World Trade Organization (WTO) & India
Guest Column by Hari Sud
India’s Commerce Minister Kamal Nath walked out of WTO meet in Geneva on June 30, 2006 and returned home. It was a well-orchestrated policy to let the West (all the leading industrialized nations) know that India and other developing countries (LDCs) are no longer a push over. The sticking point at this time has been the huge farm subsidies, which the West provides to its farming sector. Massive farm subsidies undercut the competitors and prevent the rest of the world from enjoying benefits of trade. This impasse will persist until the West works harder to level the playing field and help liberalize the trade. Geneva meet has ended. Both the developed countries as well as the LDCs (through a group called G-20) are internally busy to consolidate their respective position before the next ministerial meet. Failure to reach a deal by yearend will prevent the US and the EU, enjoying greater benefits of trade liberalization. Their industrial products, which is the other side of the trade off on farm subsidy cut, will continue to face import restrictions in the LDCs.
What is WTO?
It is a 149-member organization with Pascal Lamay as its head. It represents all the trading nations of the world, who import-export goods & services. Created on Jan1, 1995, it was considered the biggest reform in trade since WWII. Its predecessor, GATT (General Agreement on Tariff & Trade), had a tumultuous 47 years history. GATT made a beginning in 1948, and provided a framework for trade expansion vis-à-vis removing barriers on free movement of goods and services. It provided platform for 8 trade negotiations in its checkered history until 1994, the last trade negotiations the Uruguay Round, resulted in the creation of WTO. In each of these ‘Rounds’ (high level negotiations), the West, mostly Europe, Japan and North America negotiated trade deals with themselves in mind. The developing world including India, China, most of Africa and Latin America were forgotten as backward and without any clout. For Example, the Kennedy Round of 1963 quadrupled the world trade. At that time India and China had not emerged and hence did not figure in the world trade talks. Tokyo Round of 1973-79 quadrupled the already quadrupled world trade in last 25 years. In each case tariffs and trade distorting subsidies were progressively reduced on industrial goods & services. The West enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. US & Japan were the biggest gainers, followed by the all the nations of the Europe. Poor countries stayed poor. Nobody spoke on their behalf, and they had no clout to make their presence felt. There are simple reasons for that. First, the poor countries had no money to compete in the international market with quality goods, second subsidies provided by the nations to encourage development after WWII made their products much cheaper. Hence a die was cast for poor to stay poor. In 1982, China burst on the international trade scene. In 2002, India became an upcoming star for the world to take note. Hence a new trade body was needed to regulate and encourage trade. Hence at the Uruguay Round, a decision was taken to set up a new body (WTO) to manage the growing trade.
Special Mention of Doha Round
Doha Round deserves special attention, as it is the first trade related conference after GATT was re-incarnated into WTO. At a ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar, WTO member countries, 149 in all, agreed to launch new trade negotiations. This time it was different, India and China had emerged on the scene as major trading nations. Also the developing world was not going to sit around idly and watch as the West implement trade policies favoring them-selves. In short, developing countries made it clear that unless the developed world allowed them greater access to their markets, there will be no changes to the multilateral trading framework. A bunch of nations (G-20) spearheaded this policy with India & Brazil as its leaders. The G-20s approached the negotiations with the developed world with three main areas of unhappiness:
Discriminatory tariffs on goods and services between developed world and the developing world as against tariffs they use between themselves. This prevented a level playing field for all the developing nations of the world.
Farm subsidies, which the developed world gives to its farmers, distort the cost structure. Agricultural production in EU & USA is heavily subsidized. These subsidies have been in place for decades. Major beneficiaries of these subsidies are US corporate farmers, and French farm and processing sector in the EU. With these subsidies in place the developing world loses its advantage. Additionally farm imports from developing world are under heavy tariff, which effectively keeps these products out.
A major irritant in the trade policies have been the textile exports. Quota system effectively killed any cotton textile business from prospering in the developing world. Luckily, the EU & US relented on these policies. As of last year this policy has been disbanded.
Doha Round discussions began with this background. WTO intentions were good except these could not be translated into concrete policies. These irritants have resulted in the deadlock in negotiations. Brazil the most efficient agricultural products producer has concentrated its energies during Doha Ministerial discussions on reduction in farm subsidies in EU and US. India & Pakistan are concentrating on textiles and farm produce. Additional trade concessions on service sector have also been sought by India. The service sector is the key to India’s future as an economic power.
The Current Impasse and the Looming Time Table of 2006
The trade discussions take long-long time to make even a small headway. Ministers, who discuss at the meetings, revert back & forth on their position as their home governments like or dislike progress at the talks. The current inconclusive talks in Geneva were the continuance of earlier talks in Hong Kong. The latter were also inconclusive. Politically developing countries are unlikely to accept any formula on their industrial tariffs, without corresponding cuts by the developed countries in subsidies and tariffs. Anything less will be a political suicide for any political system in a democratic country. But there is a deadline looming. The present US President has been empowered by the US Congress to finish trade negotiations by middle of 2007 and present them with a trade deal, for an up or down vote. This fast track mechanism has actually simplified trade negotiation process with the world’s biggest trading nation i.e. US. In order for that to happen, virtually all trade discussions have to be completed by end of 2006. This deadline is driving all the current hectic activity. US being the most powerful of all the trading nations and with its currency as the basis of trade deal settlement is in the driver’s seat.
Agriculture is at the heart of this round of talks. Consider these few statistics: Agricultural trade is about $800 Billion worth worldwide. It is about 9% of the world total trade. Unfortunately it is the most protected sector. EU is the largest trader in agricultural products including internal trade between member countries. It exports $350 Billion worth of agricultural products (including internal trade) and imports about $380 Billion. US are distant second with $80 Billion in agricultural exports. The sticking point is amount of subsidies and tariffs to be cut by both EU & US. G-20 has urged EU to cut 54% of its tariffs on agricultural products and US to slash 75% of its agricultural subsidies. These are unacceptable to the EU & US. In return they have offered 39% reduction in tariffs and 53% reduction in subsidies.
The above gap, in what the developing countries want and what the developed countries have offered has not changed one bit in last six months of negotiations, hence the angry walk out by the India’s Commerce Minister from the Geneva discussion. Although the Western media heralded it as an astringent Indian attitude yet the truth is otherwise.
If no deal is reached and the US Congress deadline passes then this missed opportunity will not herald an end of the world trading system. Trade will continue as before. But its expansion may not be as dramatic as one would hope. Next opportunity may not arise for a decade or so. At that time, another ‘Round’ of discussions will be initiated and US Congress may empower its president to give another opportunity to negotiate a fast rack trade treaty.
Success or Failure of these Talks
In macro terms, India’s Commerce Minister laid out the impact of these talks on India. He said that success would mean that India could hope to boost its growth from about 8% to 10-11% in five years. Failure could take away a percentage or two from its growth. Hence stakes for India are very high. Similar benefits will accrue for Brazil, Pakistan, and South Africa. Other smaller nations will enjoy benefits in varying degrees. For the developed world of EU, and US, there will be a great satisfaction with the opening up of the markets, which hitherto have been closed. Industrial activity in Europe & US will multiply. As the developing world exports more, they will import more of West’s industrial goods & services. Hence, benefits to both groupings are huge. World trade could see a multifold expansion in twenty years.
World Bank has estimated that freeing trade of all barriers & subsidies, about 320 million people, living on $2 a day will be lifted out of the poverty line in about ten years. Other analysts have put a higher figure of 440 million. With that kind of possibilities, success at these negotiations is of great importance. Although, next ministerial discussions of WTO have not been scheduled yet both sides are busy re-evaluating their position. Soon they will meet again with upcoming deadline in mind. In any trade talks progress is slow. In these talks, the fundamentals have already been sorted out. It is the details, which are a contentious issue. Soon these will be sorted out too.
Challenges Within the EU Community, which are hindering Trade Talks
EU Commissioner holds the mandate to negotiate on behalf of the 25 member nations, but its hands are tied. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of EU and its reform may present a big hurdle. EU also knows that in order to get a better access for its industrial goods, they have to give up something. None of the member nations are willing to give up anything. Hence it may cause split on national lines. France, a major agricultural products producer would veto any deal, which contains a significant subsidy cut. On the other hand Briton and Germany would prefer reduced tariffs worldwide for their industrial products. In short, there is unlikely be a deal in the agricultural sector without French being on board. They are unlikely to be onboard without private incentives to them from within the EU. So far nothing has happened. EU commissioner is shuttling between capitals looking for an opening to break the impasse. He has not succeeded so far.
Is failure of Trade talks an Option?
If the talks fail, credibility of WTO will at stake. Nobody will take it seriously anymore. Bilateral trade agreements between nations will proliferate. This will circumvent the whole concept of multi-lateral trade co-operation. A huge market opening opportunity will be missed and all that have been accomplished in prior discussions may or may not be salvaged. In the absence of a global instrument, trade dispute resolution may also suffer. Worst impact will be on the developing countries. Their chances of progress will be curtailed. All the above will reflect poorly on WTO.
Let us hope that these talks succeed. It is in the greater interest of developed and the developing countries that this impasse is broken. Next such opportunity may be a decade away. At that time new realities will have to be taken into consideration. Some of the developing countries like India & China may ask for bigger piece of action. The West again may refuse and impasse may continue. By then WTO will be irrelevant and would have to be re-incarnated into something else. In the preceding years bilateral trade agreements will take the place of multi-lateral agreements. These bilateral agreements will be harder to circumvent, should any time in future WTO agreement is negotiated.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
India - food security & Its future
India - Food Security & Its Future
The first green revolution in India began in 1960s. It resulted in doubling of food grain production from 120 million tons in 1960 to 210 million tons today. It was the combined effort of high yield seeds, extensive use of fertilizers, land reforms and irrigation schemes that resulted in this remarkable achievement. Food self-sufficiency was achieved by 1984. As the year 1995 dawned, India was a net food exporter. This remarkable feat also included increased acreage of cultivable land from 116 million hectare in 1960 to 170 million hectare in 1990. In 1995, 850 million souls had about 190 million tones of food grain to share. Although the forgoing could not be classified as excess, yet it was enough to feed everybody about 2,200 calories a day. A few unlucky one did not get the basic minimum food intake, but it was a far cry from the days of famine and ration of 1950, 1956, 1965-67 and 1975-77.
In the last ten years, India has added 150 million more mouths to feed but has increased food production by only 15 million tons. Hence there is beginning to be an imbalance in supply and demand. Government of India in last 12 months has initiated steps to import as much as 5 million tons of wheat from Australia and elsewhere. It is not for lack of trying that food grain production has not kept up pace, but the present food grain production infrastructure can only produce this much. For a bigger harvest in coming years, different initiatives have to be taken to jump-start the stagnant agriculture sector.
This initiative could be three fold:
a) Use technology together with newer cultivation techniques.
b) Water management with harvesting excess Monsoon rainwater in the North and transporting it to the parched West and South.
c) Ensuring a better return to the farmers.
Each of the above has been under Government of India’s scanner. The latter is concerned about possible social upheaval, should the masses go hungry. The forgoing is not only a serious challenge in India, it has also been recognized as a serious challenge in China. Both India and China while focusing heavily on industrialization have not given due attention to food grains production. Now it is becoming increasingly important for both to shift focus a bit from industrialization to agriculture. China is worse off because rapid industrialization has created a massive acid rain problem. Acid rain is having a detrimental impact on agriculture. Already their wheat production of 125 million tones in 1995 has declined to 100 million tones in 2005. While in India, acid rain is not an issue increasing population will be one.
How Technology Will Help?
Technology is going to play a major role to take the grain production from about 210 million tones today to 300 million tons by 2020 (i.e. 6% increase per year). That much food supply is needed to feed the population, which by then will hit 1.4 billion mark. Any political party compromising on that requirement will not survive the ballot box. Hence technology has to become essential part to deliver higher food grain supply needs. Technology will play its role in the following ways:
Agricultural input management
Better seeds and cultivation techniques
Mechanization of Agricultural Machinery and Handling
A farmer has to become a part agronomist and a part economist. He has to depend upon the information age to know the weather pattern in advance (prior to planting crop), inputs like fertilizers needed for a particular crop, pest control schedule to safeguard crop and maximize advantage from the local irrigation schemes. Once the crop is harvested, the storage and handling losses are to be minimized with careful planning and good local storage. A farmer has to become party to the distribution system to prevent mal-distribution and handling losses. Genetically Modified crops (GM) will play a vital role in future. It should be remembered that Dr. Norman Borlaug’s developed the dwarf variety wheat in Mexico, which was adopted in India and thus began the first green revolution. Without adopting newer varieties of seeds and scientifically planned inputs, it will be harder to boost food grain output. Also Indian agriculture is heavily dependent on labor. In other words it is not fully mechanized. Although, tractor has become common in India to plough the fields, yet further mechanization until harvesting is scanty. There is one very basic requirement, which is mother of all agriculture output, i.e. timely rains and irrigation. Monsoon rains of June-September play a vital role in a particular year’s crop success. Timely rain helps; delayed rain or no rain hurts badly.
Water Supply Situation In India
Geographically, India has two major river basins. In the north, it is the Ganga River Basin, which together with Jamuna and other smaller rivers drain the rainwater and melting snow from Himalayas into the Bay of Bengal. This drainage system is joined by mighty Brahmaputra, which hugs the northern Himalayan contour in Tibet, then bursts into Assam plains and finally joins river Ganga in Bangladesh. This northern basin is surplus in water (34%) and acts as major source of water for irrigation and also inflicts misery during the Monsoon floods. This forgoing is supplemented in the West by five rivers, which originate in the Himalayas and drain south through Punjab and Pakistan into the Arabian Sea. These rivers, two in India and rest in Pakistan have been dammed carefully and canal system provides irrigation to Punjab, Haryana and northern Rajasthan. These rivers and canal system is independent of the Ganga river basin, although they all originate in different parts of Himalayas.
Southern river basin of Godavari, Krishna and Cauvary (and also Mahanadi in Orissa) provides the water and irrigation needs of the peninsular India. This area is south of Vindyachal mountain ranges, which runs roughly east to west, and stands as a hump in the middle of India. It is a dry and parched plateau except during the rainy season it receives sufficient rain to sustain a few rivers. Two of these rivers (Narmada & Tapti), flow east to west horizontally, and discharge into the Arabian Sea. Three more rivers, Chambal, Betwa and Son also originate from Vindya Ranges and flow north and join the Ganga river system. The only reason that these forgoing three rivers flow north are that the high plateau of Vindaya Ranges prevents drainage south. The above-mentioned southern peninsular river system irrigates the rice fields of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karanataka. Irrigation dams have been built on all the rivers and water and power potential had been harnessed. Although these four mighty rivers flow in the peninsular India, yet it is deficient in water (-20%). This deficiency prevents the southern India from utilizing its full agricultural potential. Hence, there is always a hope that some day, surplus water from the northern basin will be transferred south. It is easier said than done. Main problem is the Vindaya plateau. It runs 300 to 600 miles wide with an elevation of 300 to 1500 metes. Taking water over this hump is beyond present day engineering skill except at the expense of huge amount of electric power consumption. It will consume about 40% of all the power India generates today to undertake this step. Three times in last 50 years, this idea has been advanced and three times it has been rejected as unworkable.
The only idea, which seems to make sense, is to transfer the surplus northern water, westwards towards Rajasthan and Gujarat via Haryana. There is no major elevation disadvantage in going west and southwest. Minor mountain ranges can be circumvented. With the arrival of fresh water, parched lands of Rajasthan and Northern Gujarat will become fertile lands. A canal system about 1,600 miles long will eventually bring prosperity to these areas and add additional much needed food grain output to India. The forgoing scheme will also require interlinking Ganga, Jamuna and other Ganagetic plain rivers first. This could be further improved if surplus water of Brahmaputra is also added to this canal system. But Bangladesh stands in the way and is not amenable to any proposal.
Rainfall Pattern In Indian Subcontinent
Rivers in the north are perennial in nature, with a constant flow from the melting snow of the Himalayas. Their flow multiplies four times over during the rainy season from June till September. Annual average rainfall in Eastern India (Assam & Arunachal) is about 200 centimeters, with hilly areas receiving a much higher amount. All the rain, which falls in Arunachal, also flows back into Assam, hence adding to the tremendous surplus in water in River Brahmaputra. This becomes source of misery and destruction year after year. Northern Gangetic plains and the middle Himalayas receive about 100 to 250 centimeters of rain with Himalayan ranges receiving the higher amounts. All this water eventually flows back into the Gangetic basin and causes floods. By the time river Ganga & Brahmaputra join together in Bangladesh, they have too much water and all of it flows into Bay of Bengal but not before inflicting tremendous damage there.
Western Indian plains of Punjab, Haryana and Western UP receive anywhere from 100 to 150 centimeters of rain. This much rain is sufficient to grow good crop as well as keep floods in check. Occasionally the five rivers of Punjab overflow their banks, this happens when greater amount of rain falls in western Himalayan region. These floods have now been contained with floodwater being stored in mighty dams both in India and Pakistan. This later is used to sustain a very progressive agriculture. That does not mean that floods do not happen in Punjab and Pakistan. They do happen but happen less and less.
Western Rajasthan and northern Gujarat receives only 20 to 30 cm of rains. This much rain is insufficient to sustain agriculture, hence making a living there is a bit harder.
The southern peninsular region of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka receives about 50 cm of rainfall during the June-September season but gets additional 35 centimeter of rains during winter October-March time frame, giving it a reasonable total of about 85 centimeters of rain in a year. This much rain although not sufficient but sustains life there. Western Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and part of Orissa receives about 50 to 75 centimeters of rain during June-September time frame, but receive no rain during the winter period, hence these areas are perpetually deficient in water resources. West Coast of India receives a huge rainfall of about 100 to 250 centimeters in a year. This area has never been deficient in water. Sometimes it rains so much that cities on the West coast of India start floating in water like what happened in Mumbai this year.
Overall India receives average of 100 to 150 centimeters of rain in a year. This is a respectable amount. But the vagaries of the weather make it harder to forecast where and when the rain will come first. Farmers depend upon timely rain; otherwise the crops suffer a tremendous set back. The above amount of rainfall results in about 4,000 Billion Cubic Meters of water looking for an exit to the sea. Since 75% of this precipitation occurs in June-September time frame, hence much of this water is looking for an exit in a hurry, in this time frame. At times it overflow the banks and into the cities and villages in the surrounding areas. It has been an accepted theory that about half of this water (2,000 Billion cubic meters) soaks the soil, which has been parched during the summer months; remaining half becomes the river run off. 50% of the this run off is in Ganga-Brhmaputra basin, 20% in Punjab rivers, 10% in central India rivers and remaining 20% in the southern peninsular rivers. In short, there is too much water in the northern basin and much less in the southern peninsular region. As stated above, north has a 34% surplus of water and south has 20% deficiency.
Cost and Benefits of Taking Gangetic Basin Water To Rajasthan
It is a common knowledge that North-South link has to wait until future engineering achieves a breakthrough and makes it possible to pump huge amount of water over 300 meters height inexpensively or canal boring could be done over a distance of hundreds of miles through the central Indian plateau. There is something, which is possible today i.e. taking the surplus Gangetic basin water to Rajasthan. As much as 1,000 billion Cubic Meters of surplus water could be transferred to Rajasthan and Gujarat. It will bring additional 25 to 30 million hectare land under cultivation. This bonanza will produce additional 50 to 60 million tons of food grains annually. In addition, floods and misery known year after year in the Gangetic basin will be a thing of the past. If ever a deal is truck to dig a canal through Bangladesh to take excess water of Brahmaputra, then more land could be brought under cultivation and the benefits will multiply.
The above is feasible now. Costs may be as much as $40 billion over 15 years to build dams; storage facilities and digging up a main canal and multitude of smaller canals to distribute the available water, but the payback will be fast. An estimated $60 billion worth of crop will be available for consumption or export every year. Ancillary industry will most likely add an equivalent amount to the national GDP.
Ensuring Better Returns to the Farmers
India’s farmers are vary from very wealthy to very poor.. Farmers with large holdings are wealthy. They enjoy the benefits of government aid, mechanization and technology. Farmers with smallholding are worst off. The latter is the backbone in food grain production. It is they who need to be looked after most. There are only two ways farmers could be helped:
Subsidize agriculture on the same line as the Western countries do to make farming profitable.
Or
Price structure should be such that it ensures a fair return to the farmers
Help in form of subsidy has created more problems than it ever solves. Dependence on subsidies kills initiative. Hence this alternative has to be discouraged. West (Europe and US) who heavily subsidize their farmers is in fact have built a monster at their doorstep. Subsidies cannot be easily eliminated without a political suicide for the ruling government. Subsidies also make international commerce and trade difficult. Today, WTO talks in Geneva are stuck on the subsidy issue. If the agricultural subsidies in Europe and US are removed then for example, wheat prices in the international market, which currently are in the $140 per ton range, will increase to about $220 a ton. This will make international wheat price at level with Indian wheat prices and remove a major irritant in trade relationship between India and the West. Alternative to direct subsidies is easy long-term credit, better irrigation, higher availability of power, and easy access to other agricultural inputs including mechanized harvesting.
Also stable and guaranteed price is the best mean to ensure prosperity to the farmers. Currently state owned procurement system is highly inefficient. Losses of food grains in storage and transit amount to about 10%. This ultimately reflects in the price the state systems offer to the farmers. If these losses could be cut to bare minimum, the farmer will get 10% or so better price for his produce. Additional money in his pocket will allow him to pay off his credit easily and modernize his farming. Not only that it will give him a more stable life style. Other areas for improvement include further land reforms and easy access to technology to make him a smart farmer. Ultimately, higher output per acre with a combination of the forgoing will translate into more money in farmer's pocket.
Conclusions
In order to boost agricultural output from current 210 million tons to about 300 million tons, technology has to play a greater role. Hopefully immediate needs of the rising population will be met with the combination of technology and efficient management of water resources we already have. Next quantum leap in agriculture cannot be achieved without bringing additional areas under cultivation. There is no more agricultural farmland left to cultivate except in the arid west, southwest and in peninsular India. Both will require transport of surplus water from north to south or southwest. The former is proving to be difficult to achieve. But the latter is achievable. It will take about 15 years to implement this scheme and 5 years to plan. By 2025, India can add additional 50 to 60 million of food grains to a total of about 350 to 360 million tons a year. Hopefully by then the West would have eliminated its agricultural subsidies. At that time India could enter export market in a big way.
The first green revolution in India began in 1960s. It resulted in doubling of food grain production from 120 million tons in 1960 to 210 million tons today. It was the combined effort of high yield seeds, extensive use of fertilizers, land reforms and irrigation schemes that resulted in this remarkable achievement. Food self-sufficiency was achieved by 1984. As the year 1995 dawned, India was a net food exporter. This remarkable feat also included increased acreage of cultivable land from 116 million hectare in 1960 to 170 million hectare in 1990. In 1995, 850 million souls had about 190 million tones of food grain to share. Although the forgoing could not be classified as excess, yet it was enough to feed everybody about 2,200 calories a day. A few unlucky one did not get the basic minimum food intake, but it was a far cry from the days of famine and ration of 1950, 1956, 1965-67 and 1975-77.
In the last ten years, India has added 150 million more mouths to feed but has increased food production by only 15 million tons. Hence there is beginning to be an imbalance in supply and demand. Government of India in last 12 months has initiated steps to import as much as 5 million tons of wheat from Australia and elsewhere. It is not for lack of trying that food grain production has not kept up pace, but the present food grain production infrastructure can only produce this much. For a bigger harvest in coming years, different initiatives have to be taken to jump-start the stagnant agriculture sector.
This initiative could be three fold:
a) Use technology together with newer cultivation techniques.
b) Water management with harvesting excess Monsoon rainwater in the North and transporting it to the parched West and South.
c) Ensuring a better return to the farmers.
Each of the above has been under Government of India’s scanner. The latter is concerned about possible social upheaval, should the masses go hungry. The forgoing is not only a serious challenge in India, it has also been recognized as a serious challenge in China. Both India and China while focusing heavily on industrialization have not given due attention to food grains production. Now it is becoming increasingly important for both to shift focus a bit from industrialization to agriculture. China is worse off because rapid industrialization has created a massive acid rain problem. Acid rain is having a detrimental impact on agriculture. Already their wheat production of 125 million tones in 1995 has declined to 100 million tones in 2005. While in India, acid rain is not an issue increasing population will be one.
How Technology Will Help?
Technology is going to play a major role to take the grain production from about 210 million tones today to 300 million tons by 2020 (i.e. 6% increase per year). That much food supply is needed to feed the population, which by then will hit 1.4 billion mark. Any political party compromising on that requirement will not survive the ballot box. Hence technology has to become essential part to deliver higher food grain supply needs. Technology will play its role in the following ways:
Agricultural input management
Better seeds and cultivation techniques
Mechanization of Agricultural Machinery and Handling
A farmer has to become a part agronomist and a part economist. He has to depend upon the information age to know the weather pattern in advance (prior to planting crop), inputs like fertilizers needed for a particular crop, pest control schedule to safeguard crop and maximize advantage from the local irrigation schemes. Once the crop is harvested, the storage and handling losses are to be minimized with careful planning and good local storage. A farmer has to become party to the distribution system to prevent mal-distribution and handling losses. Genetically Modified crops (GM) will play a vital role in future. It should be remembered that Dr. Norman Borlaug’s developed the dwarf variety wheat in Mexico, which was adopted in India and thus began the first green revolution. Without adopting newer varieties of seeds and scientifically planned inputs, it will be harder to boost food grain output. Also Indian agriculture is heavily dependent on labor. In other words it is not fully mechanized. Although, tractor has become common in India to plough the fields, yet further mechanization until harvesting is scanty. There is one very basic requirement, which is mother of all agriculture output, i.e. timely rains and irrigation. Monsoon rains of June-September play a vital role in a particular year’s crop success. Timely rain helps; delayed rain or no rain hurts badly.
Water Supply Situation In India
Geographically, India has two major river basins. In the north, it is the Ganga River Basin, which together with Jamuna and other smaller rivers drain the rainwater and melting snow from Himalayas into the Bay of Bengal. This drainage system is joined by mighty Brahmaputra, which hugs the northern Himalayan contour in Tibet, then bursts into Assam plains and finally joins river Ganga in Bangladesh. This northern basin is surplus in water (34%) and acts as major source of water for irrigation and also inflicts misery during the Monsoon floods. This forgoing is supplemented in the West by five rivers, which originate in the Himalayas and drain south through Punjab and Pakistan into the Arabian Sea. These rivers, two in India and rest in Pakistan have been dammed carefully and canal system provides irrigation to Punjab, Haryana and northern Rajasthan. These rivers and canal system is independent of the Ganga river basin, although they all originate in different parts of Himalayas.
Southern river basin of Godavari, Krishna and Cauvary (and also Mahanadi in Orissa) provides the water and irrigation needs of the peninsular India. This area is south of Vindyachal mountain ranges, which runs roughly east to west, and stands as a hump in the middle of India. It is a dry and parched plateau except during the rainy season it receives sufficient rain to sustain a few rivers. Two of these rivers (Narmada & Tapti), flow east to west horizontally, and discharge into the Arabian Sea. Three more rivers, Chambal, Betwa and Son also originate from Vindya Ranges and flow north and join the Ganga river system. The only reason that these forgoing three rivers flow north are that the high plateau of Vindaya Ranges prevents drainage south. The above-mentioned southern peninsular river system irrigates the rice fields of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karanataka. Irrigation dams have been built on all the rivers and water and power potential had been harnessed. Although these four mighty rivers flow in the peninsular India, yet it is deficient in water (-20%). This deficiency prevents the southern India from utilizing its full agricultural potential. Hence, there is always a hope that some day, surplus water from the northern basin will be transferred south. It is easier said than done. Main problem is the Vindaya plateau. It runs 300 to 600 miles wide with an elevation of 300 to 1500 metes. Taking water over this hump is beyond present day engineering skill except at the expense of huge amount of electric power consumption. It will consume about 40% of all the power India generates today to undertake this step. Three times in last 50 years, this idea has been advanced and three times it has been rejected as unworkable.
The only idea, which seems to make sense, is to transfer the surplus northern water, westwards towards Rajasthan and Gujarat via Haryana. There is no major elevation disadvantage in going west and southwest. Minor mountain ranges can be circumvented. With the arrival of fresh water, parched lands of Rajasthan and Northern Gujarat will become fertile lands. A canal system about 1,600 miles long will eventually bring prosperity to these areas and add additional much needed food grain output to India. The forgoing scheme will also require interlinking Ganga, Jamuna and other Ganagetic plain rivers first. This could be further improved if surplus water of Brahmaputra is also added to this canal system. But Bangladesh stands in the way and is not amenable to any proposal.
Rainfall Pattern In Indian Subcontinent
Rivers in the north are perennial in nature, with a constant flow from the melting snow of the Himalayas. Their flow multiplies four times over during the rainy season from June till September. Annual average rainfall in Eastern India (Assam & Arunachal) is about 200 centimeters, with hilly areas receiving a much higher amount. All the rain, which falls in Arunachal, also flows back into Assam, hence adding to the tremendous surplus in water in River Brahmaputra. This becomes source of misery and destruction year after year. Northern Gangetic plains and the middle Himalayas receive about 100 to 250 centimeters of rain with Himalayan ranges receiving the higher amounts. All this water eventually flows back into the Gangetic basin and causes floods. By the time river Ganga & Brahmaputra join together in Bangladesh, they have too much water and all of it flows into Bay of Bengal but not before inflicting tremendous damage there.
Western Indian plains of Punjab, Haryana and Western UP receive anywhere from 100 to 150 centimeters of rain. This much rain is sufficient to grow good crop as well as keep floods in check. Occasionally the five rivers of Punjab overflow their banks, this happens when greater amount of rain falls in western Himalayan region. These floods have now been contained with floodwater being stored in mighty dams both in India and Pakistan. This later is used to sustain a very progressive agriculture. That does not mean that floods do not happen in Punjab and Pakistan. They do happen but happen less and less.
Western Rajasthan and northern Gujarat receives only 20 to 30 cm of rains. This much rain is insufficient to sustain agriculture, hence making a living there is a bit harder.
The southern peninsular region of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka receives about 50 cm of rainfall during the June-September season but gets additional 35 centimeter of rains during winter October-March time frame, giving it a reasonable total of about 85 centimeters of rain in a year. This much rain although not sufficient but sustains life there. Western Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and part of Orissa receives about 50 to 75 centimeters of rain during June-September time frame, but receive no rain during the winter period, hence these areas are perpetually deficient in water resources. West Coast of India receives a huge rainfall of about 100 to 250 centimeters in a year. This area has never been deficient in water. Sometimes it rains so much that cities on the West coast of India start floating in water like what happened in Mumbai this year.
Overall India receives average of 100 to 150 centimeters of rain in a year. This is a respectable amount. But the vagaries of the weather make it harder to forecast where and when the rain will come first. Farmers depend upon timely rain; otherwise the crops suffer a tremendous set back. The above amount of rainfall results in about 4,000 Billion Cubic Meters of water looking for an exit to the sea. Since 75% of this precipitation occurs in June-September time frame, hence much of this water is looking for an exit in a hurry, in this time frame. At times it overflow the banks and into the cities and villages in the surrounding areas. It has been an accepted theory that about half of this water (2,000 Billion cubic meters) soaks the soil, which has been parched during the summer months; remaining half becomes the river run off. 50% of the this run off is in Ganga-Brhmaputra basin, 20% in Punjab rivers, 10% in central India rivers and remaining 20% in the southern peninsular rivers. In short, there is too much water in the northern basin and much less in the southern peninsular region. As stated above, north has a 34% surplus of water and south has 20% deficiency.
Cost and Benefits of Taking Gangetic Basin Water To Rajasthan
It is a common knowledge that North-South link has to wait until future engineering achieves a breakthrough and makes it possible to pump huge amount of water over 300 meters height inexpensively or canal boring could be done over a distance of hundreds of miles through the central Indian plateau. There is something, which is possible today i.e. taking the surplus Gangetic basin water to Rajasthan. As much as 1,000 billion Cubic Meters of surplus water could be transferred to Rajasthan and Gujarat. It will bring additional 25 to 30 million hectare land under cultivation. This bonanza will produce additional 50 to 60 million tons of food grains annually. In addition, floods and misery known year after year in the Gangetic basin will be a thing of the past. If ever a deal is truck to dig a canal through Bangladesh to take excess water of Brahmaputra, then more land could be brought under cultivation and the benefits will multiply.
The above is feasible now. Costs may be as much as $40 billion over 15 years to build dams; storage facilities and digging up a main canal and multitude of smaller canals to distribute the available water, but the payback will be fast. An estimated $60 billion worth of crop will be available for consumption or export every year. Ancillary industry will most likely add an equivalent amount to the national GDP.
Ensuring Better Returns to the Farmers
India’s farmers are vary from very wealthy to very poor.. Farmers with large holdings are wealthy. They enjoy the benefits of government aid, mechanization and technology. Farmers with smallholding are worst off. The latter is the backbone in food grain production. It is they who need to be looked after most. There are only two ways farmers could be helped:
Subsidize agriculture on the same line as the Western countries do to make farming profitable.
Or
Price structure should be such that it ensures a fair return to the farmers
Help in form of subsidy has created more problems than it ever solves. Dependence on subsidies kills initiative. Hence this alternative has to be discouraged. West (Europe and US) who heavily subsidize their farmers is in fact have built a monster at their doorstep. Subsidies cannot be easily eliminated without a political suicide for the ruling government. Subsidies also make international commerce and trade difficult. Today, WTO talks in Geneva are stuck on the subsidy issue. If the agricultural subsidies in Europe and US are removed then for example, wheat prices in the international market, which currently are in the $140 per ton range, will increase to about $220 a ton. This will make international wheat price at level with Indian wheat prices and remove a major irritant in trade relationship between India and the West. Alternative to direct subsidies is easy long-term credit, better irrigation, higher availability of power, and easy access to other agricultural inputs including mechanized harvesting.
Also stable and guaranteed price is the best mean to ensure prosperity to the farmers. Currently state owned procurement system is highly inefficient. Losses of food grains in storage and transit amount to about 10%. This ultimately reflects in the price the state systems offer to the farmers. If these losses could be cut to bare minimum, the farmer will get 10% or so better price for his produce. Additional money in his pocket will allow him to pay off his credit easily and modernize his farming. Not only that it will give him a more stable life style. Other areas for improvement include further land reforms and easy access to technology to make him a smart farmer. Ultimately, higher output per acre with a combination of the forgoing will translate into more money in farmer's pocket.
Conclusions
In order to boost agricultural output from current 210 million tons to about 300 million tons, technology has to play a greater role. Hopefully immediate needs of the rising population will be met with the combination of technology and efficient management of water resources we already have. Next quantum leap in agriculture cannot be achieved without bringing additional areas under cultivation. There is no more agricultural farmland left to cultivate except in the arid west, southwest and in peninsular India. Both will require transport of surplus water from north to south or southwest. The former is proving to be difficult to achieve. But the latter is achievable. It will take about 15 years to implement this scheme and 5 years to plan. By 2025, India can add additional 50 to 60 million of food grains to a total of about 350 to 360 million tons a year. Hopefully by then the West would have eliminated its agricultural subsidies. At that time India could enter export market in a big way.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Agriculture as a planned, systematic approach to food acquisition has existed for at least 10,000 years. Pinpointing its exact origin is problematic, as it pre-dates writing. Evidence points to the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East as the site of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in what is today northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas.
Origins of agriculture
Threshing machine from 1881
When major climate change took place after the last ice age c.11,000 BC much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time.
The practice of agriculture first began around 8000 BC in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, part of present day Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Jordan which was then greener. This region was home to the greatest diversity of annual plants and according to one study 32 of the 56 largest grass seeds.[citation needed]
Several of the first crops to be domesticated were all crops of edible seeds, wheat, barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, bitter vetch and flax. These plants were all readily storable, easy to grow and grew quickly. They had to undergo few genetic changes to be of use to farmers, their wild relatives remaining easily recognisable to this day. Crop domestication took place independently in geographically distant human populations.
In China, rice and millet were domesticated by 10 000 BC, followed by the beans mung, soy and azuki. In the Sahel region of Africa local rice and sorghum were domestic by 5000 BC. Local crops were domesticated independently in West Africa and possibly in New Guinea and Ethiopia. Evidence of the presence of wheat and some legumes in the 6th millennium BC have been found in the Indus Valley. Oranges were cultivated in the same millennium. The crops grown in the valley around 4000 BC were typically wheat, peas, sesame seed, barley, dates and mangoes. By 3500 BC cotton growing and cotton textiles were quite advanced in the valley. By 3000 BC farming of rice had started. Other monsoon crops of importance of the time was cane sugar. By 2500 BC, rice was an important component of the staple diet in Mohenjodaro near the Arabian Sea. By this time the Indians had large cities with well-stocked granaries. Three regions of the Americas independently domesticated corn, squashes, potato and sunflowers.
Reasons for changing to agriculture
Humans in many different areas of the earth took up farming in what is, set against the 500,000 year age span of modern humans, a very short time.
Originally, the idea was that the obvious benefits for a switch to agriculture were so profound that it was just the lack of knowledge that prevented it. However it has been found that more energy is required per person to maintain an agricultural civilisation than to support a hunter/gatherer existence. Hunter/gatherers thus had more abundant food and leisure time than early farmers, as was shown by Ester Boserup. Jack R. Harlan showed that it was possible to hand gather enough wild wheat in 3 weeks in Turkey to more than sustain someone for a year[1]. However once a civilisation moves to agriculture, it is very difficult to move back because of the extra population it can support.
There are several competing theories as to what drove populations to take up agriculture. These are
• The Oasis Theory which was original proposed by Raphael Pumpelly in 1908, but popularized by Vere Gordon Childe in 1928 and summarised in his book Man Makes Himself[2]. This theory maintains that as the climate got drier, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. It has little support now as the climate data for the time does not support the theory.
• The Hilly Flanks hypothesis. Proposed by Robert Braidwood in 1948, it suggests that agriculture began in the hilly flanks of the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and that it developed from intensive focused grain gathering in the region.
• The Feasting model by Bryan Hayden[3] suggests that agriculture was driven by ostentatious displays of power, such as throwing feasts to exert dominance. This required assembling large quantities of food which drove agricultural technology.
• The Demographic theories proposed by Carl Sauer[4] and adapted by Lewis Binford[5] and Kent Flannery. This leads from an increasingly sedentary population, expanding up to the carrying capacity of the local environment, and requiring more food than can be gathered. Various social and economic factors help drive the need for food.
• The evolutionary/intentionality theory. As proposed by those such as David Rindos[6] the idea that agriculture is an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, followed specialisation of location and then domestication.
Ancient agriculture
Agriculture is believed to have been developed at multiple times in multiple areas, the earliest of which seems to have been in Southwest Asia. Pinpointing the absolute beginnings of agriculture is problematic because the transition away from purely hunter-gatherer societies, in some areas, began many thousands of years before the invention of writing. Nonetheless, archaeobotanists/paleoethnobotanists have traced the selection and cultivation of specific food plant characteristics, such as a semi-tough rachis and larger seeds, to just after the Younger Dryas (about 9,500 BC) in the early Holocene in the Levant region of the Fertile Crescent. There is much earlier evidence for use of wild cereals: anthropological and archaeological evidence from sites across Southwest Asia and North Africa indicate use of wild grain (e.g., from the ca. 20,000 BC site of Ohalo II in Israel, many Natufian sites in the Levant and from sites along the Nile in the 10th millennium BC). There is even early evidence for planned cultivation and trait selection: grains of rye with domestic traits have been recovered from Epi-Palaeolithic (10,000+ BC) contexts at Abu Hureyra in Syria, but this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication. It isn't until after 9,500 BC that the eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax. These eight crops occur more or less simultaneously on PPNB sites in the Levant, although the consensus is that wheat was the first to be sown and harvested on a significant scale.
By 7000 BC, sowing and harvesting reached Mesopotamia and there, in the super fertile soil just north of the Persian Gulf, Sumerian ingenuity systematized it and scaled it up. By 6000 BC farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile River. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, probably in China, with rice rather than wheat as the primary crop. Maize was first domesticated, probably from teosinte, in the Americas around 3000-2700 BC, though there is some archaeological evidence of a much older development. The potato, the tomato, the pepper, squash, several varieties of bean, and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was quite extensive terracing of steep hillsides in much of Andean South America. Agriculture was also independently developed on the island of New Guinea.
The reasons for the development of farming may have included climate change, but possibly there were also social reasons (e.g., accumulation of food surplus for competitive gift-giving as in the Pacific Northwest potlatch culture). Most certainly, there was a gradual transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural economies after a lengthy period during which some crops were deliberately planted and other foods were gathered in the wild. Although localised climate change is the favoured explanation for the origins of agriculture in the Levant, the fact that farming was 'invented' at least three times elsewhere, and possibly more, suggests that social reasons may have been instrumental.
Sumerian Harvester's sickle, 3000 BCE. Baked clay. Field Museum.
Full dependency on domestic crops and animals did not occur until the Bronze Age, by which time wild resources contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the usual diet. If the operative definition of agriculture includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, and use of a specialized labour force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting ca. 5,500 BC. Intensive farming allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering, and allows for the accumulation of excess product for off-season use, or to sell/barter. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with material production was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies. Sumerian agriculture supported a substantial territorial expansion, together with much internecine conflict between cities, making them the first empire builders. Not long after, the Egyptians, powered by farming in the fertile Nile valley, achieved a population density from which enough warriors could be drawn for a territorial expansion more than tripling the Sumerian empire in area.[citation needed]
Sumerian agriculture
In Sumer, barley was the main crop, but wheat, flax, dates, apples, plums, and grapes were grown as well. Mesopotamia was blessed with flooding from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers but floods came in late spring or early summer from snow melting from the Turkish mountains. With Salt deposits under the soil, all of this made Mesopotamia very hard to farm.[7] The earliest known sheep and goats were also domesticated and were in a much larger quantity than cattle. Sheep were mainly kept for meat and milk, and butter and cheese were made from the latter. Ur, a large town that covered about 50 acres (20 hectares), had 10,000 animals kept in sheepfolds and stables and 3,000 slaughtered every year. The city's population of 6,000 included a labour force of 2,500 cultivated 3,000 acres (12 km²) of land. The labour force contained storehouse recorders, work foremen, overseers, and harvest supervisors to supplement labourers. Agricultural produce was given to temple personnel, important people in the community, and small farmers.
The land was plowed by teams of oxen pulling light unwheeled plows and grain was harvested with sickles in the spring. Wagons had solid wheels covered by leather tires kept in position by copper nails and were drawn by oxen and the Syrian onager (now extinct). Animals were harnessed by collars, yokes, and headstalls. They were controlled by reins, and a ring through the nose or upper lip and a strap under the jaw. As many as four animals could pull a wagon at one time. Though some hypothesize that Domestication of the horse occurred as early as 4000 BC in the Ukraine, the horse was definitely in use by the Sumerians around 2000 BC.
Chinese agriculture
The unique tradition of Chinese agriculture has been traced to the pre-historic Xianrendong Relics and Diaotonghuan Relics (c. 12 0000 BC-7500 BC). [citation needed] Chinese historical and governmental records of the Warring States (481 BC-221 BC), Qin Dynasty (221 BC-207 BC), and Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) eras allude to the use of complex agricultural practices, such as a nationwide granary system and widespread use of sericulture. However, the oldest extant Chinese book on agriculture is the Chimin Yaoshu of 535 AD, written by Jia Sixia.[8] Although much of the literature of the time was elaborate, flowery, and allusive, Jia's writing style was very straightforward and lucid, a literary approach to agriculture that later Chinese agronomists after Jia would follow, such as Wang Zhen and his groundbreaking Nong Shu of 1313 AD.[9] Jia's book was also incredibly long, with over one hundred thousand written Chinese characters, and quoted 160 other Chinese books that were written previously (but no longer survive).[9] The contents of Jia's 6th century book include sections on land preparation, seeding, cultivation, orchard management, forestry, and animal husbandry.[10] The book also includes peripherally related content covering trade and culinary uses for crops.[10]
For agricultural purposes, the Chinese had innovated the hydraulic-powered trip hammer by the 1st century BC.[11] Although it found other purposes, its main function to pound, decorticate, and polish grain that otherwise would have been done manually. The Chinese also innovated the square-pallet chain pump by the 1st century AD, powered by a waterwheel or an oxen pulling a on a system of mechanical wheels.[12] Although the chain pump found use in public works of providing water for urban and palatial pipe systems,[13] it was used largely to lift water from a lower to higher elevation in filling irrigation canals and channels for farmland.[14]
Indian agriculture
Evidence of the presence of wheat and some legumes in the 6th millennium BCE have been found in the Indus Valley. Oranges were cultivated in the same millennium. The crops grown in the valley around 4000 BCE were typically wheat, peas, sesame seed, barley, dates and mangoes. By 3500 BCE cotton growing and cotton textiles were quite advanced in the valley. By 3000 BCE farming of rice had started. Other monsoon crops of importance of the time was cane sugar. By 2500 BCE, rice was an important component of the staple diet in Mohenjodaro near the Arabian Sea.
The Indus Plain had rich alluvial deposits which came down the Indus River in annual floods. This helped sustain farming that formed basis of the Indus Valley Civilization at Harappa. The people built dams and drainage systems for the crops.
By 2000 BCE tea, bananas and apples were being cultivated in India. There was coconut trade with East Africa in 200 BCE. By 500 CE, eggplants were being cultivated.
Roman agriculture
Roman agriculture built off techniques pioneered by the Sumerians, with a specific emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade and export. Romans laid the groundwork for the manorial economic system, involving serfdom, which flourished in the Middle Ages.
Mesoamerican agriculture
In Mesoamerica, the Aztecs were some of the most innovative farmers of the ancient world and farming provided the entire basis of their economy. The land around Lake Texcoco was fertile but not large enough to produce the amount of food needed for the population of their expanding empire. The Aztecs developed irrigation systems, formed terraced hillsides, and fertilized their soil. However, their greatest agricultural technique was the chinampa or artificial islands also known as "floating gardens". These were used to make the swampy areas around the lake suitable for farming. To make chinampas, canals were dug through the marshy islands and shores, then mud was heaped on huge mats made of woven reeds. The mats were anchored by tying them to posts driven into the lake bed and then planting trees at their corners that took root and secured the artificial islands permanently. The Aztecs grew corn, squash, vegetables, and flowers on chinampas. Alvaro loves Mayra.
Andean agriculture
The Andean civilizations were predominantly agricultural societies; the Incas took advantage of the ground, conquering the adversities like the Andean area and the inclemencies of the weather. The adaptation of agricultural technologies that already were used previously, allowed the Incas to organize the production a diversity of products of the coast, mountain and jungle, so them could be able to redistribute to villages that did not have access to other regions. The technological achievements reached to agricultural level, had not been possible without the workforce that was at the disposal of the Sapa Inca, as well as the road system that was allowing to store adequately the harvested resources and to distribute them for all the territory.
Muslim Agricultural Revolution
A valve-operated reciprocating suction piston pump water-raising machine with a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism invented by al-Jazari.
From the 8th century, the medieval Islamic world witnessed a fundamental transformation in agriculture known as the "Muslim Agricultural Revolution", "Arab Agricultural Revolution", or "Green Revolution".[15] Due to the global economy established by Muslim traders across the Old World during the "Afro-Asiatic age of discovery" or "Pax Islamica", this enabled the diffusion of many crops, plants and farming techniques between different parts of the Islamic world, as well as the adaptation of crops, plants and techniques from beyond the Islamic world, distributed throughout Islamic lands which normally would not be able to grow these crops.[16] Some have referred to the diffusion of numerous crops during this period as the "Globalisation of Crops",[17] which, along with an increased mechanization of agriculture, led to major changes in economy, population distribution, vegetation cover,[18] agricultural production and income, population levels, urban growth, the distribution of the labour force, linked industries, cooking and diet, clothing, and numerous other aspects of life in the Islamic world.[16]
Serfdom became widespread in eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages owe much of its development to advances made in Islamic areas, which flourished culturally and materially while Europe and other Roman and Byzantine administered lands entered an extended period of social and economic stagnation. As early as the ninth century, an essentially modern agricultural system became central to economic life and organization in the Arab caliphates, replacing the largely export driven Roman model. The great cities of the Near East, North Africa and Moorish Spain were supported by elaborate agricultural systems which included extensive irrigation based on knowledge of hydraulic and hydrostatic principles, some of which were continued from Roman times. In later centuries, Persian Muslims began to function as a conduit, transmitting cultural elements, including advanced agricultural techniques, into Turkic lands and western India. The Muslims introduced what was to become an agricultural revolution based on four key areas:
• Development of a sophisticated system of irrigation using machines such as norias, water mills, water raising machines, dams and reservoirs. With such technology they managed to greatly expand the exploitable land area.
• The adoption of a scientific approach[19] to farming enabled them to improve farming techniques derived from the collection and collation of relevant information throughout the whole of the known world.[19] Farming manuals were produced in every corner of the Muslim world detailing where, when and how to plant and grow various crops. Advanced scientific techniques allowed leaders like Ibn al-Baytar to introduce new crops and breeds and strains of livestock into areas where they were previously unknown.
• Incentives based on a new approach to land ownership and labourers' rights, combining the recognition of private ownership and the rewarding of cultivators with a harvest share commensurate with their efforts. Their counterparts in Europe struggled under a feudal system in which they were almost slaves (serfs) with little hope of improving their lot by hard work.
• The introduction of new crops transforming private farming into a new global industry exported everywhere,[16] including Europe, where farming was mostly restricted to wheat strains obtained much earlier via central Asia. Spain received what she in turn transmitted to the rest of Europe; many agricultural and fruit-growing processes, together with many new plants, fruit and vegetables. These new crops included sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Others, previously known, were further developed. Muslims also brought to that country lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas and sugar cane. Several were later exported from Spanish coastal areas to the Spanish colonies in the New World. Also transmitted via Muslim influence, a silk industry flourished, flax was cultivated and linen exported, and esparto grass, which grew wild in the more arid parts, was collected and turned into various articles.
Renaissance agriculture
The invention of a three field system of crop rotation during the Middle Ages, and the importation of the Chinese-invented moldboard plow[citation needed], vastly improved agricultural efficiency.
After 1492 the world's agricultural patterns were shuffled in the widespread exchange of plants and animals known as the Columbian Exchange. Crops and animals that were previously only known in the Old World were now transplanted to the New and vice versa. Perhaps most notably, the tomato became a favorite in European cuisine, and maize and potatoes were widely adopted. Other transplanted crops include pineapple, cocoa, and tobacco. In the other direction, several wheat strains quickly took to western hemisphere soils and became a dietary staple even for native North, Central and South Americans.
Agriculture was a key element in the Atlantic slave trade, Triangular trade, and the expansion by European powers into the Americas. In the expanding Plantation economy, large plantations producing crops including sugar, cotton, and indigo, were heavily dependent upon slave labor.
British Agricultural Revolution
Between the 16th century and the mid-19th century, Great Britain saw a massive increase in agricultural productivity and net output. New agricultural practices like enclosure, mechanization, four-field crop rotation and selective breeding enabled an unprecedented population growth, freeing up a significant percentage of the workforce, and thereby helped drive the Industrial Revolution.
By the early 1800s, agricultural practices, particularly careful selection of hardy strains and cultivars, had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages and before.
The 18th and 19th century also saw the development of glasshouses, or greenhouses, initially for the protection and cultivation of exotic plants imported to Europe and North America from the tropics.
Experiments on Plant Hybridization in the late 1800s yielded advances in the understanding of plant genetics, and subsequently, the development of hybrid crops.
Increasing dependence upon monoculture crops lead to famines and food shortages, most notably the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849).
Storage silos and grain elevators appeared in the 19th centuries.
Recent history
New technologies
A tractor ploughing an alfalfa field
With the rapid rise of mechanization in the late 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the form of the tractor, farming tasks could be done with a speed and on a scale previously impossible. These advances, joined to science-driven innovations in methods and resources, have led to efficiencies enabling certain modern farms in the United States, Argentina, Israel, Germany and a few other nations to output volumes of high quality produce per land unit at what may be the practical limit.
The development of rail and highway networks and the increasing use of container shipping and refrigeration in developed nations have also been essential to the growth of mechanized agriculture, allowing for the economical long distance shipping of produce.
While chemical fertilizer and pesticide have existed since the 19th century, their use grew significantly in the early twentieth century. In the 1960s, the Green Revolution applied western advances in fertilizer and pesticide use to farms worldwide, with varying success.
Other applications of scientific research since 1950 in agriculture include gene manipulation, and Hydroponics.
New criticisms
Though the intensive farming practices pioneered and extended in recent history generally led to increased outputs, they have also led to the destruction of farmland, most notably in the dust bowl area of the United States following World War I.
As global population increases, agriculture continues to replace natural ecosystems with monoculture crops.
In the past few decades, western consumers have become increasingly aware of, and in some cases critical of, widely used intensive agriculture practices, contributing to a rise in popularity of organic farming, the growth of the Slow Food movement, and an ongoing discussion surrounding the potential for sustainable agriculture.
Origins of agriculture
Threshing machine from 1881
When major climate change took place after the last ice age c.11,000 BC much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time.
The practice of agriculture first began around 8000 BC in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, part of present day Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Jordan which was then greener. This region was home to the greatest diversity of annual plants and according to one study 32 of the 56 largest grass seeds.[citation needed]
Several of the first crops to be domesticated were all crops of edible seeds, wheat, barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, bitter vetch and flax. These plants were all readily storable, easy to grow and grew quickly. They had to undergo few genetic changes to be of use to farmers, their wild relatives remaining easily recognisable to this day. Crop domestication took place independently in geographically distant human populations.
In China, rice and millet were domesticated by 10 000 BC, followed by the beans mung, soy and azuki. In the Sahel region of Africa local rice and sorghum were domestic by 5000 BC. Local crops were domesticated independently in West Africa and possibly in New Guinea and Ethiopia. Evidence of the presence of wheat and some legumes in the 6th millennium BC have been found in the Indus Valley. Oranges were cultivated in the same millennium. The crops grown in the valley around 4000 BC were typically wheat, peas, sesame seed, barley, dates and mangoes. By 3500 BC cotton growing and cotton textiles were quite advanced in the valley. By 3000 BC farming of rice had started. Other monsoon crops of importance of the time was cane sugar. By 2500 BC, rice was an important component of the staple diet in Mohenjodaro near the Arabian Sea. By this time the Indians had large cities with well-stocked granaries. Three regions of the Americas independently domesticated corn, squashes, potato and sunflowers.
Reasons for changing to agriculture
Humans in many different areas of the earth took up farming in what is, set against the 500,000 year age span of modern humans, a very short time.
Originally, the idea was that the obvious benefits for a switch to agriculture were so profound that it was just the lack of knowledge that prevented it. However it has been found that more energy is required per person to maintain an agricultural civilisation than to support a hunter/gatherer existence. Hunter/gatherers thus had more abundant food and leisure time than early farmers, as was shown by Ester Boserup. Jack R. Harlan showed that it was possible to hand gather enough wild wheat in 3 weeks in Turkey to more than sustain someone for a year[1]. However once a civilisation moves to agriculture, it is very difficult to move back because of the extra population it can support.
There are several competing theories as to what drove populations to take up agriculture. These are
• The Oasis Theory which was original proposed by Raphael Pumpelly in 1908, but popularized by Vere Gordon Childe in 1928 and summarised in his book Man Makes Himself[2]. This theory maintains that as the climate got drier, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. It has little support now as the climate data for the time does not support the theory.
• The Hilly Flanks hypothesis. Proposed by Robert Braidwood in 1948, it suggests that agriculture began in the hilly flanks of the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and that it developed from intensive focused grain gathering in the region.
• The Feasting model by Bryan Hayden[3] suggests that agriculture was driven by ostentatious displays of power, such as throwing feasts to exert dominance. This required assembling large quantities of food which drove agricultural technology.
• The Demographic theories proposed by Carl Sauer[4] and adapted by Lewis Binford[5] and Kent Flannery. This leads from an increasingly sedentary population, expanding up to the carrying capacity of the local environment, and requiring more food than can be gathered. Various social and economic factors help drive the need for food.
• The evolutionary/intentionality theory. As proposed by those such as David Rindos[6] the idea that agriculture is an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, followed specialisation of location and then domestication.
Ancient agriculture
Agriculture is believed to have been developed at multiple times in multiple areas, the earliest of which seems to have been in Southwest Asia. Pinpointing the absolute beginnings of agriculture is problematic because the transition away from purely hunter-gatherer societies, in some areas, began many thousands of years before the invention of writing. Nonetheless, archaeobotanists/paleoethnobotanists have traced the selection and cultivation of specific food plant characteristics, such as a semi-tough rachis and larger seeds, to just after the Younger Dryas (about 9,500 BC) in the early Holocene in the Levant region of the Fertile Crescent. There is much earlier evidence for use of wild cereals: anthropological and archaeological evidence from sites across Southwest Asia and North Africa indicate use of wild grain (e.g., from the ca. 20,000 BC site of Ohalo II in Israel, many Natufian sites in the Levant and from sites along the Nile in the 10th millennium BC). There is even early evidence for planned cultivation and trait selection: grains of rye with domestic traits have been recovered from Epi-Palaeolithic (10,000+ BC) contexts at Abu Hureyra in Syria, but this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication. It isn't until after 9,500 BC that the eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax. These eight crops occur more or less simultaneously on PPNB sites in the Levant, although the consensus is that wheat was the first to be sown and harvested on a significant scale.
By 7000 BC, sowing and harvesting reached Mesopotamia and there, in the super fertile soil just north of the Persian Gulf, Sumerian ingenuity systematized it and scaled it up. By 6000 BC farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile River. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, probably in China, with rice rather than wheat as the primary crop. Maize was first domesticated, probably from teosinte, in the Americas around 3000-2700 BC, though there is some archaeological evidence of a much older development. The potato, the tomato, the pepper, squash, several varieties of bean, and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was quite extensive terracing of steep hillsides in much of Andean South America. Agriculture was also independently developed on the island of New Guinea.
The reasons for the development of farming may have included climate change, but possibly there were also social reasons (e.g., accumulation of food surplus for competitive gift-giving as in the Pacific Northwest potlatch culture). Most certainly, there was a gradual transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural economies after a lengthy period during which some crops were deliberately planted and other foods were gathered in the wild. Although localised climate change is the favoured explanation for the origins of agriculture in the Levant, the fact that farming was 'invented' at least three times elsewhere, and possibly more, suggests that social reasons may have been instrumental.
Sumerian Harvester's sickle, 3000 BCE. Baked clay. Field Museum.
Full dependency on domestic crops and animals did not occur until the Bronze Age, by which time wild resources contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the usual diet. If the operative definition of agriculture includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, and use of a specialized labour force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting ca. 5,500 BC. Intensive farming allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering, and allows for the accumulation of excess product for off-season use, or to sell/barter. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with material production was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies. Sumerian agriculture supported a substantial territorial expansion, together with much internecine conflict between cities, making them the first empire builders. Not long after, the Egyptians, powered by farming in the fertile Nile valley, achieved a population density from which enough warriors could be drawn for a territorial expansion more than tripling the Sumerian empire in area.[citation needed]
Sumerian agriculture
In Sumer, barley was the main crop, but wheat, flax, dates, apples, plums, and grapes were grown as well. Mesopotamia was blessed with flooding from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers but floods came in late spring or early summer from snow melting from the Turkish mountains. With Salt deposits under the soil, all of this made Mesopotamia very hard to farm.[7] The earliest known sheep and goats were also domesticated and were in a much larger quantity than cattle. Sheep were mainly kept for meat and milk, and butter and cheese were made from the latter. Ur, a large town that covered about 50 acres (20 hectares), had 10,000 animals kept in sheepfolds and stables and 3,000 slaughtered every year. The city's population of 6,000 included a labour force of 2,500 cultivated 3,000 acres (12 km²) of land. The labour force contained storehouse recorders, work foremen, overseers, and harvest supervisors to supplement labourers. Agricultural produce was given to temple personnel, important people in the community, and small farmers.
The land was plowed by teams of oxen pulling light unwheeled plows and grain was harvested with sickles in the spring. Wagons had solid wheels covered by leather tires kept in position by copper nails and were drawn by oxen and the Syrian onager (now extinct). Animals were harnessed by collars, yokes, and headstalls. They were controlled by reins, and a ring through the nose or upper lip and a strap under the jaw. As many as four animals could pull a wagon at one time. Though some hypothesize that Domestication of the horse occurred as early as 4000 BC in the Ukraine, the horse was definitely in use by the Sumerians around 2000 BC.
Chinese agriculture
The unique tradition of Chinese agriculture has been traced to the pre-historic Xianrendong Relics and Diaotonghuan Relics (c. 12 0000 BC-7500 BC). [citation needed] Chinese historical and governmental records of the Warring States (481 BC-221 BC), Qin Dynasty (221 BC-207 BC), and Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) eras allude to the use of complex agricultural practices, such as a nationwide granary system and widespread use of sericulture. However, the oldest extant Chinese book on agriculture is the Chimin Yaoshu of 535 AD, written by Jia Sixia.[8] Although much of the literature of the time was elaborate, flowery, and allusive, Jia's writing style was very straightforward and lucid, a literary approach to agriculture that later Chinese agronomists after Jia would follow, such as Wang Zhen and his groundbreaking Nong Shu of 1313 AD.[9] Jia's book was also incredibly long, with over one hundred thousand written Chinese characters, and quoted 160 other Chinese books that were written previously (but no longer survive).[9] The contents of Jia's 6th century book include sections on land preparation, seeding, cultivation, orchard management, forestry, and animal husbandry.[10] The book also includes peripherally related content covering trade and culinary uses for crops.[10]
For agricultural purposes, the Chinese had innovated the hydraulic-powered trip hammer by the 1st century BC.[11] Although it found other purposes, its main function to pound, decorticate, and polish grain that otherwise would have been done manually. The Chinese also innovated the square-pallet chain pump by the 1st century AD, powered by a waterwheel or an oxen pulling a on a system of mechanical wheels.[12] Although the chain pump found use in public works of providing water for urban and palatial pipe systems,[13] it was used largely to lift water from a lower to higher elevation in filling irrigation canals and channels for farmland.[14]
Indian agriculture
Evidence of the presence of wheat and some legumes in the 6th millennium BCE have been found in the Indus Valley. Oranges were cultivated in the same millennium. The crops grown in the valley around 4000 BCE were typically wheat, peas, sesame seed, barley, dates and mangoes. By 3500 BCE cotton growing and cotton textiles were quite advanced in the valley. By 3000 BCE farming of rice had started. Other monsoon crops of importance of the time was cane sugar. By 2500 BCE, rice was an important component of the staple diet in Mohenjodaro near the Arabian Sea.
The Indus Plain had rich alluvial deposits which came down the Indus River in annual floods. This helped sustain farming that formed basis of the Indus Valley Civilization at Harappa. The people built dams and drainage systems for the crops.
By 2000 BCE tea, bananas and apples were being cultivated in India. There was coconut trade with East Africa in 200 BCE. By 500 CE, eggplants were being cultivated.
Roman agriculture
Roman agriculture built off techniques pioneered by the Sumerians, with a specific emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade and export. Romans laid the groundwork for the manorial economic system, involving serfdom, which flourished in the Middle Ages.
Mesoamerican agriculture
In Mesoamerica, the Aztecs were some of the most innovative farmers of the ancient world and farming provided the entire basis of their economy. The land around Lake Texcoco was fertile but not large enough to produce the amount of food needed for the population of their expanding empire. The Aztecs developed irrigation systems, formed terraced hillsides, and fertilized their soil. However, their greatest agricultural technique was the chinampa or artificial islands also known as "floating gardens". These were used to make the swampy areas around the lake suitable for farming. To make chinampas, canals were dug through the marshy islands and shores, then mud was heaped on huge mats made of woven reeds. The mats were anchored by tying them to posts driven into the lake bed and then planting trees at their corners that took root and secured the artificial islands permanently. The Aztecs grew corn, squash, vegetables, and flowers on chinampas. Alvaro loves Mayra.
Andean agriculture
The Andean civilizations were predominantly agricultural societies; the Incas took advantage of the ground, conquering the adversities like the Andean area and the inclemencies of the weather. The adaptation of agricultural technologies that already were used previously, allowed the Incas to organize the production a diversity of products of the coast, mountain and jungle, so them could be able to redistribute to villages that did not have access to other regions. The technological achievements reached to agricultural level, had not been possible without the workforce that was at the disposal of the Sapa Inca, as well as the road system that was allowing to store adequately the harvested resources and to distribute them for all the territory.
Muslim Agricultural Revolution
A valve-operated reciprocating suction piston pump water-raising machine with a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism invented by al-Jazari.
From the 8th century, the medieval Islamic world witnessed a fundamental transformation in agriculture known as the "Muslim Agricultural Revolution", "Arab Agricultural Revolution", or "Green Revolution".[15] Due to the global economy established by Muslim traders across the Old World during the "Afro-Asiatic age of discovery" or "Pax Islamica", this enabled the diffusion of many crops, plants and farming techniques between different parts of the Islamic world, as well as the adaptation of crops, plants and techniques from beyond the Islamic world, distributed throughout Islamic lands which normally would not be able to grow these crops.[16] Some have referred to the diffusion of numerous crops during this period as the "Globalisation of Crops",[17] which, along with an increased mechanization of agriculture, led to major changes in economy, population distribution, vegetation cover,[18] agricultural production and income, population levels, urban growth, the distribution of the labour force, linked industries, cooking and diet, clothing, and numerous other aspects of life in the Islamic world.[16]
Serfdom became widespread in eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages owe much of its development to advances made in Islamic areas, which flourished culturally and materially while Europe and other Roman and Byzantine administered lands entered an extended period of social and economic stagnation. As early as the ninth century, an essentially modern agricultural system became central to economic life and organization in the Arab caliphates, replacing the largely export driven Roman model. The great cities of the Near East, North Africa and Moorish Spain were supported by elaborate agricultural systems which included extensive irrigation based on knowledge of hydraulic and hydrostatic principles, some of which were continued from Roman times. In later centuries, Persian Muslims began to function as a conduit, transmitting cultural elements, including advanced agricultural techniques, into Turkic lands and western India. The Muslims introduced what was to become an agricultural revolution based on four key areas:
• Development of a sophisticated system of irrigation using machines such as norias, water mills, water raising machines, dams and reservoirs. With such technology they managed to greatly expand the exploitable land area.
• The adoption of a scientific approach[19] to farming enabled them to improve farming techniques derived from the collection and collation of relevant information throughout the whole of the known world.[19] Farming manuals were produced in every corner of the Muslim world detailing where, when and how to plant and grow various crops. Advanced scientific techniques allowed leaders like Ibn al-Baytar to introduce new crops and breeds and strains of livestock into areas where they were previously unknown.
• Incentives based on a new approach to land ownership and labourers' rights, combining the recognition of private ownership and the rewarding of cultivators with a harvest share commensurate with their efforts. Their counterparts in Europe struggled under a feudal system in which they were almost slaves (serfs) with little hope of improving their lot by hard work.
• The introduction of new crops transforming private farming into a new global industry exported everywhere,[16] including Europe, where farming was mostly restricted to wheat strains obtained much earlier via central Asia. Spain received what she in turn transmitted to the rest of Europe; many agricultural and fruit-growing processes, together with many new plants, fruit and vegetables. These new crops included sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Others, previously known, were further developed. Muslims also brought to that country lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas and sugar cane. Several were later exported from Spanish coastal areas to the Spanish colonies in the New World. Also transmitted via Muslim influence, a silk industry flourished, flax was cultivated and linen exported, and esparto grass, which grew wild in the more arid parts, was collected and turned into various articles.
Renaissance agriculture
The invention of a three field system of crop rotation during the Middle Ages, and the importation of the Chinese-invented moldboard plow[citation needed], vastly improved agricultural efficiency.
After 1492 the world's agricultural patterns were shuffled in the widespread exchange of plants and animals known as the Columbian Exchange. Crops and animals that were previously only known in the Old World were now transplanted to the New and vice versa. Perhaps most notably, the tomato became a favorite in European cuisine, and maize and potatoes were widely adopted. Other transplanted crops include pineapple, cocoa, and tobacco. In the other direction, several wheat strains quickly took to western hemisphere soils and became a dietary staple even for native North, Central and South Americans.
Agriculture was a key element in the Atlantic slave trade, Triangular trade, and the expansion by European powers into the Americas. In the expanding Plantation economy, large plantations producing crops including sugar, cotton, and indigo, were heavily dependent upon slave labor.
British Agricultural Revolution
Between the 16th century and the mid-19th century, Great Britain saw a massive increase in agricultural productivity and net output. New agricultural practices like enclosure, mechanization, four-field crop rotation and selective breeding enabled an unprecedented population growth, freeing up a significant percentage of the workforce, and thereby helped drive the Industrial Revolution.
By the early 1800s, agricultural practices, particularly careful selection of hardy strains and cultivars, had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages and before.
The 18th and 19th century also saw the development of glasshouses, or greenhouses, initially for the protection and cultivation of exotic plants imported to Europe and North America from the tropics.
Experiments on Plant Hybridization in the late 1800s yielded advances in the understanding of plant genetics, and subsequently, the development of hybrid crops.
Increasing dependence upon monoculture crops lead to famines and food shortages, most notably the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849).
Storage silos and grain elevators appeared in the 19th centuries.
Recent history
New technologies
A tractor ploughing an alfalfa field
With the rapid rise of mechanization in the late 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the form of the tractor, farming tasks could be done with a speed and on a scale previously impossible. These advances, joined to science-driven innovations in methods and resources, have led to efficiencies enabling certain modern farms in the United States, Argentina, Israel, Germany and a few other nations to output volumes of high quality produce per land unit at what may be the practical limit.
The development of rail and highway networks and the increasing use of container shipping and refrigeration in developed nations have also been essential to the growth of mechanized agriculture, allowing for the economical long distance shipping of produce.
While chemical fertilizer and pesticide have existed since the 19th century, their use grew significantly in the early twentieth century. In the 1960s, the Green Revolution applied western advances in fertilizer and pesticide use to farms worldwide, with varying success.
Other applications of scientific research since 1950 in agriculture include gene manipulation, and Hydroponics.
New criticisms
Though the intensive farming practices pioneered and extended in recent history generally led to increased outputs, they have also led to the destruction of farmland, most notably in the dust bowl area of the United States following World War I.
As global population increases, agriculture continues to replace natural ecosystems with monoculture crops.
In the past few decades, western consumers have become increasingly aware of, and in some cases critical of, widely used intensive agriculture practices, contributing to a rise in popularity of organic farming, the growth of the Slow Food movement, and an ongoing discussion surrounding the potential for sustainable agriculture.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Land reforms in Andhra Pradesh
Land reforms in Andhra Pradesh
C.H. Hanumantha Rao
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 104 recommendations made by the Land Committee headed by Koneru Ranga Rao, the government has accepted 90. Quite a few of these will have far-reaching consequences if implemented effectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land for the landless — for cultivation as well as housing — is again high on the political agenda of Andhra Pradesh. The Rajasekhara Reddy government, soon after coming to power in 2004, constituted a Land Committee under the chairmanship of Koneru Ranga Rao, a Minister, “to assess the overall implementation of land distribution programmes of the government and suggest measures for more effective implementation.” Out of the 104 recommendations m ade by the Committee, the government has accepted 90. Quite a few of these will have far-reaching consequences if implemented effectively.
The current land movement arose and gathered momentum basically on the demand for house sites for the landless poor in the urban and semi-urban areas. This was not a major issue before the Committee. Ironically, the rising demand for urban land is traceable, in a significant measure, to the massive programme for irrigation development called ‘Jalayagnam,’ which is expected to ease pressure on land by raising agricultural productivity.
Much before the water started flowing into the fields, apparently, a good part of the money injected into the system for irrigation projects experienced a reverse flow into the urban land market through the contractors and real estate dealers, raising the demand for land. Also, there has been a massive allotment of land in the outskirts of Hyderabad and around other towns for the development projects.
The tremendous rise in the demand for urban land led to the skyrocketing of its prices, making land out of reach for the urban poor and the middle classes. Many of the poor farmers in the outskirts of the city suddenly found themselves ‘dispossessed’ through the allurement of money which turned out to be a pittance when compared to the prices at which their lands were ultimately sold by the dealers. This generated a great sense of insecurity among the poor — those losing land as well as those in need of land for housing — in and around the urban areas.
Admittedly, the Andhra Pradesh government has been in the forefront of building houses for the poor. But this can not alleviate the misery of the poor if there is a policy failure to contain the prices of urban land. Had the State government acted in time to acquire a sizeable chunk of land for expanding the on-going programme of constructing houses for the poor as well as for direct allotment of house sites to them, the situation would not have turned so adverse.
The Left parties clearly saw the rapidly emerging scarcity of urban land and its adverse consequences for the poor. Already, their movement for house sites for the poor appears to have had a sobering impact on land prices as it has sent the right signals to the land market. The welfare impact of containing land prices would indeed be enormous for the poor and the less affluent in the urban areas. Moreover, with growing urbanisation and migration of the rural poor to the urban areas, the need for house sites for the poor will increase. While ‘land to the tiller’ is still a live issue, ‘land to the dweller’ is going to assume increasing importance, especially in urban areas.
The significance of the Land Committee Report should be seen in the light of the growing scarcity of land and the rising land value. The Committee’s recommendations are, on the whole, quite moderate and not ‘radical.’ They basically centre round the more effective implementation of quite a few of the existing laws. If they sound ‘radical’ on occasions, especially on tribal land issues, it is because the Committee was constrained to recommend strict implementation of some of the existing laws dating back to 1917.
The three major concerns addressed by the Committee are: augmenting the ‘surplus’ land over the existing ceiling on land holdings as well as from government sources for distribution to the landless poor; encouraging investments by tenants for raising productivity and incomes; and restoring to the tribals lands appropriated by non-tribals.
A major recommendation of the Committee for the restoration of the ‘assigned’ land to the original assignees or, where it is not possible, its resumption by the government for making fresh assignment to the landless poor, has received wide support. However the government while accepting this, rejected the related recommendation to include the sarpanch and president and secretary of the Village Organisations of poor women in the Assignment Committee. Such an involvement is necessary for releasing a good chunk of land for the poor, on this account, without making the implementation process harsh and cumbersome, particularly because a piece of land would have changed a number of hands over the decades, the present occupants themselves being poor in many cases.
The government has accepted the recommendations on ceiling surplus land and tenancy — the two major concerns in non-tribal areas. It has agreed to “reopen cases of Land Ceilings, wherever the cases have been decided basing on fraud and misrepresentation of facts”. The number of such cases and the extent of ‘surplus’ land likely to be available are not known. But the indications are that, if effectively implemented, this measure could well unearth a sizeable area. Of much greater potential, perhaps, is the acceptance of another recommendation by the government to reassess the ‘surplus’ land consequent on the construction of irrigation projects, which have resulted in a significant increase in irrigated area over the last few decades.
In regard to the distribution of government as well as ceiling surplus land, the government has not accepted the Committee’s recommendation that “the maximum extent of land which may be allotted to a single individual be limited to 1 acre of wet land or 2 acres of dry land,” as against the existing provision of 2.5 acres of wet land and 5 acres of dry land. This recommendation appears reasonable considering the significant rise in productivity and value of land as well as in the number of landless poor in need of land.
The Committee has noted that the provisions in the existing Tenancy Acts “have given rise to informal tenancy — almost 100 per cent of tenancy that exists is informal,” and 55-60 per cent of the lands surveyed in the Delta region are under lease. Therefore, taking a realistic view, the Committee recommended that “a loan eligibility card should be issued to the tenants to enable them to access institutional loans so as to garner better gains from cultivation of lands, and the landlords on the other hand are not paranoid about losing their lands if the tenancy is recorded”. Since the government has accepted this recommendation, one can expect a rise in investment, productivity and incomes of the tenants.
Land alienation in tribal areas
Land alienation in tribal areas is remarkably high in Andhra Pradesh. According to the Committee, in tribal areas “non-tribal population holds as much as 48 per cent of the lands. Every year, more and more lands are passing into the hands of non-tribals and if it is not checked with a strong executive action, very soon the tribals may not have lands at all”.
The Committee has made a series of recommendations for restoring land to the tribals and for checking further alienation of their land. The government has accepted important recommendations such as reopening and re-examining of orders in favour of non-tribals, and review of a large number of cases of illegal occupation by non-tribals in some districts. However, a pre-requisite for effective implementation, according to the Committee, is the improvement in tribal land administration by putting in place field machinery with adequate staff, especially in Agency areas, and effective monitoring and review.
But, mere administrative capability is not sufficient unless the requisite political will is forthcoming. This is amply demonstrated by the massive failures in the implementation of Land Ceiling and Tenancy Acts in the non-tribal areas where administrative capability is not a bottleneck. The pulls and pressures from the vested interests can render even the most progressive land laws infructuous. This experience has prompted the Left parties to demand the constitution of an independent commission for implementing these recommendations.
But the government has not agreed to this demand presumably in the belief that in a democratic polity with an elected government, a parallel authority on land issues may not be workable. Instead, it has appointed a Commissioner in the revenue department for implementing the recommendations. Clearly, however, there is need for transparency and public accountability on this issue of vital importance.
The least that the government could still do, to ensure effective implementation, is to constitute a high level committee, consisting of important stakeholders, to continuously monitor the implementation with powers to receive representations and bring up specific cases. This would be quite in line with the recommendation made by the Land Committee to institute such a mechanism for tribal areas — already accepted by the government — in addition to the measures being taken for awareness-building among the affected people.
C.H. Hanumantha Rao
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 104 recommendations made by the Land Committee headed by Koneru Ranga Rao, the government has accepted 90. Quite a few of these will have far-reaching consequences if implemented effectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land for the landless — for cultivation as well as housing — is again high on the political agenda of Andhra Pradesh. The Rajasekhara Reddy government, soon after coming to power in 2004, constituted a Land Committee under the chairmanship of Koneru Ranga Rao, a Minister, “to assess the overall implementation of land distribution programmes of the government and suggest measures for more effective implementation.” Out of the 104 recommendations m ade by the Committee, the government has accepted 90. Quite a few of these will have far-reaching consequences if implemented effectively.
The current land movement arose and gathered momentum basically on the demand for house sites for the landless poor in the urban and semi-urban areas. This was not a major issue before the Committee. Ironically, the rising demand for urban land is traceable, in a significant measure, to the massive programme for irrigation development called ‘Jalayagnam,’ which is expected to ease pressure on land by raising agricultural productivity.
Much before the water started flowing into the fields, apparently, a good part of the money injected into the system for irrigation projects experienced a reverse flow into the urban land market through the contractors and real estate dealers, raising the demand for land. Also, there has been a massive allotment of land in the outskirts of Hyderabad and around other towns for the development projects.
The tremendous rise in the demand for urban land led to the skyrocketing of its prices, making land out of reach for the urban poor and the middle classes. Many of the poor farmers in the outskirts of the city suddenly found themselves ‘dispossessed’ through the allurement of money which turned out to be a pittance when compared to the prices at which their lands were ultimately sold by the dealers. This generated a great sense of insecurity among the poor — those losing land as well as those in need of land for housing — in and around the urban areas.
Admittedly, the Andhra Pradesh government has been in the forefront of building houses for the poor. But this can not alleviate the misery of the poor if there is a policy failure to contain the prices of urban land. Had the State government acted in time to acquire a sizeable chunk of land for expanding the on-going programme of constructing houses for the poor as well as for direct allotment of house sites to them, the situation would not have turned so adverse.
The Left parties clearly saw the rapidly emerging scarcity of urban land and its adverse consequences for the poor. Already, their movement for house sites for the poor appears to have had a sobering impact on land prices as it has sent the right signals to the land market. The welfare impact of containing land prices would indeed be enormous for the poor and the less affluent in the urban areas. Moreover, with growing urbanisation and migration of the rural poor to the urban areas, the need for house sites for the poor will increase. While ‘land to the tiller’ is still a live issue, ‘land to the dweller’ is going to assume increasing importance, especially in urban areas.
The significance of the Land Committee Report should be seen in the light of the growing scarcity of land and the rising land value. The Committee’s recommendations are, on the whole, quite moderate and not ‘radical.’ They basically centre round the more effective implementation of quite a few of the existing laws. If they sound ‘radical’ on occasions, especially on tribal land issues, it is because the Committee was constrained to recommend strict implementation of some of the existing laws dating back to 1917.
The three major concerns addressed by the Committee are: augmenting the ‘surplus’ land over the existing ceiling on land holdings as well as from government sources for distribution to the landless poor; encouraging investments by tenants for raising productivity and incomes; and restoring to the tribals lands appropriated by non-tribals.
A major recommendation of the Committee for the restoration of the ‘assigned’ land to the original assignees or, where it is not possible, its resumption by the government for making fresh assignment to the landless poor, has received wide support. However the government while accepting this, rejected the related recommendation to include the sarpanch and president and secretary of the Village Organisations of poor women in the Assignment Committee. Such an involvement is necessary for releasing a good chunk of land for the poor, on this account, without making the implementation process harsh and cumbersome, particularly because a piece of land would have changed a number of hands over the decades, the present occupants themselves being poor in many cases.
The government has accepted the recommendations on ceiling surplus land and tenancy — the two major concerns in non-tribal areas. It has agreed to “reopen cases of Land Ceilings, wherever the cases have been decided basing on fraud and misrepresentation of facts”. The number of such cases and the extent of ‘surplus’ land likely to be available are not known. But the indications are that, if effectively implemented, this measure could well unearth a sizeable area. Of much greater potential, perhaps, is the acceptance of another recommendation by the government to reassess the ‘surplus’ land consequent on the construction of irrigation projects, which have resulted in a significant increase in irrigated area over the last few decades.
In regard to the distribution of government as well as ceiling surplus land, the government has not accepted the Committee’s recommendation that “the maximum extent of land which may be allotted to a single individual be limited to 1 acre of wet land or 2 acres of dry land,” as against the existing provision of 2.5 acres of wet land and 5 acres of dry land. This recommendation appears reasonable considering the significant rise in productivity and value of land as well as in the number of landless poor in need of land.
The Committee has noted that the provisions in the existing Tenancy Acts “have given rise to informal tenancy — almost 100 per cent of tenancy that exists is informal,” and 55-60 per cent of the lands surveyed in the Delta region are under lease. Therefore, taking a realistic view, the Committee recommended that “a loan eligibility card should be issued to the tenants to enable them to access institutional loans so as to garner better gains from cultivation of lands, and the landlords on the other hand are not paranoid about losing their lands if the tenancy is recorded”. Since the government has accepted this recommendation, one can expect a rise in investment, productivity and incomes of the tenants.
Land alienation in tribal areas
Land alienation in tribal areas is remarkably high in Andhra Pradesh. According to the Committee, in tribal areas “non-tribal population holds as much as 48 per cent of the lands. Every year, more and more lands are passing into the hands of non-tribals and if it is not checked with a strong executive action, very soon the tribals may not have lands at all”.
The Committee has made a series of recommendations for restoring land to the tribals and for checking further alienation of their land. The government has accepted important recommendations such as reopening and re-examining of orders in favour of non-tribals, and review of a large number of cases of illegal occupation by non-tribals in some districts. However, a pre-requisite for effective implementation, according to the Committee, is the improvement in tribal land administration by putting in place field machinery with adequate staff, especially in Agency areas, and effective monitoring and review.
But, mere administrative capability is not sufficient unless the requisite political will is forthcoming. This is amply demonstrated by the massive failures in the implementation of Land Ceiling and Tenancy Acts in the non-tribal areas where administrative capability is not a bottleneck. The pulls and pressures from the vested interests can render even the most progressive land laws infructuous. This experience has prompted the Left parties to demand the constitution of an independent commission for implementing these recommendations.
But the government has not agreed to this demand presumably in the belief that in a democratic polity with an elected government, a parallel authority on land issues may not be workable. Instead, it has appointed a Commissioner in the revenue department for implementing the recommendations. Clearly, however, there is need for transparency and public accountability on this issue of vital importance.
The least that the government could still do, to ensure effective implementation, is to constitute a high level committee, consisting of important stakeholders, to continuously monitor the implementation with powers to receive representations and bring up specific cases. This would be quite in line with the recommendation made by the Land Committee to institute such a mechanism for tribal areas — already accepted by the government — in addition to the measures being taken for awareness-building among the affected people.
Monday, November 5, 2007
CHINA & THE 123 AGREEMENT: An Update
CHINA & THE 123 AGREEMENT: An Update
By B. Raman
Between July, 2005, when India and the US agreed in principle on civilian nuclear co-operation, and June, 2006, Beijing's reaction was unmistakably unenthusiastic. It sought to justify its lack of enthusiasm on the ground that such a special waiver to India, when it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and not given up its military nuclear ambitions, could weaken the global non-proliferation architecture.
2. While Chinese Government spokespersons avoided outspoken comments on the India-US deal while making obvious their lack of enthusiasm for it, the government-controlled media in China observed no such restraint. For example, the "People's Daily" wrote on November 4, 2005: "This would be a hard blow on America's leading role in the global proliferation prevention system as well as the system itself. This will bring about a series of negative impacts. Now that the United States buys another country in with nuclear technologies in defiance of international treaty, other nuclear suppliers also have their own partners of interest as well as good reasons to copy what the United States did. A domino effect of nuclear proliferation, once turned into reality, will definitely lead to global nuclear proliferation and competition. Always calling itself a 'guard' for nuclear proliferation prevention, the US often condemns other countries for irresponsible transfers but this time, it hesitates not a bit in revising laws, taking the lead in 'making an exception' (in the case of India).Such an act of the United States once again proves that America is not at all a 'guard' of NPT and the treaty, however, is no more than a disguise serving the US interest. The most immediate reason for the foundation of NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) was India's first nuclear test in 1974, after which the United States instantly cut off its nuclear cooperation with India and established the NSG in 1975 to restrict selling sensitive nuclear technologies and raw materials to non-NPT countries. Over the past 30 years, the United States has always been trying to prevent India from access to nuclear technologies. Today, however, the United States wants a change."
3. The editorial came in the wake of a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) on October 20, 2005, at which a US representative briefed the NSG members on the Indo-US deal and spoke of the US intention to move for the lifting of the NSG restrictions against India after the passage of the enabling legislation by the US Congress and the finalisation of a formal bilateral agreement (the 123 Agreement now signed) by India and the US.
4.. The lack of enthusiasm for the Indo-US nuclear deal was again evident at the time of the visit of President George Bush to India in the first week of March, 2006. In the daily media briefing of the Chinese Foreign Office at Beijing on March 2, 2006, its spokesperson Qin Gang said: "India should abandon nuclear weapons and strengthen atomic safeguards. India should sign the NPT and also dismantle its nuclear weapons. As a signatory country, China hopes non-signatory countries will join it as soon as possible as non-nuclear weapon states, thereby contributing to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime. China hopes that concerned countries developing cooperation in peaceful nuclear uses will pay attention to these efforts. The cooperation should conform with the rules of international non-proliferation mechanisms."
5. This negative attitude was in a great measure caused by the Chinese suspicion that the Indo-US nuclear deal was the US' quid pro quo for an Indian willingness to co-operate with the US in countering the growing Chinese power in the Asian region. This suspicion was strengthened when our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, decided not to attend the summit meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) as an observer at Shanghai in June, 2006. The Indian explanation that since India was only an observer of the SCO and not a full-fledged member, its participation at the level of the head of Government was not warranted did not seem convincing to Beijing. The Prime Minister's decision not to go was interpreted as due to the US suspicion that one of the main objectives of the SCO was to counter the US presence and role in the Central Asian Republics. As a result, China's lack of enthusiasm for the Indo-US nuclear deal continued.
6. In the meanwhile, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan initiated a campaign to counter the Indo-US deal at two levels. He did not oppose the deal. Nor did Pakistan energetically try to have the deal disapproved by the US Congress through Congressmen and Senators sympathetic to it. Instead, it sought to counter the deal by using the following arguments. First, it will be discriminatory to Pakistan if it was not made applicable to it too. Second, it will create a military nuclear asymmetry in the sub-continent by enabling India to divert its domestic stock of fuel for military purposes, while using the imported fuel for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Thus, it will have an adverse effect on Pakistan's national security.
7. The US rejected the Pakistani arguments by pointing out that Pakistan's economy was unlikely to grow as rapidly as the Indian economy in the short and medium terms and hence it should be possible to meet its energy requirements from conventional sources. The US also repeatedly made it clear that in view of the role of Dr. A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, and some of his colleagues in clandestinely supplying nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, Pakistan cannot be treated on par with India, which had an unimpeachable record of non-proliferation.
8. While sticking to his arguments, Musharraf requested the Chinese leaders during his State visit to China in February, 2006, for Chinese assistance in the construction of six more nuclear power stations, with a capacity of 600 or 900 MWS each. The Chinese reportedly agreed in principle to supply two stations of 300 MWs each to be followed later by four more. This subject again figured in the General's bilateral discussions with Mr.HU in the margins of the SCO summit in June, 2006, and in the subsequent discussions between the officials of the two countries, who met at Islamabad and Beijing for doing the preparatory work for Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Pakistan from November 23 to 26.
9. Gen. Musharraf and his officials were so confident that an agreement in principle for the construction of two new nuclear power stations (Chashma III and IV ) would be initialed during Mr. Hu's visit that they even set up a site selection task force.
10. Then for reasons, which were not clear, there were indications of changes in the Chinese attitude---less negative towards the Indo-US nuclear deal and increasingly guarded on the Pakistani request for new nuclear power stations. In the case of India, the changing Chinese attitude was reflected in the daily media briefing of the Foreign Office spokesperson and in a media interview given by the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi. In the case of Pakistan, the change was reflected in the daily media briefings of the spokespersons of the two Foreign Offices at Beijing and Islamabad.
11. In an interview to the Press Trust of India (PTI), which was circulated by the agency on November 20, 2006, before the arrival of Mr.Hu in New Delhi, Mr. Sun Yuxi, the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi, was reported to have stated as follows: ``Every country has the right to develop energy in any form, including nuclear form, to meet its development needs. The objectives of non-proliferation should also be maintained and strengthened." When it was pointed out by the agency that India had contended that it abided by all non-proliferation rules although it had not signed the NPT, he said: ``Anything which can strengthen non-proliferation efforts should be welcomed by the international community.'' He added that Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon had recently apprised him about the issue and told him that India was trying to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. “I (would) like to take his word... If India is making effort, if any effort (is being made) to strengthen non-proliferation, I agree,'' he said. The Chinese envoy, however, refused to comment on the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal on the ground that it was a bilateral issue between India and the US.
12. A few hours later, in response to a question on the subject, Jiang Yu, spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at Beijing: "China has sought more information and explanations from India to address the concerns of some countries on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. We hope that Indian side can attach importance to these opinions and provide more information and explanations. Chinese side has noted that during the deliberations in the NSG regarding US-India nuclear cooperation, some countries expressed concern and doubts. The Chinese side will continue to participate in these relevant discussions with an earnest and responsible attitude."
13. Almost coinciding with these explanations at New Delhi and Beijing, the spokespersons of the Foreign Ministries of Pakistan and China tried to discourage expectations in Pakistan that Gen. Musharraf and Mr.Hu would be initialling a memorandum of understanding on the Chinese supply of two more nuclear power stations. They described the reports in this regard, which had been appearing in the Pakistani media for weeks before Mr. Hu's visit, as speculative and not based on facts.
14. The Joint Declaration issued on November 21, 2006, at the end of the formal talks between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr.Hu said: "Energy security constitutes a vital and strategic issue for producing and consuming countries alike. It is consistent with the common interest of the two sides to establish an international energy order, which is fair, equitable, secure and stable, and to the benefit of the entire international community. Both sides shall also make joint efforts, bilaterally as well as in multilateral fora, to diversify the global energy mix and to increase the share in it of renewable energy sources. Global energy systems should take into account and meet the energy needs of both countries, as part and parcel of a stable, predictable, secure and clean energy future. In this context, international civilian nuclear cooperation should be advanced through innovative and forward-looking approaches, while safeguarding the effectiveness of international non-proliferation principles. Both countries are committed to non-proliferation objectives and agree to expand their dialogue on the related issues, in bilateral and international fora."
15. The reference to promotion of international civilian nuclear co-operation through "innovative and forward-looking approaches" was interpreted, with some validity, as confirming the evolution of the Chinese view on the Indo-US deal from negative to hopefully positive. As a result, there was a greater confidence in New Delhi that China might not oppose the removal of restrictions applicable to India when the matter formally came up before the NSG at the initiative of the US. This guarded optimism was also evident from an interview given by Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the Indian Minister For External Affairs, to Shri Karan Thapar of the IBN-CNN TV channel on November 26. The relevant extract is annexed.
16. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr.Hu had formal talks hardly for a little more than an hour. The carefully-formulated position on the nuclear issue could not have been the outcome of such a brief meeting. The final version of the Joint Declaration was already ready before the two leaders formally met and approved it. It had been drafted by the officials of the two countries in their preparatory meetings in the weeks before Mr. Hu's arrival. The change in the Chinese position must have been the outcome of these discussions in the weeks before Mr. Hu's visit and not a sudden change on the eve of the summit or at the summit itself.
17. As against this, the change in the Chinese position with regard to Pakistan's request for six more nuclear power stations came about suddenly in the days (not weeks) before Mr. Hu's arrival in Islamabad. Well-informed Pakistani sources attributed the more guarded Chinese position to the bilateral discussions between President George Bush and Mr.Hu at Hanoi in the margins of the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Organisation on November 18 and 19, 2006. The speculation was that during these bilateral discussions, Mr. Bush pointed out to Mr.Hu that the Chinese supply of new nuclear power stations to Pakistan could not be projected as a continuation of the Chinese assistance to Pakistan under a 1985 bilateral co-operation treaty under which CHASHMA I and CHASHMA II were given and hence would need the clearance of the NSG. According to this speculation, Mr. Bush was also reported to have referred to the Pakistani rejection of repeated requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to hand over Dr. A. Q. Khan for an independent interrogation and pointed out that the Chinese supply of the new power stations could encourage Pakistan's non-cooperation with the IAEA.
18. It was believed by these sources that Beijing, which has been projecting itself as a responsible and co-operative interlocutor of the US, Japan and South Korea on the question of North Korea's nuclear test and has won praise for its role in bringing North Korea back to the negotiating table, did not want this positive image to be dented by disregarding the reservations of Mr. Bush relating to the supply of new power stations to Pakistan. It, therefore, changed its stance at the last minute.
19. There was no substantive reference to the co-operation between China and Pakistan in the field of civilian nuclear energy during Mr. Hu's visit to Pakistan. The joint statement issued on November 25, 2006, by Gen. Musharraf and Mr.Hu said: “The two sides also agreed to strengthen cooperation in the energy sector, including fossil fuels, coal, hydro-power, nuclear power, renewable sources of energy as well as in the mining and resources sector.” Addressing a press conference after his talks with Gen. Musharraf, Mr.Hu said in reply to a question on nuclear co-operation: "Cooperation in the energy sector is an important component in the relationship between the two countries. We reached a common understanding on strengthening energy cooperation. We would continue this cooperation in future as well." While Mr.Hu himself did not refer to any future supply of new nuclear power stations, some Pakistani analysts interpreted Mr. Hu's remarks as indicating a willingness to supply more nuclear power stations.
20.Pakistani officials and analysts close to the Government tried to give the impression that the fact that no memorandum of understanding was signed did not mean that the Chinese were not going ahead with the project. But, the Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson was very clear on this point during a media briefing on November 20, 2006, at Beijing. He said: "As far as I know, there will be no new arrangement in this area."
21. Interestingly, in reply to a question on this subject, Mr. Sean McCormack, a spokesperson of the US State Department, said in Washington as follows on November 27,2006: "The US welcomes strong ties between China and Pakistan and urges China to play a constructive role in world affairs. We encourage development of bilateral relations between Pakistan and its neighbours. China and Pakistan have a long history of relations. As for any sort of nuclear angle on this, I’m not aware of anything new that was announced or is allowed for by these agreements other than what was already grandfathered in by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So I don’t think there’s anything new on that front.”
22.What he apparently meant was that in addition to the Chashma I and Chashma II power stations given by China under an old agreement of 1985 for civilian nuclear co-operation between China and Pakistan, there would be nothing new for the present till approved by the NSG.
What was significant was that China paid attention to the US reservations on this subject instead of going ahead with its assistance as it did in the past in matters such as the supply of M-9 and M-11 missiles and nuclear equipment to Pakistan. This new attention to US reservations is what the Americans welcomed as China's constructive role.
23.There was no reference to China's possible assistance to Pakistan for the construction of Chashma IV and V for nearly seven months ---either from the Pakistani side or from the Chinese side. On July 18, 2007, there was a surprising reference to it in a Chinese statement on the Pakistani commando action in the Lal Masjid. This caused anger against the Chinese, who were suspected to have forced Musharraf to order the commando action after the kidnapping of six Chinese women by some students of the girls' madrasa attached to the Masjid. The "China Daily" reported as follows on July 18, 2007: "China did not push Pakistan for operations against the Red Mosque, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Luo Zhaohui said. It is the consistent policy of China not to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries, he told The News, a major Pakistani daily. Luo said he was considering an invitation to visit the mosque but it was made impossible due to the unstable security situation. "We enjoy very cordial relations with the ruling party here and likewise we maintain friendly ties with other segments of the society including the political parties of the opposition," he said. "I had no knowledge as to why Chinese nationals are being targeted and were the victims in five recent incidents", Luo said, referring to several Chinese who were killed in that country. He said if Chinese continued to be targeted, cooperation between the two countries could suffer. To protect the 3,000 Chinese working in Pakistan, China and Pakistan have decided to set up a Joint Task Force (JTF), the Ambassador revealed. China and Pakistan are still close friends and neighbors, Luo said. The Chinese Government is in discussions about proposed Chashma-III and IV for nuclear power projects. Chashma-II will be completed early next year, he said."
24.Apparently concerned over the anti-Chinese turn in some sections of public opinion in the tribal areas, the Chinese once again started talking of possible Chinese assistance for the construction of Chashma III and IV in order to reassure Pakistani public opinion that China would continue to be a steadfast friend of Pakistan. China's reversion to its pre-November,2006, positive stand on Chashma III and IV also came in the wake of reported Chinese concerns over the real purpose of the reported concert of democracies involving India, the US, Japan and Australia and moves for a joint naval exercise involving these four countries plus Singapore.
25.On August 2,2007,Pakistan's National Command Authority met under the chairmanship of President General Pervez Musharraf, to discuss, inter alia, India's 123 agreement with the US. A statement issued at the end of the meeting said:“The US-India nuclear agreement would have implications on strategic stability of the region as it would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from un-safeguarded nuclear reactors.The objective of strategic stability in South Asia and the global non-proliferation regime would have been better served if the US had considered a package approach for Pakistan and India with a view to preventing a nuclear arms race in the region and promoting nuclear restraints.While continuing to act with responsibility in maintaining credible minimum deterrence and avoiding an arms race, Pakistan will neither be oblivious to its security requirements, nor to the needs of its economic development which demand growth in the energy sector.The meeting reviewed Pakistan’s objective and plans for civil nuclear power generation under IAEA safeguards, which is part of the overall energy strategy to meet the requirements of economic growth in the country. This objective will be pursued on priority basis especially in view of the increasing oil prices."
26. A Press Trust of India despatch from Beijing after the conclusion of the 123 agreement has cited a Chinese spokesperson as indicating that China would adopt a "creative" approach to the development. This recalls the use of the expression "innovative" at the time of Hu's visit to India.
27. When the issue of the NSG relaxing or lifting its present restrictions on India comes up before it formally in the wake of the 123 agreement, three Scenarios are possible:
SCENARIO I: China does not agree to it. This Scenario is unlikely as this could affect the forward momentum in Indo-Chinese relations.
SCENARIO II: China agrees to it without any conditions in the interest of its good relations with India without worrying about its impact on its relations with Pakistan. It seems to be an over-optimistic scenario for the present.
SCENARIO III: China agrees to it subject to the condition that there is a similar relaxation of the NSG guidelines in the case of Pakistan so that it could sell Chashmas III and IV to Pakistan.This Scenario was posed to Shri Pranab Mukherjee by Shri Karan Thapar. His answers were evasive, but one got the impression that India would not be unduly concerned over this so long as the restrictions on its international purchases are lifted.
28. In the eventuality of Scenario III materialising, there could be a delay in the implementation of the 123 agreement due to the following reasons:
The US might insist that before clearing the supply of Chashma III and IV to Pakistan, China and Pakistan should sign a formal agreement similar to the Indo-US deal under which Pakistan would separate its military and civilian infrastructure and sign a Pakistan-centric safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which would apply to its civilian infrastructure.
There could be Congressional opposition to the US agreeing to this till the Pakistan Government makes A.Q.Khan available for interrogation by IAEA experts.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
ANNEXURE
EXTRACTS FROM SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE'S INTERVIEW TO SHRI KARAN THAPAR
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. As attention starts to focus on India’s relationship with China and United States, those are the two key issues I shall raise today in an exclusive interview with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Mr Mukherjee, let’s start with the Chinese President’s visit to India, which has just been concluded. The joint declaration says, “International civilian nuclear cooperation should be advanced through innovative and forward-looking approaches while safeguarding the effectiveness of international non-proliferation principles.” Do you interpret that as an endorsement of the Indo-US nuclear deal?
Pranab Mukherjee: No. After all we are also for non-proliferation. At the same time, what is being done with India, especially with regard to the Indo-US nuclear deal, they are giving a special treatment to India because of India’s track record related to non-proliferation.
Karan Thapar: So, you’re saying that China has not endorsed it?
Pranab Mukherjee: No. China has endorsed it. I am just explaining the ‘innovative’ word.
Karan Thapar: So, when officials of your ministry have given an assessment to The Hindu, as they did on Friday, to say that China will not come in the way of any decisions of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift restrictions on international civilian nuclear cooperation with India,” you agree with that agreement?
Pranab Mukherjee: I hope so.
Karan Thapar: When you say hope so, is there some doubt? Is there some uncertainty?
Pranab Mukherjee: No. There is no uncertainty. I hope that they will not come in the way.
Karan Thapar: So you’re confident that China will not come in the way?
Pranab Mukherjee: Why are you playing with words? In diplomacy, we don't play with words. What we say is we wait till the official outcome comes.
Karan Thapar: But you are confident?
Pranab Mukherjee: I am confident.
Karan Thapar: There is a lot of speculation that China might end up offering a similar nuclear deal to Pakistan. So far in the newspapers, there is no mention of it. But if it were to have been offered quietly and not made public, would you be concerned?
Pranab Mukherjee: We shall have to recognise the fact that different countries have different relationships with different countries, keeping in view their own perspectives. Relationship of one country need not stand in the relationship of the other country. Therefore, we shall have to keep that fact always in view while assessing the relationship between two countries.
Karan Thapar: Very interesting. Most people will interpret that to mean that if China does give Pakistan a nuclear deal similar to the Indo-US nuclear deal, India will have no objection?
Pranab Mukherjee: It's not a question of my objection or non-objection. It's a question of what happens in the ground reality. Therefore, we shall have to keep in view… For instance, Pakistan is being supplied with sophisticated weapons by the USA over a long period.
By B. Raman
Between July, 2005, when India and the US agreed in principle on civilian nuclear co-operation, and June, 2006, Beijing's reaction was unmistakably unenthusiastic. It sought to justify its lack of enthusiasm on the ground that such a special waiver to India, when it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and not given up its military nuclear ambitions, could weaken the global non-proliferation architecture.
2. While Chinese Government spokespersons avoided outspoken comments on the India-US deal while making obvious their lack of enthusiasm for it, the government-controlled media in China observed no such restraint. For example, the "People's Daily" wrote on November 4, 2005: "This would be a hard blow on America's leading role in the global proliferation prevention system as well as the system itself. This will bring about a series of negative impacts. Now that the United States buys another country in with nuclear technologies in defiance of international treaty, other nuclear suppliers also have their own partners of interest as well as good reasons to copy what the United States did. A domino effect of nuclear proliferation, once turned into reality, will definitely lead to global nuclear proliferation and competition. Always calling itself a 'guard' for nuclear proliferation prevention, the US often condemns other countries for irresponsible transfers but this time, it hesitates not a bit in revising laws, taking the lead in 'making an exception' (in the case of India).Such an act of the United States once again proves that America is not at all a 'guard' of NPT and the treaty, however, is no more than a disguise serving the US interest. The most immediate reason for the foundation of NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) was India's first nuclear test in 1974, after which the United States instantly cut off its nuclear cooperation with India and established the NSG in 1975 to restrict selling sensitive nuclear technologies and raw materials to non-NPT countries. Over the past 30 years, the United States has always been trying to prevent India from access to nuclear technologies. Today, however, the United States wants a change."
3. The editorial came in the wake of a meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) on October 20, 2005, at which a US representative briefed the NSG members on the Indo-US deal and spoke of the US intention to move for the lifting of the NSG restrictions against India after the passage of the enabling legislation by the US Congress and the finalisation of a formal bilateral agreement (the 123 Agreement now signed) by India and the US.
4.. The lack of enthusiasm for the Indo-US nuclear deal was again evident at the time of the visit of President George Bush to India in the first week of March, 2006. In the daily media briefing of the Chinese Foreign Office at Beijing on March 2, 2006, its spokesperson Qin Gang said: "India should abandon nuclear weapons and strengthen atomic safeguards. India should sign the NPT and also dismantle its nuclear weapons. As a signatory country, China hopes non-signatory countries will join it as soon as possible as non-nuclear weapon states, thereby contributing to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime. China hopes that concerned countries developing cooperation in peaceful nuclear uses will pay attention to these efforts. The cooperation should conform with the rules of international non-proliferation mechanisms."
5. This negative attitude was in a great measure caused by the Chinese suspicion that the Indo-US nuclear deal was the US' quid pro quo for an Indian willingness to co-operate with the US in countering the growing Chinese power in the Asian region. This suspicion was strengthened when our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, decided not to attend the summit meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) as an observer at Shanghai in June, 2006. The Indian explanation that since India was only an observer of the SCO and not a full-fledged member, its participation at the level of the head of Government was not warranted did not seem convincing to Beijing. The Prime Minister's decision not to go was interpreted as due to the US suspicion that one of the main objectives of the SCO was to counter the US presence and role in the Central Asian Republics. As a result, China's lack of enthusiasm for the Indo-US nuclear deal continued.
6. In the meanwhile, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan initiated a campaign to counter the Indo-US deal at two levels. He did not oppose the deal. Nor did Pakistan energetically try to have the deal disapproved by the US Congress through Congressmen and Senators sympathetic to it. Instead, it sought to counter the deal by using the following arguments. First, it will be discriminatory to Pakistan if it was not made applicable to it too. Second, it will create a military nuclear asymmetry in the sub-continent by enabling India to divert its domestic stock of fuel for military purposes, while using the imported fuel for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Thus, it will have an adverse effect on Pakistan's national security.
7. The US rejected the Pakistani arguments by pointing out that Pakistan's economy was unlikely to grow as rapidly as the Indian economy in the short and medium terms and hence it should be possible to meet its energy requirements from conventional sources. The US also repeatedly made it clear that in view of the role of Dr. A. Q. Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, and some of his colleagues in clandestinely supplying nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, Pakistan cannot be treated on par with India, which had an unimpeachable record of non-proliferation.
8. While sticking to his arguments, Musharraf requested the Chinese leaders during his State visit to China in February, 2006, for Chinese assistance in the construction of six more nuclear power stations, with a capacity of 600 or 900 MWS each. The Chinese reportedly agreed in principle to supply two stations of 300 MWs each to be followed later by four more. This subject again figured in the General's bilateral discussions with Mr.HU in the margins of the SCO summit in June, 2006, and in the subsequent discussions between the officials of the two countries, who met at Islamabad and Beijing for doing the preparatory work for Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Pakistan from November 23 to 26.
9. Gen. Musharraf and his officials were so confident that an agreement in principle for the construction of two new nuclear power stations (Chashma III and IV ) would be initialed during Mr. Hu's visit that they even set up a site selection task force.
10. Then for reasons, which were not clear, there were indications of changes in the Chinese attitude---less negative towards the Indo-US nuclear deal and increasingly guarded on the Pakistani request for new nuclear power stations. In the case of India, the changing Chinese attitude was reflected in the daily media briefing of the Foreign Office spokesperson and in a media interview given by the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi. In the case of Pakistan, the change was reflected in the daily media briefings of the spokespersons of the two Foreign Offices at Beijing and Islamabad.
11. In an interview to the Press Trust of India (PTI), which was circulated by the agency on November 20, 2006, before the arrival of Mr.Hu in New Delhi, Mr. Sun Yuxi, the Chinese Ambassador in New Delhi, was reported to have stated as follows: ``Every country has the right to develop energy in any form, including nuclear form, to meet its development needs. The objectives of non-proliferation should also be maintained and strengthened." When it was pointed out by the agency that India had contended that it abided by all non-proliferation rules although it had not signed the NPT, he said: ``Anything which can strengthen non-proliferation efforts should be welcomed by the international community.'' He added that Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon had recently apprised him about the issue and told him that India was trying to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. “I (would) like to take his word... If India is making effort, if any effort (is being made) to strengthen non-proliferation, I agree,'' he said. The Chinese envoy, however, refused to comment on the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal on the ground that it was a bilateral issue between India and the US.
12. A few hours later, in response to a question on the subject, Jiang Yu, spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said at Beijing: "China has sought more information and explanations from India to address the concerns of some countries on the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. We hope that Indian side can attach importance to these opinions and provide more information and explanations. Chinese side has noted that during the deliberations in the NSG regarding US-India nuclear cooperation, some countries expressed concern and doubts. The Chinese side will continue to participate in these relevant discussions with an earnest and responsible attitude."
13. Almost coinciding with these explanations at New Delhi and Beijing, the spokespersons of the Foreign Ministries of Pakistan and China tried to discourage expectations in Pakistan that Gen. Musharraf and Mr.Hu would be initialling a memorandum of understanding on the Chinese supply of two more nuclear power stations. They described the reports in this regard, which had been appearing in the Pakistani media for weeks before Mr. Hu's visit, as speculative and not based on facts.
14. The Joint Declaration issued on November 21, 2006, at the end of the formal talks between Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr.Hu said: "Energy security constitutes a vital and strategic issue for producing and consuming countries alike. It is consistent with the common interest of the two sides to establish an international energy order, which is fair, equitable, secure and stable, and to the benefit of the entire international community. Both sides shall also make joint efforts, bilaterally as well as in multilateral fora, to diversify the global energy mix and to increase the share in it of renewable energy sources. Global energy systems should take into account and meet the energy needs of both countries, as part and parcel of a stable, predictable, secure and clean energy future. In this context, international civilian nuclear cooperation should be advanced through innovative and forward-looking approaches, while safeguarding the effectiveness of international non-proliferation principles. Both countries are committed to non-proliferation objectives and agree to expand their dialogue on the related issues, in bilateral and international fora."
15. The reference to promotion of international civilian nuclear co-operation through "innovative and forward-looking approaches" was interpreted, with some validity, as confirming the evolution of the Chinese view on the Indo-US deal from negative to hopefully positive. As a result, there was a greater confidence in New Delhi that China might not oppose the removal of restrictions applicable to India when the matter formally came up before the NSG at the initiative of the US. This guarded optimism was also evident from an interview given by Shri Pranab Mukherjee, the Indian Minister For External Affairs, to Shri Karan Thapar of the IBN-CNN TV channel on November 26. The relevant extract is annexed.
16. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr.Hu had formal talks hardly for a little more than an hour. The carefully-formulated position on the nuclear issue could not have been the outcome of such a brief meeting. The final version of the Joint Declaration was already ready before the two leaders formally met and approved it. It had been drafted by the officials of the two countries in their preparatory meetings in the weeks before Mr. Hu's arrival. The change in the Chinese position must have been the outcome of these discussions in the weeks before Mr. Hu's visit and not a sudden change on the eve of the summit or at the summit itself.
17. As against this, the change in the Chinese position with regard to Pakistan's request for six more nuclear power stations came about suddenly in the days (not weeks) before Mr. Hu's arrival in Islamabad. Well-informed Pakistani sources attributed the more guarded Chinese position to the bilateral discussions between President George Bush and Mr.Hu at Hanoi in the margins of the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Organisation on November 18 and 19, 2006. The speculation was that during these bilateral discussions, Mr. Bush pointed out to Mr.Hu that the Chinese supply of new nuclear power stations to Pakistan could not be projected as a continuation of the Chinese assistance to Pakistan under a 1985 bilateral co-operation treaty under which CHASHMA I and CHASHMA II were given and hence would need the clearance of the NSG. According to this speculation, Mr. Bush was also reported to have referred to the Pakistani rejection of repeated requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to hand over Dr. A. Q. Khan for an independent interrogation and pointed out that the Chinese supply of the new power stations could encourage Pakistan's non-cooperation with the IAEA.
18. It was believed by these sources that Beijing, which has been projecting itself as a responsible and co-operative interlocutor of the US, Japan and South Korea on the question of North Korea's nuclear test and has won praise for its role in bringing North Korea back to the negotiating table, did not want this positive image to be dented by disregarding the reservations of Mr. Bush relating to the supply of new power stations to Pakistan. It, therefore, changed its stance at the last minute.
19. There was no substantive reference to the co-operation between China and Pakistan in the field of civilian nuclear energy during Mr. Hu's visit to Pakistan. The joint statement issued on November 25, 2006, by Gen. Musharraf and Mr.Hu said: “The two sides also agreed to strengthen cooperation in the energy sector, including fossil fuels, coal, hydro-power, nuclear power, renewable sources of energy as well as in the mining and resources sector.” Addressing a press conference after his talks with Gen. Musharraf, Mr.Hu said in reply to a question on nuclear co-operation: "Cooperation in the energy sector is an important component in the relationship between the two countries. We reached a common understanding on strengthening energy cooperation. We would continue this cooperation in future as well." While Mr.Hu himself did not refer to any future supply of new nuclear power stations, some Pakistani analysts interpreted Mr. Hu's remarks as indicating a willingness to supply more nuclear power stations.
20.Pakistani officials and analysts close to the Government tried to give the impression that the fact that no memorandum of understanding was signed did not mean that the Chinese were not going ahead with the project. But, the Chinese Foreign Office spokesperson was very clear on this point during a media briefing on November 20, 2006, at Beijing. He said: "As far as I know, there will be no new arrangement in this area."
21. Interestingly, in reply to a question on this subject, Mr. Sean McCormack, a spokesperson of the US State Department, said in Washington as follows on November 27,2006: "The US welcomes strong ties between China and Pakistan and urges China to play a constructive role in world affairs. We encourage development of bilateral relations between Pakistan and its neighbours. China and Pakistan have a long history of relations. As for any sort of nuclear angle on this, I’m not aware of anything new that was announced or is allowed for by these agreements other than what was already grandfathered in by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. So I don’t think there’s anything new on that front.”
22.What he apparently meant was that in addition to the Chashma I and Chashma II power stations given by China under an old agreement of 1985 for civilian nuclear co-operation between China and Pakistan, there would be nothing new for the present till approved by the NSG.
What was significant was that China paid attention to the US reservations on this subject instead of going ahead with its assistance as it did in the past in matters such as the supply of M-9 and M-11 missiles and nuclear equipment to Pakistan. This new attention to US reservations is what the Americans welcomed as China's constructive role.
23.There was no reference to China's possible assistance to Pakistan for the construction of Chashma IV and V for nearly seven months ---either from the Pakistani side or from the Chinese side. On July 18, 2007, there was a surprising reference to it in a Chinese statement on the Pakistani commando action in the Lal Masjid. This caused anger against the Chinese, who were suspected to have forced Musharraf to order the commando action after the kidnapping of six Chinese women by some students of the girls' madrasa attached to the Masjid. The "China Daily" reported as follows on July 18, 2007: "China did not push Pakistan for operations against the Red Mosque, Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan Luo Zhaohui said. It is the consistent policy of China not to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries, he told The News, a major Pakistani daily. Luo said he was considering an invitation to visit the mosque but it was made impossible due to the unstable security situation. "We enjoy very cordial relations with the ruling party here and likewise we maintain friendly ties with other segments of the society including the political parties of the opposition," he said. "I had no knowledge as to why Chinese nationals are being targeted and were the victims in five recent incidents", Luo said, referring to several Chinese who were killed in that country. He said if Chinese continued to be targeted, cooperation between the two countries could suffer. To protect the 3,000 Chinese working in Pakistan, China and Pakistan have decided to set up a Joint Task Force (JTF), the Ambassador revealed. China and Pakistan are still close friends and neighbors, Luo said. The Chinese Government is in discussions about proposed Chashma-III and IV for nuclear power projects. Chashma-II will be completed early next year, he said."
24.Apparently concerned over the anti-Chinese turn in some sections of public opinion in the tribal areas, the Chinese once again started talking of possible Chinese assistance for the construction of Chashma III and IV in order to reassure Pakistani public opinion that China would continue to be a steadfast friend of Pakistan. China's reversion to its pre-November,2006, positive stand on Chashma III and IV also came in the wake of reported Chinese concerns over the real purpose of the reported concert of democracies involving India, the US, Japan and Australia and moves for a joint naval exercise involving these four countries plus Singapore.
25.On August 2,2007,Pakistan's National Command Authority met under the chairmanship of President General Pervez Musharraf, to discuss, inter alia, India's 123 agreement with the US. A statement issued at the end of the meeting said:“The US-India nuclear agreement would have implications on strategic stability of the region as it would enable India to produce significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons from un-safeguarded nuclear reactors.The objective of strategic stability in South Asia and the global non-proliferation regime would have been better served if the US had considered a package approach for Pakistan and India with a view to preventing a nuclear arms race in the region and promoting nuclear restraints.While continuing to act with responsibility in maintaining credible minimum deterrence and avoiding an arms race, Pakistan will neither be oblivious to its security requirements, nor to the needs of its economic development which demand growth in the energy sector.The meeting reviewed Pakistan’s objective and plans for civil nuclear power generation under IAEA safeguards, which is part of the overall energy strategy to meet the requirements of economic growth in the country. This objective will be pursued on priority basis especially in view of the increasing oil prices."
26. A Press Trust of India despatch from Beijing after the conclusion of the 123 agreement has cited a Chinese spokesperson as indicating that China would adopt a "creative" approach to the development. This recalls the use of the expression "innovative" at the time of Hu's visit to India.
27. When the issue of the NSG relaxing or lifting its present restrictions on India comes up before it formally in the wake of the 123 agreement, three Scenarios are possible:
SCENARIO I: China does not agree to it. This Scenario is unlikely as this could affect the forward momentum in Indo-Chinese relations.
SCENARIO II: China agrees to it without any conditions in the interest of its good relations with India without worrying about its impact on its relations with Pakistan. It seems to be an over-optimistic scenario for the present.
SCENARIO III: China agrees to it subject to the condition that there is a similar relaxation of the NSG guidelines in the case of Pakistan so that it could sell Chashmas III and IV to Pakistan.This Scenario was posed to Shri Pranab Mukherjee by Shri Karan Thapar. His answers were evasive, but one got the impression that India would not be unduly concerned over this so long as the restrictions on its international purchases are lifted.
28. In the eventuality of Scenario III materialising, there could be a delay in the implementation of the 123 agreement due to the following reasons:
The US might insist that before clearing the supply of Chashma III and IV to Pakistan, China and Pakistan should sign a formal agreement similar to the Indo-US deal under which Pakistan would separate its military and civilian infrastructure and sign a Pakistan-centric safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which would apply to its civilian infrastructure.
There could be Congressional opposition to the US agreeing to this till the Pakistan Government makes A.Q.Khan available for interrogation by IAEA experts.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
ANNEXURE
EXTRACTS FROM SHRI PRANAB MUKHERJEE'S INTERVIEW TO SHRI KARAN THAPAR
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. As attention starts to focus on India’s relationship with China and United States, those are the two key issues I shall raise today in an exclusive interview with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
Mr Mukherjee, let’s start with the Chinese President’s visit to India, which has just been concluded. The joint declaration says, “International civilian nuclear cooperation should be advanced through innovative and forward-looking approaches while safeguarding the effectiveness of international non-proliferation principles.” Do you interpret that as an endorsement of the Indo-US nuclear deal?
Pranab Mukherjee: No. After all we are also for non-proliferation. At the same time, what is being done with India, especially with regard to the Indo-US nuclear deal, they are giving a special treatment to India because of India’s track record related to non-proliferation.
Karan Thapar: So, you’re saying that China has not endorsed it?
Pranab Mukherjee: No. China has endorsed it. I am just explaining the ‘innovative’ word.
Karan Thapar: So, when officials of your ministry have given an assessment to The Hindu, as they did on Friday, to say that China will not come in the way of any decisions of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift restrictions on international civilian nuclear cooperation with India,” you agree with that agreement?
Pranab Mukherjee: I hope so.
Karan Thapar: When you say hope so, is there some doubt? Is there some uncertainty?
Pranab Mukherjee: No. There is no uncertainty. I hope that they will not come in the way.
Karan Thapar: So you’re confident that China will not come in the way?
Pranab Mukherjee: Why are you playing with words? In diplomacy, we don't play with words. What we say is we wait till the official outcome comes.
Karan Thapar: But you are confident?
Pranab Mukherjee: I am confident.
Karan Thapar: There is a lot of speculation that China might end up offering a similar nuclear deal to Pakistan. So far in the newspapers, there is no mention of it. But if it were to have been offered quietly and not made public, would you be concerned?
Pranab Mukherjee: We shall have to recognise the fact that different countries have different relationships with different countries, keeping in view their own perspectives. Relationship of one country need not stand in the relationship of the other country. Therefore, we shall have to keep that fact always in view while assessing the relationship between two countries.
Karan Thapar: Very interesting. Most people will interpret that to mean that if China does give Pakistan a nuclear deal similar to the Indo-US nuclear deal, India will have no objection?
Pranab Mukherjee: It's not a question of my objection or non-objection. It's a question of what happens in the ground reality. Therefore, we shall have to keep in view… For instance, Pakistan is being supplied with sophisticated weapons by the USA over a long period.
US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL GENERATES VEHEMENT OPPOSITION IN INDIAN PARLIAMENT & PUBLIC DEBATE: An Analysis
US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL GENERATES VEHEMENT OPPOSITION IN INDIAN PARLIAMENT & PUBLIC DEBATE: An Analysis
By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Introductory Observations
The US-India Nuclear Deal Agreement unveiled by the Congress Government in India under suspicious circumstances after freezing the text and keeping it in wraps for some time has raised an unprecedented but expected storm in the Indian Parliament and in public debate.
In the Indian Parliament, the opposition to the US-India Nuclear Deal Agreement as finalized by the Government cuts across political parties lines and the Congress Party stands isolated. The Leftists as the main coalition supporter of the Congress Government have given an ultimatum that the Government should press the “pause button” and not proceed further on the Agreement and that the Agreement may need renegotiation. An explicit threat is implied that they could withdraw support to the Congress Government.
The Indian Prime Minister’s obdurate fixation to go ahead irrespective of the Leftists warning not only imperils the continuance in office of the Congress Government but also imperils the future of the US-India Nuclear Deal. A new political dispensation in India may not agree to go through with the Deal in the present form.
The issue that has presently acquired salience is not the Deal itself per-se, but the wider issue of the conduct of India’s foreign policy and the content of the US-India Strategic Partnership. The US-India Nuclear Deal as a purely “energy security initiative” should have been kept separate from the wider issues of US-India Strategic Partnership. What has happened is that concurrently with the US-India Nuclear Deal negotiations, the Indian Government allowed itself to be drawn into US – sponsored security initiatives like the US-Japan-India Trilateral and the US-Japan-Australia-India Quadrilateral. This rang alarm bells across India’s political spectrum.
Regular readers of papers by this author on the subject would recall that the Deal as originally conceived in July 2005 was welcomed by this author and others writing on this web-site. Readers would also recall that after the first six months itself, this author had begun injecting assessments and analyses that the future of the Deal was in doubt. In this connection besides other papers of this author, the following need particular highlighting with reference to what is happening today:
“US-India Nuclear Deal Reviewed "(SAAG Paper No. 1670 dated 10.01.2006)
“US-India Nuclear Deal Generates “Great Indian Divide” (SAAG Paper No. 1701 dated 14.02.2006)
“US Congress at Critical Crossroads with India: A Plain Speaking Analysis” (SAAG Paper No. 1766 dated 12.04.2006).
More than a year ago, not with any hindsight, but with prescient foresight, the above papers of the author had made the following observations:
“The dramatic change from high Indian expectations of the deal to a wide Indian divide now opposing the deal, in a matter of six months, needs serious analysis”.
“What can be stated straightaway is that the blame rests both on US Administration and the Indian political establishment in the manner both have managed the ensuing negotiation process.”
“The Indian Prime Minister and his establishment, generated by their lack of transparency and unwarranted security, that a “Strategic sell-out” was taking place”.
“An impression was taking shape in India that the Indian Prime Minister and a very strong Pro-American lobby in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was riding rough shod over the contrary views in the Indian political, scientific and strategic community”.
But why should Indians blame the United States? The United States was pursuing its own national security interests and strategic agenda. It is the present Indian Government of the Congress Party that was responsible to the nation that Indian National Security interests were protected and the impression not given that India was allowing itself to be put in a “nuclear strait jacket” by the super-imposition of the Hyde Act on the US-India Nuclear Deal.
In the Indian Parliament today and in public debate it is not the United States that is being pilloried but the present Indian Government of the Congress Party and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The reasons for the above and discussed further below are:
Indian Prime Minister’s Domestic Mishandling of the US-India Nuclear Deal
Indian Policy Establishment’s Dismissive Responses to Domestic Criticism of Nuclear Deal
India’s Foreign Policy Issues Need National Consensus
United States: Some Sobering Thoughts
Indian Prime Minister’s Domestic Mishandling of the US-India Nuclear Deal
The Indian Prime Minister for some uncanny reasons was not really forthcoming on the progress of negotiations of the Deal as they became more complex and vexing. The whole process was mishandled in the sense that on such a sensitive issue as “nuclear programs” which are India’s lexicons of power, the Indian Prime Minister should have widened the spread of consensual discussions with political parties, the scientific community and the strategic community. He did not do so.
The whole process was confined to the precincts of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) generating an environment where more details were available in Washington than in New Delhi. Differences and pressures had commenced in early 2006 itself on the separation plan and the issue of including FBR program in the civil list.
India at large was sensing something was amiss and this generated three significant events:
President Kalam’s statement that India should safeguard the FBR program
Chairman IAEC Dr. Kakodkar going public on the issue and his charge of US “shifting goal posts” on the Deal
Letter to Prime Minister by eight senior retired Indian diplomats which brought into public domain the lack of Prime Ministerial transparency on the Deal
In the preceding weeks to the current crisis, the pattern has remained the same, even after the text of the Deal has been unfrozen. New Delhi’s interpretations of the Text of the Deal have been selective and at variance with the interpretations being given in Washington. Obviously, the Indian and US perceptions and interpretations of the Text of the Deal varied significantly to generate contrary responses in both capitals.
The current crisis would not have taken place had the Indian Prime Minister and the Congress Government had taken the country into confidence right from the outset and not imparted an undue secrecy during the negotiations. It seems to have been forgotten that the Deal was between the United States and India and not between President Bush and Dr Manmohan Singh. and that therefore the widest possible political and scientific spectrum should have been involved by the Congress Government. in arriving at the Deal.
Indian Policy Establishment’s Dismissive Responses to Domestic Criticism of Nuclear Deal
The paper quoted above carried detailed excerpts of a very dismissive response by a junior PMO bureaucrat to Dr. Kakodkar going public on the “shifting of goal posts” by USA. This was unwarranted as the Indian public reposed greater trust in the Indian nuclear scientists who brought about independently India’s nuclear weapons program. The Prime Minister should have restrained the PMO bureaucracy from such dismissive responses as it is not the sole repository of India’s strategic wisdom and foresight.
Symptomatic of the above has been the uproar in Parliament today generated by statements by the Indian Ambassador in USA Ronen Sen alluding to the opponents of the Deal in India and the Parliament as responses made by “headless chickens” etc and other disparaging remarks.
The scribe who quoted Ambassador Sen has stood by his remarks and disputed the Ambassador’s contention that he was misquoted.
India can do without “committed diplomats and bureaucrats” delving into domains that do not fall within the purview of their official duties. It is not their duty to defend the Deal and they should have left it to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to defend it.
India’s Foreign Policy Issues Need National Consensus
In the last two years this point has been consistently made in this author’s papers and this was in response to periodic statements from the present Government that the Cabinet has the sole power to enter into external agreements and that no constitutional provisions exist to do otherwise.
Technically this may be correct, but this assertion is politically untenable. With foreign policy issues increasingly figuring in domestic debates, no government and especially a coalition government can ignore the imperatives of a national debate and consensus on critical foreign policy and national security issues.
The last time a Congress Prime Minister personalized such issues it led to his fall from the iconic pedestal on which India had placed him besides the unwarranted military debacle of 1962.
In the current crisis, the Congress Government is still fighting shy of a debate in Parliament. If it is convinced that what it has agreed on the Deal is right, and that they have secured India’s national security interests, economic interests and energy interests then why is it fighting shy of a vote on Parliament on the issue under Rule 184.
The Congress Government and the Prime Minister should have the courage of conviction to face a Parliamentary vote. That is the right and appropriate democratic process.
United States: Some Sobering Thoughts
These last two years would have provided the United States some sobering thoughts on how to engage India and the contextual factors operative in any negotiations with India with any political dispensation in power.
The United States must not adopt with regard to India the negotiation approaches which it adopts with Pakistan.
It seemed that the United States took it for granted that as long as PM Manmohan Singh was in their pocket and his policy establishment was fully aboard the Deal was a ‘done thing’.
In India, public opinion counts and public opinion matters even more than in the United States. India unlike Pakistan is not a dictatorship where one man counts and one man takes the decisions.
In 2006 itself, the United States should have judged that a wide cross-section of India was not with PM Singh and the Congress Government on this Deal. They should have nuanced their approaches accordingly and gently advised the Indian interlocutors that the Indian Government should strive for a wider consensus embracing the entire political spectrum, the scientific community and the strategic community.
Concluding Observations
The US-India Nuclear Deal finalization should have been a landmark event and a watershed in US-India relations. Regrettably, the way it has been mismanaged by an obdurate Indian Prime Minister with total disregard to consensual national approaches has robbed it of its sheen.
There was no logical reason for the Indian Prime Minister to indulge in undue secrecy during the negotiations of the US-India Nuclear Deal. Some suggest that cloaking it with a veil of secrecy was an Indian suggestion.
The negativities that have been generated in the last two years in India’s official handling of the US-India Nuclear Deal and connected foreign policy issues may affect the future course of US-India Strategic Partnership, too.
By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Introductory Observations
The US-India Nuclear Deal Agreement unveiled by the Congress Government in India under suspicious circumstances after freezing the text and keeping it in wraps for some time has raised an unprecedented but expected storm in the Indian Parliament and in public debate.
In the Indian Parliament, the opposition to the US-India Nuclear Deal Agreement as finalized by the Government cuts across political parties lines and the Congress Party stands isolated. The Leftists as the main coalition supporter of the Congress Government have given an ultimatum that the Government should press the “pause button” and not proceed further on the Agreement and that the Agreement may need renegotiation. An explicit threat is implied that they could withdraw support to the Congress Government.
The Indian Prime Minister’s obdurate fixation to go ahead irrespective of the Leftists warning not only imperils the continuance in office of the Congress Government but also imperils the future of the US-India Nuclear Deal. A new political dispensation in India may not agree to go through with the Deal in the present form.
The issue that has presently acquired salience is not the Deal itself per-se, but the wider issue of the conduct of India’s foreign policy and the content of the US-India Strategic Partnership. The US-India Nuclear Deal as a purely “energy security initiative” should have been kept separate from the wider issues of US-India Strategic Partnership. What has happened is that concurrently with the US-India Nuclear Deal negotiations, the Indian Government allowed itself to be drawn into US – sponsored security initiatives like the US-Japan-India Trilateral and the US-Japan-Australia-India Quadrilateral. This rang alarm bells across India’s political spectrum.
Regular readers of papers by this author on the subject would recall that the Deal as originally conceived in July 2005 was welcomed by this author and others writing on this web-site. Readers would also recall that after the first six months itself, this author had begun injecting assessments and analyses that the future of the Deal was in doubt. In this connection besides other papers of this author, the following need particular highlighting with reference to what is happening today:
“US-India Nuclear Deal Reviewed "(SAAG Paper No. 1670 dated 10.01.2006)
“US-India Nuclear Deal Generates “Great Indian Divide” (SAAG Paper No. 1701 dated 14.02.2006)
“US Congress at Critical Crossroads with India: A Plain Speaking Analysis” (SAAG Paper No. 1766 dated 12.04.2006).
More than a year ago, not with any hindsight, but with prescient foresight, the above papers of the author had made the following observations:
“The dramatic change from high Indian expectations of the deal to a wide Indian divide now opposing the deal, in a matter of six months, needs serious analysis”.
“What can be stated straightaway is that the blame rests both on US Administration and the Indian political establishment in the manner both have managed the ensuing negotiation process.”
“The Indian Prime Minister and his establishment, generated by their lack of transparency and unwarranted security, that a “Strategic sell-out” was taking place”.
“An impression was taking shape in India that the Indian Prime Minister and a very strong Pro-American lobby in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was riding rough shod over the contrary views in the Indian political, scientific and strategic community”.
But why should Indians blame the United States? The United States was pursuing its own national security interests and strategic agenda. It is the present Indian Government of the Congress Party that was responsible to the nation that Indian National Security interests were protected and the impression not given that India was allowing itself to be put in a “nuclear strait jacket” by the super-imposition of the Hyde Act on the US-India Nuclear Deal.
In the Indian Parliament today and in public debate it is not the United States that is being pilloried but the present Indian Government of the Congress Party and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The reasons for the above and discussed further below are:
Indian Prime Minister’s Domestic Mishandling of the US-India Nuclear Deal
Indian Policy Establishment’s Dismissive Responses to Domestic Criticism of Nuclear Deal
India’s Foreign Policy Issues Need National Consensus
United States: Some Sobering Thoughts
Indian Prime Minister’s Domestic Mishandling of the US-India Nuclear Deal
The Indian Prime Minister for some uncanny reasons was not really forthcoming on the progress of negotiations of the Deal as they became more complex and vexing. The whole process was mishandled in the sense that on such a sensitive issue as “nuclear programs” which are India’s lexicons of power, the Indian Prime Minister should have widened the spread of consensual discussions with political parties, the scientific community and the strategic community. He did not do so.
The whole process was confined to the precincts of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) generating an environment where more details were available in Washington than in New Delhi. Differences and pressures had commenced in early 2006 itself on the separation plan and the issue of including FBR program in the civil list.
India at large was sensing something was amiss and this generated three significant events:
President Kalam’s statement that India should safeguard the FBR program
Chairman IAEC Dr. Kakodkar going public on the issue and his charge of US “shifting goal posts” on the Deal
Letter to Prime Minister by eight senior retired Indian diplomats which brought into public domain the lack of Prime Ministerial transparency on the Deal
In the preceding weeks to the current crisis, the pattern has remained the same, even after the text of the Deal has been unfrozen. New Delhi’s interpretations of the Text of the Deal have been selective and at variance with the interpretations being given in Washington. Obviously, the Indian and US perceptions and interpretations of the Text of the Deal varied significantly to generate contrary responses in both capitals.
The current crisis would not have taken place had the Indian Prime Minister and the Congress Government had taken the country into confidence right from the outset and not imparted an undue secrecy during the negotiations. It seems to have been forgotten that the Deal was between the United States and India and not between President Bush and Dr Manmohan Singh. and that therefore the widest possible political and scientific spectrum should have been involved by the Congress Government. in arriving at the Deal.
Indian Policy Establishment’s Dismissive Responses to Domestic Criticism of Nuclear Deal
The paper quoted above carried detailed excerpts of a very dismissive response by a junior PMO bureaucrat to Dr. Kakodkar going public on the “shifting of goal posts” by USA. This was unwarranted as the Indian public reposed greater trust in the Indian nuclear scientists who brought about independently India’s nuclear weapons program. The Prime Minister should have restrained the PMO bureaucracy from such dismissive responses as it is not the sole repository of India’s strategic wisdom and foresight.
Symptomatic of the above has been the uproar in Parliament today generated by statements by the Indian Ambassador in USA Ronen Sen alluding to the opponents of the Deal in India and the Parliament as responses made by “headless chickens” etc and other disparaging remarks.
The scribe who quoted Ambassador Sen has stood by his remarks and disputed the Ambassador’s contention that he was misquoted.
India can do without “committed diplomats and bureaucrats” delving into domains that do not fall within the purview of their official duties. It is not their duty to defend the Deal and they should have left it to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to defend it.
India’s Foreign Policy Issues Need National Consensus
In the last two years this point has been consistently made in this author’s papers and this was in response to periodic statements from the present Government that the Cabinet has the sole power to enter into external agreements and that no constitutional provisions exist to do otherwise.
Technically this may be correct, but this assertion is politically untenable. With foreign policy issues increasingly figuring in domestic debates, no government and especially a coalition government can ignore the imperatives of a national debate and consensus on critical foreign policy and national security issues.
The last time a Congress Prime Minister personalized such issues it led to his fall from the iconic pedestal on which India had placed him besides the unwarranted military debacle of 1962.
In the current crisis, the Congress Government is still fighting shy of a debate in Parliament. If it is convinced that what it has agreed on the Deal is right, and that they have secured India’s national security interests, economic interests and energy interests then why is it fighting shy of a vote on Parliament on the issue under Rule 184.
The Congress Government and the Prime Minister should have the courage of conviction to face a Parliamentary vote. That is the right and appropriate democratic process.
United States: Some Sobering Thoughts
These last two years would have provided the United States some sobering thoughts on how to engage India and the contextual factors operative in any negotiations with India with any political dispensation in power.
The United States must not adopt with regard to India the negotiation approaches which it adopts with Pakistan.
It seemed that the United States took it for granted that as long as PM Manmohan Singh was in their pocket and his policy establishment was fully aboard the Deal was a ‘done thing’.
In India, public opinion counts and public opinion matters even more than in the United States. India unlike Pakistan is not a dictatorship where one man counts and one man takes the decisions.
In 2006 itself, the United States should have judged that a wide cross-section of India was not with PM Singh and the Congress Government on this Deal. They should have nuanced their approaches accordingly and gently advised the Indian interlocutors that the Indian Government should strive for a wider consensus embracing the entire political spectrum, the scientific community and the strategic community.
Concluding Observations
The US-India Nuclear Deal finalization should have been a landmark event and a watershed in US-India relations. Regrettably, the way it has been mismanaged by an obdurate Indian Prime Minister with total disregard to consensual national approaches has robbed it of its sheen.
There was no logical reason for the Indian Prime Minister to indulge in undue secrecy during the negotiations of the US-India Nuclear Deal. Some suggest that cloaking it with a veil of secrecy was an Indian suggestion.
The negativities that have been generated in the last two years in India’s official handling of the US-India Nuclear Deal and connected foreign policy issues may affect the future course of US-India Strategic Partnership, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)