President Donald Trump signed an executive order to try to bring jobs back to American workers and revamp the H-1B visa guest worker programme.... . . .

When it comes to immigration stories, the United States government’s decision to raise the salary requirements of H-1B visa workers have received the most attention among Indians. Contemporaneously, Australia and New Zealand have also announced plans to slash the number of visas available to high-skilled temporary workers. Similar policy moves are being considered or are being carried out by many other countries, largely in the developed world.

None of this should come as a surprise. High-skilled worker migration has generally been a phenomenon of advanced economies – and most of these are suffering from anaemic growth, weak job creation and stagnant middle-class incomes. As has happened before, poor economics undermines political support for this particularly category of visas. The parameters by which H-1B visas been issued have kept shifting over nearly three decades, depending on the political economy of the US at the time.

There are demands that New Delhi should treat this as a litmus test of the bilateral relationship and make H-1B visas a point of contention with the Trump administration. This would be a mistake. A country’s immigration policy, in effect its control of its own borders, is among the most sovereign-based decisions of any government. Washington will rightly reject any attempt to be told to who and whom it can issue a visa to – as would New Delhi if it was in a similar position. The larger geopolitical and economic drivers in the Indo-US relationship are much more important than the US’s decision to raise the cost of a visa. In fact, the preservation of the steady flow of legal Indian migration to the US, a human bridge which has benefited both countries, is of greater importance than the H-1B niche.

Having said this, there can be no doubt that such visas have a larger-than-life profile with the Indian public because of their association with the successful software services sector. But the so-called Mode 4 model that drove the H-1B visa is slowly dying thanks to automation and an increasing preference in Silicon Valley for in-house software expertise. The Indian software industry is within its rights to lobby the US Congress for to save the H-1B visa, but the Indian government should be wary of investing too much diplomatic capital in what is likely to a quixotic campaign. There are much more important issues to be worked out with the Trump administration. New Delhi could have fixed skilled worker visas with some of these countries as part a free trade agreement – as other countries have done. But since India is allergic to such agreements, that was never a serious option. Migration is a door that slams shut when even a small breeze blows. Right now, a gale is blowing and India must wait for it to wane.

Thanking you..

India must play its part in the global trading system, not shy away from it. . . . .

India is among the countries most vulnerable to rising global protectionism warns the most recent Global Financial Stability Report of the International Monetary Fund. Most of the demand that drives the international trading system still remains in the developed countries and as they raise the drawbridge against imports, the biggest losers will be emerging economies like China, India and South Africa.

The knock on effect on India will be not merely in terms of falling exports. It will also be in increased financial pressure on the balance sheets of local corporations and, therefore, the non-performing asset problems in the banking sector. And among six emerging economies that the IMF looked at, India has by far the most vulnerable banking sector.India is among the countries most vulnerable to rising global protectionism warns the most recent Global Financial Stability Report of the International Monetary Fund. Most of the demand that drives the international trading system still remains in the developed countries and as they raise the drawbridge against imports, the biggest losers will be emerging economies like China, India and South Africa.

The knock on effect on India will be not merely in terms of falling exports. It will also be in increased financial pressure on the balance sheets of local corporations and, therefore, the non-performing asset problems in the banking sector. And among six emerging economies that the IMF looked at, India has by far the most vulnerable banking sector.

The IMF report does not dwell on what can be done to salvage the global trading system. But it is an issue to which the Narendra Modi government should give some thought. India is a nation that has long been gripped by export pessimism, a term applied to countries who believe they cannot compete and opt out of international trade.

Yet almost all the countries who have pulled themselves out of poverty and into the ranks of high-income states have done so on the back of international trade.

The Modi government has run away from negotiating even the smallest free trade arrangements, ripped apart existing foreign investment treaties and run interference at multilateral trading talks.

This is unfortunate. New Delhi’s reluctance to more actively support the multilateral trading system – and in fact act as a spoiler to its success – is a remarkably short-sighted policy. India’s future growth continues to heavily depend on foreign investment and trade. Also the ability of India’s homegrown companies to become global players is tied strongly to their success in tapping the larger world market.

The Modi government’s reform measures, like “ease of doing business” and the Goods and Service Tax, will be important in making India globally more competitive.

Perhaps the government plans to re-engage the international trading system when it feels domestic industry is competitive enough. That may be a long time coming: Protectionism breeds mediocrity. Worse, there may not be much of a trading system to rejoin if countries like India are not prepared to lend it support when it is under attack.

Parents cannot let underage children drive. The consequences are often fatal. . . .

Parental complicity, a desire to impress peers, lack of driving skills and mental immaturity are leading to more and more underage driving with fatal consequences. The death of a person and injuries to four others in Delhi recently was the result of schoolboys, the driver just above the legal driving age limit, losing control of the car and running over sleeping pavement dwellers. With each year, the offenders are getting younger and parents more apathetic or indeed encouraging of their children getting behind the wheel. In 2015, 225 fines were issued for underage driving, up from 186 the previous year. Children between the ages of 15-16 years are among the worst offenders.

It is not just about being able to operate a car but also about the maturity and judgment needed to negotiate the roads. Since the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes a punishment of just Rs 500 for any offence by a driver below 18 or a maximum of three months in jail, it hardly acts as a deterrent. But in most cases, the teenage offender gets away with a warning. Now the law has been changed to provide for punishment to the parents of the offender, the jail term could stretch to three years. Yet, parents who should know better allow their children to drive in the firm belief that they can circumvent the law if something untoward takes place. That they are placing their own children in grave danger seems to have escaped many of them. That the car in the charge of an inexperienced teenager poses a huge threat to both him and others can only be driven home if the penalties are extremely stiff for those responsible, in most cases the parents.

In Kerala, a father was caught repeatedly posting pictures of his child driving high speed cars like Ferraris and when admonished expressed his determination to continue with the practice. The ability of their children to drive is seen as an achievement for many parents and their indulgence has on many occasions led to needless deaths of innocent people. Stricter checking on the roads is one part of the solution. But ultimately, the responsibility has to be with the parents who are bound by the law not to allow their underage wards to drive. There can be no good outcome to a child taking control of a high speed vehicle as we have seen in so many cases. The latest tragedy is proof, if any were needed, of that.

Jharkhand’s Aadhaar breach: India needs a strong data protection law. . . . . .

It is ironic that a technological solution that could have plugged India’s porous welfare delivery system — and saved the State huge amount of funds — is itself proving to be extremely leaky. On Saturday, thanks to a programming error, names, addresses, Aadhaar numbers and bank account details of a million beneficiaries of Jharkhand’s old age pension scheme – or digital identities — surfaced on a government website. When HT reporters logged onto the site, they could drill down to get transaction-level data on pension paid into scores of pension accounts. This major privacy breach comes at a time when the Supreme Court, cyber-security experts and opposition politicians have questioned the Modi government’s policy to make Aadhaar mandatory to get benefits of a variety of government schemes and services.

The purpose of Aadhar when it was mooted is laudable. It had and has great transformative potential, it could if implemented in the right way lessen corruption and put each Indian on the official map when it come to rights and benefits. But, the breach reminds us that the security of our information is in the hands of authorities who don’t know how to secure it. In an interview to HT, AB Pandey, CEO, UIDAI, indicated the scale of challenge that Aadhaar faces: “For security inside Aadhaar, yes, I would say it is secure…but the nature of security threats keep changing. So we have to show absolute vigilance and take every possible measure to constantly assess the threats”. This “constant assessment of threats” obviously did not happen in Jharkhand (the situation could be similar in other states as well) because certain basic challenges were not addressed before embarking on the Aadhaar “seeding” process: User education does not match the rate at which security-related risks are growing; departments that hold this information are ill-equipped to maintain and safeguard these sensitive databases; and, while the UIDAI’s servers are impervious to attack, there are thousands of insecure computers at block-level government offices. In Jharkhand, for instance, cyber security experts had long warned that many websites maintained by the state government were insecure. Moreover, this multiplicity of software solutions and private service providers makes it enormously difficult to implement nationwide fixes once vulnerability had been discovered in one state.

Despite such critical data privacy issues, there are no legal safeguards for citizens in case of a data breach. Cyber security expert Pranesh Prakash mentioned in a recent HT piece that the Aadhaar Act and Rules don’t limit the information that can be gathered by the enrolling agency; it doesn’t limit how Aadhaar can be used by third parties if they haven’t gathered their data from UIDAI; it doesn’t require your consent before third parties use your Aadhaar number to collate records about you. But if and when identity theft is committed, individuals may never come to know as the law does not require the UDIAI to inform citizens about a data breach.

What India requires today is a strong data-protection law. It should have preceded the Aaadhar roll-out but unfortunately it did not. Such a law can also ensure that data are not misused by private companies. Recently, the UIDAI filed FIRs against eight unauthorised websites for promising Aadhaar-related services, and illegally collecting Aadhaar number and enrolment details from people.

Aaadhar, however, requires greater scrutiny because of its scale, because it is mandatory, and because so many who are registered have neither the knowledge nor the means to protect themselves, or get recourse in case something goes wrong.

Tamil farmers’ strike over, but agrarian crisis looms large. . . . .

On Sunday, Tamil Nadu chief minister Edappadi Palaniswami met the farmers protesting at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and assured them that their demands would be met in a month’s time. But by convincing the protesting farmers to suspend their agitation, Mr Palaniswami has not addressed the problem — he has only managed to avert what could have soon become a political crisis for both the Centre and state. In the protest that went on for 41 days, the farmers, to highlight their plight, adopted several extreme measures, which included biting into dead mice and snakes, eating grass, and even threatening to drink urine and eat human faeces. In a harrowing protest, farmers hung human skulls, which they claimed were of dead farmers, around their necks.
Though it has now been suspended, the protest highlights the agrarian crisis in Tamil Nadu and many other parts of the country. It is a pity and reflects poorly on the nation when its farmers are pushed to such disturbing, even macabre, means to attract the attention of authorities towards what should be treated as nothing short of a national crisis. If corrective measures are not taken now, it could lead to more farmer suicides and protests.

With an increasing unpredictability in weather patterns, the demand for water is only set to increase. Unless awareness is created on how to judiciously use existing resources and replenish reserves, the requirement for water cannot be met satisfactorily. Also, with supply far below demand, water-related tensions will increase in frequency. The issue of inequality in water availability is set to raise tensions between states, as is seen between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the Cauvery water dispute.

The Centre, along with the states, needs to come up with a solution to address such riparian tensions, and set a template that can be used in the future. But precious little has been done. Basic steps, such as rainwater harvesting, which increases groundwater reserves, have not been made mandatory for every building in urban India.

The farmers’ protests should be a reminder to the government, both at the Centre and states, to focus on addressing the problems faced by them and ensure that farmers are not forced to turn to such measures in the future.

Thanking God For providing me time to sacrifice for uplifting the knowledge of common people..........

India needs an integrated military, not jugaad, to fight future wars. . . . .

India took another small step towards ensuring its defence preparedness is a lot more integrated with the release of joint doctrine encompassing all three military services. The doctrine, an expansion of an earlier more limited version issued in 2010 after the Kargil conflict, also incorporates new domains like cyber-security, non-state terrorism and space.

Such doctrines are largely statements of intent rather than evidence of what is actually taking place operationally on the ground. India, after all, has been kicking around the idea of tri-service joint operations since the 1990s. And the Army, Navy and Air Force still operate 17 separate commands that can carry out military operations together on the basis of the officer corps’ jugaad rather than actual institutional togetherness.

Ad hoc operational co-ordination is a serious problem on a construction site or football team, it is downright dangerous when it comes to a country’s national security. The Kargil conflict, and the difficulties that the Army and Air Force had in combining forces, was the last time the issue of joint military action was take up seriously. Since then the concept has been kicked around by various papers, committees and reports with little evidence that the political system even saw the issue as important.

The new doctrine has taken the theoretical aspect even further, postulating tri-service coordination when it comes to cyberspace and other less tangible military theatres. While the mental homework on integrated defence continues, there remains little sign of forward progress in terms of making this a reality.

The first step towards making a joint doctrine actually functional would be the creation of a joints chief of defence staff and creating means for officers to be rotated through all three services and provide the backbone for such a position. The creation of the chief of defence staff has been reportedly on the Narendra Modi government’s to-do list for at least the past year.

The Supreme Court breathes new life into the Babri Masjid demolition trials,,,,

A nearly moribund prosecution has been given a new lease of life by the Supreme Court. By ordering a joint trial into two cases arising out of the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992, and demanding that the trial court in Lucknow hear the matter on a day-to-day basis, the court has reinforced the importance of reaching a speedy judicial resolution in a matter that has already been horribly delayed. It was a mere technicality that resulted in the case relating to the actual act of demolition by numberless kar sevaks being tried in a special court in Lucknow and another relating to BJP political leaders being tried in Rae Bareli on the charge of inciting ill-will and hatred. The Uttar Pradesh government’s failure to cure a technical defect in an earlier notification, and the failure of the CBI to challenge it at the relevant time, led to the situation of separate proceedings continuing for years. It is regrettable that a case relating to the promotion of communal disharmony, one that had a bearing on riots and reprisals in the following months, was mired in judicial stagnation and administrative apathy for a quarter century. The court order reinfuses life into this necessary prosecution and reinforces faith in the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has revived the charge of criminal conspiracy against senior BJP leaders L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others, a small but significant change in the nature of the prosecution in a case that relates to the speeches they made, which allegedly incited the kar sevaks to pull down the mosque. In political terms, this is an embarrassment for the BJP. It has always maintained that the Ayodhya case against its leaders was essentially political in nature, but this charge now has a hollow ring with the Supreme Court itself reviving the conspiracy charge and fast-tracking the trial. As for Mr. Advani, this draws a curtain on his long political career; if it is true that he nursed ambitions about becoming the country’s next President, this almost certainly puts an end to that dream. But more than Mr. Advani and Mr. Joshi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have cause to worry about how to deal with the continuance of Ms. Bharti as a Union Minister. Given that the party had demanded the resignation of charge-sheeted ministers in the previous government, it will now face the uncomfortable predicament of one of its own facing a criminal trial. There is also the question about the propriety of allowing Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh, the man who was the U.P. Chief Minister on that fateful day in December 1992, to remain in the Raj Bhavan. While it is true that he enjoys constitutional immunity because of his gubernatorial office, he will be subject to the law the moment he demits office. There is no legal compulsion for either of them to quit, but the issue for a government that waxes eloquent about probity in public life is to ask if there is a moral case for their continuance.