India ‘Star Wars’ in Space

The defense department in India is considering outer space as a new military medium. Arackaparambil Kurian Antony, India’s Defense Minister, announced the creation of the Integrated Space Cell. The reason given for this construction was a supposed threat to India’s assets in space.

The cell will be operated by representatives of India’s three sectors of military forces, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO,) and the civilian Department of Space. The threats will be examined in more detail once the cell is built. The defense minister said “Offensive counter-space systems like anti-satellite weaponry, new classes of heavy-lift and small boosters and an improved array of military space systems have emerged in our neighborhood.” Of course, he would like to take measure to counter these efforts before they become more of an issue. 

The cell has supposedly been in operation for a number of months, but was only recently announced. The Integrated Defense Services headquarters of India’s Ministry of Defense leads the project.

Around 16 months prior to the previous chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Shashi Tyagi, stated that India was “in the process of setting up an aerospace command to exploit outer space by integrating its capabilities” the defense minister revealed the cell plans.

Tyagi’s statement came shortly after China used a ballistic missile to shoot down one of its own outdated satellites. This proved that China was among one of three known countries with the technology to take out a satellite. This probably hastened India’s decision, but more general reasons such as the reliance on space communcations.

Lawrence Prabhakar, a professor of political science said “such a cell is an organizational initiative, essential to the operational requirements of space-based assets for dual civilian-military operations and applications.” Prabhakar also stated “with the army, the air force and the navy relying on space-based communication satellites for reconnaissance, surveillance or operations and the Indian armed forces adopting a joint doctrine that enhances greater lateral integration between the three services, an Integrated Space Cell has become a necessity.”

India does have quite a bit of investment in space technology. It has had great success in satellite launching. In March it set a world record for successfully placing 10 satellites in one mission. The space program plans to have mission to space, the moon, and possibly even Mars. Currently India’s satellites contribute to development, education, weather, defense, and emergency communications. It is 40% cheaper to build a satellite in India compared to the US and European countries.

Aerospace command had been more loosely discussed in the Indian Air Force since the late 1990’s. Now, at least according to Prabkar, it will probably still be another 15 or 20 years before the systems are fully in place.

Water Issues In South Asia

If there is any single most important issue that mars bilateral relations among the countries of the subcontinent, it is water. The issues of cross-border water distribution, utilisation, management and mega irrigation/hydro-electric power projects affecting the upper and lower riparian countries are gradually taking centre-stage in defining interstate relations as water scarcity increases and both drought and floods make life too often miserable.Thanks to its location, size and contiguous borders with other South Asian countries, it is India, in its capacity as both upper and lower riparian, that has come into conflict with most of its neighbours, except Bhutan, on the cross-border water issues. Given an atmosphere of mistrust, an upper riparian India has serious issues to resolve with lower riparian Pakistan and Bangladesh and, despite being lower riparian, with the upper riparian Nepal. This, however, does not mean that India is solely responsible for certain deadlocks, even though its share of responsibility may be larger than other countries which have their own physical limitations and political apprehensions.

As elsewhere in the world, and more particularly in the subcontinent where population explosion continues and environmental degradation worsens, water resources, like energy, are going to be much lower than the increasing demand, even if they are harnessed to the most optimum. Given the depleting resources of water, the issues of human security, and water security as its most crucial part, are going to assume astronomical proportions. The issues of water distribution and management are bringing not only countries of the region, but also states and regions within provinces into conflict since they are not being settled amicably within a grand framework of riparian statutes respecting upstream and downstream rights.

What is, however, quite appreciable is that the countries of the subcontinent have made certain remarkable efforts to resolve their differences over water distribution through bilateral agreements. India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in 1960 allocating three eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) to India and three western rivers (Indus, Jehlum, Chenab) to Pakistan. The IWT has remarkably survived the ups and downs of Indo-Pak relations, and despite wars the parties upheld the Treaty, although serious differences persist over various projects being undertaken by India over Jehlum (2 projects) and Chenab (9 projects) rivers. Similarly, the Ganges Water-Sharing Treaty (GWST) was signed between India and Bangladesh in 1996 and resolved the dispute over Farakha Barrage, although differences continue on Bangladesh’s share of water during the lean period. Nepal and India also signed the Mahakali Treaty in 1996, but despite ratification by the Nepalese parliament, the Treaty has remained stalled.

Despite these treaties, serious differences over water sharing, water management and hydropower projects continue to spoil relations between India, on the one hand, and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, on the other. Differences between India and Pakistan continue to create ill-will between the two on around 11 large hydroelectric projects India plans to construct, including the Baglihar Project over which Pakistan has sought the appointment of a neutral expert by the World Bank after the failure of talks. More than the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the issue of the waters of Jehlum and Chenab has the potential to once again provoke people in Pakistan against India and push the two countries to war.

Bangladesh, which shares 54 rivers with India as a lower riparian, has serious differences with New Delhi that hinder agreement on eight rivers, besides the continuing complaints by Dhaka over sharing of water of Ganges. The Indian plan, which is now under review, to build a big river-linking-project that includes diversion of water from Ganges and Brahmaputra, has become yet another source of antagonism between the two countries who have not been able to sort out their differences over a whole range of issues that continue to fuel political tension which, in turn, does not allow the resolution of differences over water.

As an upper riparian, Nepal has a different relationship with India and faces many problems in constructing its dams due to opposition by the lower riparian and has serious doubts about the projects proposed by India. Nepal’s mistrust, beside other factors, has been reinforced by what it perceives to be various unequal treaties — starting from Sharada Dam construction (1927), 1950 Treaty and Letters of Exchange of 1950 and 1965, Koshi Agreement (1954), Gandak Agreement ((1959), Tanakpur Agreement (1991) and the Mahakali Treaty (1996). Since 400 million people live in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna region, India needs Nepal to meet its energy needs and for management of water.

Besides many issues of water sharing among the countries of subcontinent, there are huge water and energy related issues that are critically affecting the food security, environment and agriculture. Above all, projections of scarcity of water in the future present a doomsday scenario. There are serious differences over water-sharing within different states/provinces in India (Ravi-Beas dispute between Punjab and Haryana and Cauvery dispute among the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry) and Pakistan (water sharing dispute and construction of dams over Indus between Punjab and Sindh and also NWFP). Rigorous exploitation of groundwater in India and Pakistan is rapidly depleting aquifers which is a cause of great concern. Contamination of water and presence of arsenic in groundwater has become a major concern, especially, in Bangladesh and some parts of India and Pakistan.

Climatic changes that are being forecasted and low-water discharges need to be addressed collectively. India should, as SAFMA’s Delhi Declaration says, ‘make more efforts to discuss bilaterally with its neighbours problems relating to river waters. A new regional understanding of the riparian issues is essential to resolve Indo-Nepal, Indo-Bangladesh and Indo-Pakistan water issues’. Some way out should be found on the Baglihar issue between India and Pakistan to keep the sanctity of Indus Water Treaty. Regional Riparian Statutes must be obligatory to resolve the bilateral water disputes. RRR statute model, respecting Helsinki Convention proposes 8K upstream and downstream rights, should guide the countries of subcontinent to avoid conflict over water and reach a lasting understanding for the collective good of our people. Lastly, the ‘middle-path’ adopted by Bhutan should guide the planners for sustainable development that is environment friendly and is not carried by supply-side approach of the big dam lobbies.

Healthcare in South Asia

Most South Asian countries continue to perform poorly on most social indicators, something that is reflected in their human development indices. With the onset of structural adjustment reforms, even the policy commitment to free, universal healthcare has quietly slipped into the wings. The shifting emphasis on fiscal management and structural adjustment has restricted the public sector’s role to ‘regulation’ and little more. Evidently, healthcare provision is no longer the business of the state, as against universal and equitable provision of healthcare, which is not only a basic human right, but also the prerequisite of a dynamic human resource. Without an elaborate healthcare system and effective population planning, focusing on women and children’s healthcare, South Asia cannot join the ranks of civilised nations.In the case of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, the Government of India had affirmed its policy commitment to providing universal and, more importantly free, healthcare even before Partition in 1947. But policies and budget allocations within and outside the health sector are not always made on the basis of need, but on what is politically expedient and on the ‘consumer’s’ ability to pay. Relegated as South Asia’s poor are to this euphemism, healthcare continues to be something the poor simply cannot afford.

Meanwhile, acute inefficiencies in healthcare, inadequate and inefficient resource allocation, and correspondingly poor service delivery have all triggered the growth of private sector healthcare providers available only at a higher price, leaving the poor and much of the lower-middle class - women and children in particular - at the mercy of disease and ill health. In many cases, it has only encouraged ‘over-diagnosis’ and ‘over-medication’ with the aim of profiteering.

The blue-ribbon Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), convened in 2005 by the World Health Organization (WHO) maintains that longevity and susceptibility to disease often have less to do with infections and genetics than with the social determinants of health - factors such as income, education, occupation, access to services such as sanitation, good medical treatment, and decent housing. In South Asia, we have yet to come to terms with the interlocking relationships between economic achievements, social investments, and health outcomes. Not only does a country’s state of health boost economic output, economics can and should promote better health as well.

The urban and elitist biases inherent in health facilities in most South Asian countries, and the neglect of primary and tertiary healthcare, mean that such facilities over-care for the rich and neglect the poor. With the exception of Sri Lanka, these countries’ health sectors have tended to evolve in line with the broader dynamics of ‘free’ market forces, the inherent class contradictions of which have led to the development of a largely curative-care model. Medical education at local institutions in the region often replicates what is found in developed countries, resulting in a demand for the ‘latest’ (which does not necessarily mean the most appropriate) medical care.

This bleak picture aside, there are nonetheless instances that show that it is possible to challenge the hegemony of laissez-faire economics under which health, and indeed other social services, become profiteering ventures. Sri Lanka’s success in developing a highly dispersed rural health infrastructure and policies rooted in preventative healthcare; and the success of Pakistan’s community-embedded Lady Health Workers Programme, show that health outcomes need be achieved even at the cost of economic gains. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has often candidly pointed out, people can hardly be expected to generate income when they are not healthy enough to hold a job.

Improving the state of health in the region requires a creative and more far-reaching approach to how the health and well-being of the region’s people can be improved. Sri Lanka, for instance, has been able to use efficiency gains to keep government health spending limited to less than two percent of its GDP. By giving curative and preventative healthcare priority in public health budgets, and allowing access to precede quality, the country’s public healthcare providers have not allowed themselves to be dislodged by the private sector.