strong political point has been made by making sale at MSPs legally binding, but this applies to only two crops – paddy and wheat. In Punjab almost the entire output of these two crops is procured by government agencies at mandis, leaving little for private trade. The irony implicit in this is that rice and wheat farmers have to be protected from state agencies, not private players. With little benefit to farmers, it is clear that the MSP protection ploy is targeted at the Centre, though it has never spoken about MSP dismantling.

Date:23-10-20

Healthy and wise

Promotion of the production and consumption of nutri-cereals is a policy shift in the right direction

Ananya Awasthi , [ The writer is assistant director, Harvard School of Public Health-India Research Center.]

For anyone who wishes to understand the complex interplay of nutrition, food systems and farmers’ welfare, the insights shared by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on World Food Day are a crash course worth taking.

One of the most important highlights from the speech was the focus on the production of millets, also now known as “nutri-cereals”. Giving examples of nutri-cereals like jowar, bajra and ragi, PM Modi also shared how the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has endorsed India’s call for declaring 2023 as the “International Year of Millets”. He spoke at length about how the government is incentivising the production of nutri-cereals to increase the intake of diverse and nutritious diets, improve their availability in markets and bring benefits to small and medium farmers, who are the main cultivators of coarse grains.

The three major millet crops currently growing in India are jowar (sorghum), bajra (pearl millet) and ragi (finger millet). Along with that, India grows a rich array of bio-genetically diverse and indigenous varieties of “small millets” like kodo, kutki, chenna and sanwa. Major producers include Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Haryana.

High in dietary fibre, nutri-cereals are a powerhouse of nutrients including iron, folate, calcium, zinc, magnesium, phosphorous, copper, vitamins and antioxidants. They are not only important for the healthy growth and development of children but have also been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes in adults.

Usually grown by small and poor farmers on dry, low-fertile, mountainous, tribal and rain-fed areas, millets are good for the soil, have shorter cultivation cycles and require less cost-intensive cultivation. These unique features make millets suited for and resilient to India’s varied agro-climatic conditions. Moreover, unlike rice and wheat, millets are not water or input-intensive, making them a sustainable strategy for addressing climate change and building resilient agri-food systems.

In the 1960s before the Green Revolution, millets were extensively grown and consumed in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research data shows that bajra constituted nearly 46 per cent of the crop production as opposed to 13 per cent for rice in the kharif season. Similarly, chickpea stood at 42 per cent for the rabi season against a measly 4.3 per cent for wheat. With the Green Revolution, the focus, rightly so, was on food security and high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice. An unintended consequence of this policy was the gradual decline in the production of millets. Unfortunately, millets were increasingly seen as “poor person’s food” in contrast to the consumer perception around more refined grains like rice and wheat. The cost incentives provided via MSPs also favoured a handful of staple grains.

In parallel, India saw a jump in consumer demand for ultra-processed and ready-to-eat products, which are high in sodium, sugar, trans-fats and even some carcinogens. This need was again met by highly-refined grains. Contrary to the popular belief, this phenomenon was not restricted to urban areas. With the intense marketing of processed foods, even the rural population started perceiving mill-processed rice and wheat as more aspirational. This has lead us to the double burden of mothers and children suffering from micronutrient deficiencies and the astounding prevalence of diabetes and obesity.

To address this situation, a multi-pronged strategy has been adopted for the promotion of nutri-cereals by the Modi government.

The first strategy from a consumption and trade point of view was to re-brand coarse cereals/millets as nutri-cereals. As of 2018-19, millet production had been extended to over 112 districts across 14 states.

Second, the government hiked the MSP of nutri-cereals, which came as a big price incentive for farmers. As we compare the data on MSPs for food crops from 2014-15 against 2020, we see that the MSP for ragi has jumped a whopping 113 per cent, followed by bajra and jowar at 72 per cent and 71 per cent respectively. MSPs have been calculated so that the farmer is ensured at least a 50 per cent return on their cost of production.

Third, to provide a steady market for the produce, the Modi government included millets in the public distribution system.

Fourth, the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare is running a Rs 600-crore scheme to increase the area, production and yield of nutri-cereals. With a goal to match the cultivation of nutri-cereals with local topography and natural resources, the government is encouraging farmers to align their local cropping patterns to India’s diverse 127 agro-climatic zones. Provision of seed kits and inputs to farmers, building value chains through Farmer Producer Organisations and supporting the marketability of nutri-cereals are some of the key interventions that have been put in place.

And finally, the Ministry of Women and Child Development has been working at the intersection of agriculture and nutrition by setting up nutri-gardens, promoting research on the interlinkages between crop diversity and dietary diversity and running a behaviour change campaign to generate consumer demand for nutri-cereals.

As the government sets to achieve its agenda of a malnutrition-free India and doubling of farmers’ incomes, the promotion of the production and consumption of nutri-cereals seems to be a policy shift in the right direction. Instead of working in silos, this multi-ministerial policy framework is a strategic move towards building an Atmanirbhar Bharat which resonates with the global call for self-sufficiency and sustainable development. For our part, we can begin the jan andolan by taking small steps towards choosing healthier foods, which are good for the environment and bring economic prosperity to our farmers.

Date:23-10-20

At 75, the UN needs a rebirth

There must be a global push against the rules that have privileged rule of the few over the many

Sreeram Chaulia is Dean, Jindal School of International Affairs

October 24 marks the diamond jubilee of the United Nations. But far from joyous celebration, it is an occasion to sombrely reflect on why the UN is stagnating at 75 and how it can regain its lost lustre.

Although much has changed in the international system since 1945, the world body continues to see a tussle between ‘principle’ and ‘power’. On the one hand, the UN represents hopes of a peaceful and just world order through multilateral cooperation, abidance by international law, and uplift of the downtrodden. On the other, the institution has been designed to privilege the most powerful states of the post-World War II dispensation by granting them commanding heights over international politics via the undemocratic instruments of veto power and permanent seats in the Security Council (UNSC).

Arguably, if the great powers of that period were not accommodated with VIP status, we may have seen a repeat of the ill-fated League of Nations. Keeping all the major powers inside the tent and reasonably happy through joint control over the UNSC was intended to be a pragmatic step to avoid another world war. Presumably, the collective command model of big powers built into the UNSC is one of the reasons why there has been no third world war.

A model that didn’t work

But this model has also caused havoc. Almost immediately after the UN’s creation, it was pushed to the verge of irrelevance by the Cold War, which left the UN little room to implement noble visions of peace, development and human rights. It was only in the uncontested post-Cold War political milieu, when the liberal sole superpower, the U.S., strode like a colossus, that the UN could spring back to life and embark on a plethora of peacekeeping missions, nation-building interventions and promotion of universal human rights. In the U.S.-led ‘new world order’ of the 1990s, it appeared as if the problem of ‘power’ cutting out ‘principle’ had been resolved under the benign hegemony of a Washington that would be the flag-bearer of UN values.

However, that golden age of the UN was too deceptive to last. We are now past the unipolar moment and the ghosts of the Cold War are returning in complex multi-sided avatars. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has labelled the present peaking of geopolitical tensions as a “great fracture”. The phrase ‘new Cold War’ is in vogue to depict the clash between China and the U.S. Tensions involving other players like Russia, Turkey, Iran and Israel in West Asia, as well as between China and its neighbours in Asia, are at an all-time high.

The recrudescence of the worst habits of competitive vetoing by P-5 countries has prevented the UNSC from fulfilling its collective security mandate. So dangerous are the divisions and their spillover effects that Mr. Guterres has lamented that “we have essentially failed” to cooperate against the immediate global threat of the pandemic. He has also rekindled the old maxim, “The UN is only as strong as its members’ commitment to its ideals.”

Obstacles to reforms

But apart from rivalries of member states, there is a larger underlying problem. At the core of the paralysis of the UN is the phenomenon of P-5 countries (China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.) blocking reforms. Outmoded procedures based on the discriminatory original sin of superior prerogatives to P-5 countries have to be discarded. Why should expansion of the UNSC require consensus of the P-5? In the 21st century, why should there be veto power in anyone’s hands? If a simple majority voting method could replace the P-5 consensus method, the obstacles to UNSC reforms would reduce.

On the 75th anniversary of the UN, there must be a global push against ossifying ‘rules’ which have privileged ‘rule’ of the few over the many. That is the only way to restore some balance between ‘power’ and ‘principle’ and ensure a renaissance of the UN.

Date:23-10-20

दंगों की आग में घी डालता सोशल मीडिया

मोहम्मद शहजाद

अफवाहों के पैर नहीं होते। इसके बावजूद ये चलती बहुत तेज हैं। नासमझी की बैसाखी के सहारे ही इनकी रफ्तार पहले ही कुछ कम न थी। उस पर सोशल मीडिया ने तो मानो इन्हें पंख ही दे दिए हैं। इसके भयावह नतीजे सामने आ रहे हैं। बीते फरवरी महीने में राष्ट्रीय राजधानी दिल्ली में हुए सांप्रदायिक दंगे इसकी हालिया नजीर हैं। इन दंगों में सोशल मीडिया ने आग में घी डालने का काम किया। दिल्ली दंगों पर जिम्मेदार नागरिकों, वकीलों और छात्रों द्वारा जारी रिपोर्ट में यह सामने आया है।

‘फरवरी 2020 के दिल्ली दंगे : कारण, दुष्प्रभाव और परिणाम’ शीषर्क से जारी रिपोर्ट में दावा किया गया है कि नागरिकता संशोधन कानून के क्रियान्वयन और उसके बाद होने वाले धरना-प्रदशर्नों के कारण घृणात्मक भाषणों में इजाफा हुआ। इसकी वजह से सांप्रदायिक हिंसा की आग भड़की। रिपोर्ट में कहा गया है कि दिल्ली दंगों का माहौल किसी बारूद के ढेर की तरह तैयार था जो हल्की-सी चिंगारी से भड़क जाता। एक भाजपा नेता के भड़काऊ भाषण और एक महिला की लाइव फेसबुस पोस्ट ने मानो उस माहौल में ऐसा ही प्रभाव डाला। सोशल मीडिया पर चली अफवाहों और बेबुनियाद बातें दंगे शुरू होने की महत्त्वपूर्ण वजह बनीं। रिपोर्ट में उत्तर-पूर्वी दिल्ली दंगों के भड़कने में जहां सोशल मीडिया को अहम कारक के तौर पर इंगित किया गया है, वहीं कई दिनों तक इनके बेकाबू होने के पीछे भी इसे काफी हद तक दोषी करार दिया गया है। इसमें साजिश के तौर पर दंगाइयों की भीड़ जमा करने के साथ-साथ पुलिस की संदिग्ध भूमिका, अकर्मण्यता, दंगाइयों के साथ नरम रु ख जैसी बातों का भी उल्लेख है। देश में होने वाले लगभग सभी सांप्रदायिक दंगों में ये बातें सामान्यत: देखने को मिलती हैं, लेकिन रिपोर्ट में दंगों के फैलाव की बड़ी वजह सोशल मीडिया पर कई दिनों तक चली अफवाहों और उनके जरिए हमलों को समन्वित और संगठित करने की बात भी कही गई है।

इधर दंगों में सोशल मीडिया के गलत इस्तेमाल की बातें लगातार सामने आ रही हैं। भीमा कोरेगांव और कासगंज समेत देश में हालिया दंगों में इसी तरह के मामले सामने आए हैं। गहराई में जाने पर हमेशा से ही सभी दंगों में मूल तत्व ‘अफवाह’ ही निकलती रही है, लेकिन पहले गली-नुक्कड़ और चौपालों पर होने वाली चर्चा इनके फैलने का माध्यम थीं। लोगों की जुबानी फैलने के बावजूद इसे फैलने में कुछ तो समय लगता था जिसकी वजह से कई बार पर प्रशासन की सर्तकता से डैमेज कंट्रोल हो जाता था। अब इन चर्चाओं और अड्डेबाजी का रूप-प्रारूप और स्थान बदल गया है। चाय की चुस्कियों और हुक्के की गुड़गुड़ की जगह टेक्नोलॉजी ने ले ली है। सोशल मीडिया नामी प्लेटफार्म अब चर्चा का अड्डा बन गया है। इसमें कई बार बड़ी कारआमद और ज्ञानवर्धक बहसें होती हैं, लेकिन कई बार बड़ी निर्थक और तर्कहीन बातें भी होती हैं।

दिल्ली दंगों के दौरान भी सोशल मीडिया पर ऐसी कई आधारहीन सामग्रियां फैलाई गई। मसलन, भोपाल की महिलाओं का वीडियो सीएए विरोधी धरने पर बैठी महिलाओं से जोड़ा गया। फिर दिल्ली दंगों के दौरान जानबूझ कर सोशल मीडिया के जरिए ऐसी बातों का प्रचार-प्रसार किया गया जिनसे लोगों की भावनाएं भड़कें। सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल एक वीडियो ने जहां एक वर्ग की भावनाओं को भड़काया तो वहीं जली मस्जिदों और उस पर भगवा झंडा लगाने से दूसरे समुदाय की भावनाएं आहत हुई। आम तौर पर जब भी कहीं हिंसा या सांप्रदायिक दंगे-फसाद होते हैं, तो स्थिति को नियंत्रित करने के लिए धारा-144 जैसी कुछ पाबंदियां लगाई जाती हैं। सोशल मीडिया चूंकि आभासी दुनिया है, इसलिए इस पर धारा-144 लागू करना और लोगों के समूह को इकट्ठा होने से रोकना संभव नहीं है। दंगे-फसाद जैसी परिस्थितियों में हालात बेकाबू होने पर जैसे प्रभावित क्षेत्रों में कर्फ्यू लगाने की मजबूरी होती है, उसी तरह सोशल मीडिया को दंगाई न बनने देने के लिए हालात नियंत्रित होने तक उस पर कुछ दिनों के लिए पाबंदी लगाई जा सकती है। साथ ही, सोशल मीडिया पर नफरत फैलाने वालों के खिलाफ कठोर कार्रवाई हो।

Date:23-10-20

हमारी संप्रभुता

संपादकीय

सोशल मीडिया साइट्स की निगरानी दिन-प्रतिदिन आवश्यक होती जा रही है। एक संप्रभु देश की आजादी और उदारता के साथ ट्विटर ने जो खिलवाड़ किया, उसका जवाब कुछ देर से ही सही, भारत सरकार के आईटी सचिव ने दे दिया है। करीब तीन दिन पहले ही ट्विटर की कमी सामने आ गई थी और नागरिक स्तर पर ही काफी विरोध के बाद ट्विटर ने अपनी बड़ी खामी को तकनीकी कमी बताकर बचने की कोशिश की थी। भारत में लोकप्रिय हो चुकी एक सोशल साइट का ऐसा चलताऊ नजरिया भत्र्सना-लायक है। यह पहली बार नहीं है कि लेह-लद्दाख के क्षेत्र को ट्विटर न केवल जम्मू-कश्मीर का हिस्सा बता रहा है, बल्कि जम्मू-कश्मीर को रिपब्लिक ऑफ चाइना में दिखा रहा है। इस मामले में ट्विटर की कोशिश अनजान बने रहने की लगती है, इसलिए नागरिकों की शिकायत की उसे ज्यादा परवाह नहीं है। भारत में लद्दाख आज केंद्र शासित प्रदेश है, जिसकी राजधानी लेह है। लद्दाख अब कतई जम्मू-कश्मीर का हिस्सा नहीं है। अव्वल तो ट्विटर ने अभी तक लद्दाख को केंद्र शासित प्रदेश नहीं माना है, इसके बावजूद यह कंपनी भारत में सेवाएं दे रही है? दूसरी बात, लेह को जम्मू-कश्मीर का हिस्सा बताना और साथ ही चीन में बता देना तो देश की संप्रभुता के साथ खिलवाड़ है।

अगर किसी एक कंपनी को हम अपने देश के नक्शे से खिलवाड़ करने देंगे, तो फिर अराजकता फैलने से कैसे रोकेंगे? क्या हमारी खुफिया या आईटी एजेंसियों को इस बात का एहसास नहीं है कि लेह-लद्दाख को चीन का हिस्सा कैसे दर्शाया जा सकता है? जो दावा साम्राज्यवादी चीन भी नहीं करता, उसे कोई कंपनी अपने ग्राहकों को कैसे दुस्साहस के साथ दिखा-बता सकती है? उस कंपनी में कौन लोग हैं, जिन्हें न भारत के भूगोल का ज्ञान है, न इतिहास का? संप्रभुता के साथ ऐसे खिलवाड़ को कतई हल्के में नहीं लेना चाहिए। नागरिकों को यह शिकायत का मौका नहीं मिलना चाहिए, यह देखना स्वयं सरकार का काम है कि कोई भी कंपनी अगर भारत में सेवा दे, तो वह भारतीय भूगोल, इतिहास और संविधान की पालना करे। यह सवाल बड़ा है कि क्या ट्विटर यही हिमाकत चीन में कर सकता है? क्या ऐसी हिमाकत अमेरिका में मुमकिन है? जब इन देशों के साथ खिलवाड़ संभव नहीं, तब भारत के साथ क्यों? विदेशी कंपनियों को भारत के बड़े बाजार का लाभ देते हुए भारत की उदारता का भी लाभ कतई नहीं देना चाहिए, जबकि ऐसा लगता है कि वे अधिकतम सीमा तक लाभ ले रही हैं। बेशक, विदेशी मूल की कंपनियां भारतीय गरिमा को लेकर बाद में जागेंगी, पहले भारतीय एजेंसियों को आंख-कान खुले रखने होंगे।

ठीक इसी तरह की शिकायत कई बार अरुणाचल प्रदेश से भी आती है, जहां चीन निर्मित कुछ मोबाइल सेट और उसके कुछ ऐप भारत की बजाय चीन की सेवा के लिए उत्सुक नजर आते हैं। ऐसे मामलों को बहुत गंभीरता से लेने की जरूरत है। जो कंपनियां बहुत सफाई से तकनीकी खामी का बहाना बनाकर किसी और देश की चौधराहट को तुष्ट कर रही हैं, उन्हें बहुत साफ तौर पर कड़ा संदेश देना होगा। जब सूचना युद्ध चल रहा है, तब साइबर संसार में अपने क्षेत्र की रक्षा करना हमारा दायित्व है। साइबर संसार में अगर हम हार मान लेंगे, तो असली संसार में हमारे लिए मुसीबतें बढ़ती चली जाएंगी।